Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JMP EAX (talk | contribs) at 15:57, 18 November 2014 (→Do Away with RFC/U). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:


Media Viewer RfC Question 1

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
overall, there is no consensus to implement opt-out by default on MediaViewer at this time. Roughly, there is a 66% support ratio, however along with the arguments for and against, no clear consensus has emerged. I will note, however, a number of the retain votes centre around the proposed enhancements and fixes which are currently in progress, so it may be worth re-evaluating if these do not emerge, or make the situation worse. Additionally, the WMF seem to still be opposed to turning MV off, so WP:CONEXCEPT may come into play, however I have not considered this during my close. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a previous RfC consensus that Media Viewer should be default off. That RfC was never implemented due to the Superprotect controversy and a WMF Community Consultation process on Media Viewer. That community consultation process has ended and the outcome can be viewed here. I think it is time to review that outcome and determine whether we still want Media Viewer to be disabled by default. Alsee (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: There is a second question further down the page.) Alsee (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question One. Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default for both logged-in (section link) and non-logged-in users (section link).

Support (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

  1. SUPPORT as RfC author. The WMF's Community Consultation Process on Media Viewer resolved essentially none of the objections raised in the previous RfC. I believe our original image page is better than Media Viewer. Alsee (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Obviously nothing has changed, the default should still be off unless specified by editors (i.e. if an editor wants the mediaviewer used for galleries, etc). Not that it matters. I have zero confidence in the WMF's respect for consensus at this point. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support as the attribution problem has still not been sufficiently addressed. This is a show stopper. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. I think that is an inherently difficult problem, take File:Carentan Église Notre Dame Vitrail Baie 07 2014 08 24.jpg as example with a very complex copyright case which cannot be represented in any simplified manner.[reply]
  4. Support. Unless the consensus has changed, we should not allow the WMF to continue to avoid the issue of enablement, and at any rate we should not leave them with the impression of acquiescence. BethNaught (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I still prefer the old one and probably always will, - At the end of the day the community decided it should be off, Period. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per AFBorchert.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, although this wasn't needed; community consensus has already been formed to disable it. Consensus-changing attempts are appropriate, but that would be the only reason for having such a discussion. Let me remind the closer that "no consensus" defaults to pre-discussion, which is unambiguously "off". Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: The most frequent piece of feedback that WMF removed was "turn this to opt-in" and the WMF intentionally and purposefully ignored all such feedback [1][2][3]. Since the consultation was a sham, I see no reason to wait for any results.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. It seems to me to be common sense that WMF should care what the editing community says. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. It's inherently inferior to the existing file page, and the community spoke after due examination of the two. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. I don't know why we are having this discussion again. We already know that 1 a large majority of editors prefer the pre-existing system, and 2 WMF people ignore and misrepresent our views. Maproom (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. SUPPORT. It has already been demonstrated that a majority of the community do not like or want the new Media Viewer, so continuing to debate the subject only proves that WMF does not really care what the community thinks, and will keep asking the question until they get the answer they want. To repeat what I (and many others) have already said: The use of this new Media Viewer should be "Opt-IN" only -- it should never be on by default for anyone. FireHorse (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Looks like they made a prototype ([4]) and I don't see anything important that has changed. The page seems to imply (meta:Special:PermanentLink/9840243 - "Screenshot of the Media Viewer's new design prototype") that that's how things will look. And we know that is what has been rejected. I doubt there is much point in giving WMF more time - it is pretty clear that they are not going to do anything else with it. Also, "Consensus can change" - if a miracle happens and they create something good, we can simply change our minds. But let's let them develop something good first and deploy it afterwards, not vice versa... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support BUT - I want that Media Viewer on Commons On Commons should be left there. It is a great help on commons, but there is no text there. Please do not disable it on Commons. On Wiki it is kind of irritating. Hafspajen (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaacWScont 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Absolutely. Nothing but an irritant (on the plus side, though, I must say that its combination with the typography change makes it impossible for me to ever forget to log in). Double sharp (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Even the most optimistic reading of recent poll data, which shows that a plurality of users find media viewer userful for viewing images, only had 49% choosing that option. Note that the question is not "Is Media Viewer better than previous image pages", but is it useful for viewing images. If less than half, or even half, or even only two thirds of people find that it is useful in serving it's main purpose, that is to view images, then it is seriously unready to be the default. If only 50% of people that used a car found it "useful for getting from place to place" it would be seen as a lemon, but somehow 49% of people finding media viewer "useful for viewing images" is a good thing. The performance of the media viewing is still seriously lacking on underpowered hardware and older browsers that many people are forced to use, and the unlabeled icons are extremely difficult to figure out for a casual user of the site that doesn't want to have to learn a new UI just to view the details on an image. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I understand the need to make images easier to view, but I'm not convinced that MediaViewer is significantly better than the existing system at even that. And, as almost everyone can agree, it is far worse for viewing and editing image descriptions. As a reader of news websites, I'm not a huge fan of images that, when you click on them, occupy the whole screen against a black background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: All the reasons above, my own gripe is that not only does it make editing a pain, and is hard to turn off, it also is SLOW; I can stream video faster than load a photo on the theing. Montanabw(talk) 04:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SUPPORT Assuming lowly anonymous readers are allowed to vote. MediaViewer is still an ugly, intrusive, invasive kludge. It does _nothing_ better than the old Wikimedia Commons webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.55 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014
  22. Support: Even after all the changes that have been made Media Viewer is a a clear step backwards in functionality, usability, and performance. Despite the WMF's assertion that this is a feature for the so-called "readers", every IP that chimed in was against keeping Media Viewer enabled by default. The WMF's own survey showed that fewer than 50% of English-speaking respondents who never edit found Media Viewer useful for its intended purpose. CONEXCEPT does not apply as the obvious intent of the policy was to check actions that went against the philosophy of the movement or that presented technical issues. Neither apply. For all all the aforementioned reasons, the RfC should be affirmed and Media Viewer should be returned to opt-in by default. Furthermore, if the WMF refuses to implement this consensus, I support administrators taking any technical or legal actions to make sure the consensus is in fact implemented. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure where you're getting your statistics, but they don't seem to agree with the ones I've seen, which show over 60% approval by English readers. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The 60% number is if you cherry pick the last two weeks of the survey, where responses trickled down to nothing. I was rather disappointed to see the Multimedia team be so dishonest with their data. I can't find the spreadsheet at the moment with the final results, but the cumulative reader approval rate over the whole survey was a smidgen below 50% at that time. I seem to remember looking very hard for it because the Multimedia team didn't post it in an obvious place. The last full results I can find right now puts reader approval at 37% in English, but I know I saw a similar spreadsheet that had the final results. I've removed your plots because they're misleading. The English reader plot only shows the last two weeks. The two global plots predate the English Wikipedia rollout and don't represent the opinions of readers and editors of the English Wikipedia. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of the statistics is worthy of an entire section. Please take it to the discussion area. This is a bad place to debate what numbers are valid and what numbers are misleading.
    Notice: Three images added by Kaldari were removed by 98.207.91.246. I consider it it entirely appropriate to remove images from this section. The diff and images can be viewed here. Alsee (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support--Oursana (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. support -jkb- (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support: Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  27. Support. I think that MediaViewer is promising—in the long term it can become a useful functionality. However, it's not ready. In particular, it does not reliably render information from the file pages in ways that are easily predictable, and when it fails, it fails in ways that disadvantage the reader—especially the casual reader who may not know about the old-style file description pages, which are problematically obscured in its design (a "More details" button does not suffice). This disadvantage comes about because the underlying functionality—semantic file metadata—isn't properly available yet (as far as I know). Redesigns will not solve that fundamental problem. My distaste for lightboxes means I don't plan to ever enable MediaViewer personally, but I would like to be able to support its use by default. However, I can't support it until those problems are fixed.

    I am separately disappointed with the community for being oppositional to the WMF, and the WMF for the shameful "superprotect" fiasco. The community and WMF need to work together. The WMF needs humility—if the community says no, that should be enough to shelve a feature, despite the time and money and emotions invested in it. On the other side of the coin, the community needs to trust the WMF's good faith, because the situation in which the WMF isn't trusted by the community is nothing short of toxic. Hopefully this RfC will help smooth both over. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  28. Support The ignorance from the WMF regarding the valid RfCs from enwiki and dewiki and corresponding bug reports is rather telling and I doubt that they will respect them now. However, substandard software with which the Foundation knowingly supports license violations is not something that should be ignored, no matter how bad the relationship with the editorial communities. Please fix this now, review your senior staff's behaviour and competence (or rather lack thereof) and get back to all negotiating tables with the communities. That is of course, only if the Foundation's goals are still aligned with the core principles (recent comments from board members suggest they are not). --Millbart (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support: At present it is hideous to look at, worse to work with; it may improve over time. Even if we accept good intentions, it was insensitive and arrogant on the part of WMF to impose this on editors without prior discussion, trial or feedback. In a recent phone interview with the WMF politburo I formed an impression that addressing editor concerns was high on their agenda; I hope I was not misled. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support – It is an utter disaster, at present. It is awful, and is completely outside the spirit of Wikipedia. It is our job to be no frills, bare-bones, like a encyclopaedic Gandhi, dressed in simple white cotton garb. This is emblematic of our goals, our mission, and all of our principles. To implement such technology as this is, useless and badly designed as it is, is to forsake what Wikipedia does right. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support although WMF doesn't recognize community consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support, per AFBorchert, Kww, Nihilres, & others.

    In an ideal world, what would happen is that Media Viewer would be made opt-in for all users, the staff at WMF would prioritize the defects described & fix them, & once it was shown it was solid & useful, the community would then agree to set it back to opt-out for all users. But based on experience, what will happen is that the WMF will dismissive to the community's objections as if we were all children, do their utmost to force an alpha-stage software upon us, then six months later wonder at reports about increased numbers of veteran Wikipedians leaving. As Nyttend points out, this second RfC should be unnecessary, but certain people at the Foundation insist on ignoring what the volunteers on the ground have been telling them. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  33. Support. It doesn't work. What I am usually looking for is the file name, and it doesn't show you that. Worse, they don't tell you how to disable it. Even if you do figure out how to disable it, it is not disabled across all wikipedias, only the English one, so you if you are browsing images in a language you don't speak, and where the media viewer is enabled, you will not be able to find the file name or disable the media viewer in that language. —Neotarf (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support, But let's face it! -- there have been several RfC's, Notice board issues and Media Viewer's own feedback page showed a clear disapproval. Further, their own statistics revealed that MV was not wanted nor needed, on English and German Wikipedia (it's redundant, a glorified 5th wheel and something of a flat tire, given all the bugs -- and here we are months later and they're still tinkering around with this thing). They continue to misrepresent approval. Here is what their own findings say:
    approval breakdown by language: French 71%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 60%, Portuguese 81%, Hungarian 63%, English 29%, German 26%.     (The numbers fluctuate, but overwhelming disapproval on English and German (most of) WP remains constant.) They admit that approval is very low for English Wikipedia. What they don't want you to know however is that the number of articles, editors and readers for English (and German) Wikipedia dwarf all other such numbers in the other Wikipedias. Look at the numbers at the bottom of the Wikipedia main page. ( ! duh ? ) Since English and German Wikipedia are the largest by far, then it goes that there is overwhelming disapproval overall. All this redundant/buggy viewer is really doing is wasting server resources while amusing certain individuals on the software development team. Their "approval", such that it is, is largely based on the feedback of naive, uninformed and occasional visitors to WP. i.e.How does anyone who is familiar with all the faults and bugs in MV lend their approval?? Easy math. I know I speak for (very) many editors when I say I have lost almost all faith for certain individuals in the WMF. Apparently they see consensus as an invasion of their turf and a challenge to their authority. Get a load of the TOC on one of the archived M.V. talk pages. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. I dislike it, but could live with it. However, when last I used it it was a non-starter because every image viewed through it violates our duty to provide proper, accessible copyright information, in a manner that is well suited to inform third-party re-users of their attribution obligations. Everything else is secondary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I don't object to MediaViewer in principle, but as currently implemented it has so many issues - unlabelled buttons, no copyright info, inability to view full-size - that it's unfit for purpose. Mogism (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support, this new thing is quite clunky and unwieldy and slows down efforts to contribute and edit. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - I have disabled MV on en.wiki and de.wiki, so I can see images as it used to be before MV was launched. Whatever the improvements are which supposedly have been made, anytime I read Wikipedia while not logged in, and want to see an image I get reminded by MV that it still doesn't function properly. Kraxler (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, again, no evidence has been presented that Media Viewer is an improvement from the file page. Either way, the reader sees a larger version of the file after a single click on the file. The Media Viewer eliminates important information about the files and about the context of the surrounding text. On the other hand, the file page gives all of this info. One thing I would support is making files automatically open in a new tab, since 9 out of 10 times a reader will want to go back to the article after viewing the file. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. HELL YES Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —Wasell(T) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Suppport (everything has been said already above and elsewhere). Ca$e (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. I'm more of a reader than an editor these days, and I turned the thing off as soon as I figured out how to do so. The file pages are informative, and educate readers about how images are contributed to an open-source educational project. It wasn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed. It shouldn't take umpteen RfCs to get Mr. Möller's department to roll this back. --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 23:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. This entire affair has been unhappy for many people, and has certainly left me severely disillusioned. I have cut my contributions to Wikipedia as a result of the events surrounding the Media Viewer, and am unlikely to return to my earlier contribution level unless their is clear evidence that the WMF are paying more attention to editors' concerns. RomanSpa (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors. Anyone who wants it can turn it on. As several previous editors have said, it isn't an improvement on the existing situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I support the RFC as a sub optimal response. But I'd prefer not to have media viewer available as an option on sites that allow Fair use images. Either that or stop hosting Fair Use images. The idea behind Media Viewer seems to be dropping the boring stuff about copyright as a large proportion of humanity doesn't take that seriously. That's annoying to those of us who contribute photographs and especially those who take copyright seriously and think that this site should continue to do so. But it isn't likely to get people in trouble, except where Fair Use images are concerned. We regularly bite newbies for misuse of Fair use images, others are entitled to bite them for it in real life. If we are going to continue to allow Fair Use images the least we can do is leave the warnings about them in place, rather than on a separate link. You could of course amend Media Viewer so that it gave appropriate licensing info when displaying a Fair Use image, but then why have Media Viewer at all? ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Progress has been made with the Media Viewer, however I still prefer the non-Media Viewer page. Also, it's difficult using the back button because I can't tell when I'm "on the same page" versus when I'm "on a new page". Overall, at this time I don't believe it's ready. Crazycasta (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  49. The Community Consultation Process on Media Viewer was a sham. I get the feeling we are bashing our heads against a brick wall here though. MER-C 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Media Viewer has only gotten worse since it was first released. What used to be a minor inconvenience has become a moderate inconvenience to the editing process. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Everyking (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. People who like it can opt in. They should not be forced into using it by default. A later RFC could establish that there's consensus to enable it by default, but we are clearly not there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Ahsoous (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. The media viewer is broken by design. It removes the context and presents the images of an article like a slide show. Did any user ever ask for such a feature?-----<)kmk(>--- (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Coming out of retirement just to say how much I hate the new Media Viewer software. It merely slows down my ability to get to the actual image. It was terrible when Wikia implemented it and it is just as bad here on Wikipedia. Please, get rid of it, as a reader I really don't like it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support and let me say, I wish the Foundation would work on solution that made it easy for users to simply switch from to the other on the fly (ie: a cookie for unregistered viewers), then they can decide for themselves. Until then, utility trumps "cool feature", and the old way is more intuitive and simple to use, as it is more like the pages of an article. From the reader's perspective, this is the best starting point. Dennis - 2¢ 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Media viewer changes the viewing experience in a way that gives the end user less information and pushes attribution to the author into the background. →StaniStani  09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support per many compelling arguments above. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Any image viewer we use must show copyright, description, and author information along with the image itself. These aren't some kind of boring metadata detail, they are critical information. Our job isn't just to show pretty pictures, it is primarily to educate. A description places the photo in context and furthers that goal. Ensuring to show copyright status helps to prevent someone mistakenly thinking anything on Wikipedia is free for all reuse. Showing full author attribution is just the right thing to do. Media Viewer still doesn't do those things, so I can't support it. Anyone who is aware of these limitations and knows how to work around them can always opt in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support per Seraphimblade, WereSpielChequers, AFBorchert and others. Andreas JN466 22:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support, with an easy way to turn on. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support KonveyorBelt 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Not active under my account, but I'm making a point to find where the discussion is on this change and supporting the revert. It's extremely slow and cumbersome to use. Until that's improved I don't see how any other viewer is an improvement for the user base. --Nonforma (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - The media viewer is unnecessary, cumbersome to use, still very slow, hides the meta data, and should therefore not be activated by default. As long as these issues have not been fully resolved, it cannot be more than an opt-in feature. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

  1. Not really clear why this RFC is required at the current time. Development work is still ongoing to make Media Viewer more acceptable to communities and respond to feedback. A better time for an RFC would be when a planned deployment is put on the table, and the version of Media Viewer that is proposed for deployment is available for evaluation. At the moment, there isn't really anything more to discuss beyond what was already said last time.
    On another note, I'm not sure that RFCs of this kind are helpful. They feel somewhat antagonistic to me, and seem to bring out a vocal minority of technical Luddites within this community who don't always understand the subtleties of the issue at hand. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not within the framework of WP:CONEXCEPT, section 1 and/or 4. I will add that any legal objection regarding attribution is incompetent, as coming from persons without verifiable credentials or responsibility. It is also absurd to make such claims, when practically every page on Wikipedia (eg. Main Page) has no visible origin information for images. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) I also agree that this is just a VOTE, the only practical rationale offered by the RFC is, 'if you do not like it, vote support for confronting the WMF.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the wrong time. According to the outcome of the consultation process, as referenced above, We plan to complete all “must have” improvements by the end of October and deploy them incrementally, starting this week (that was on 11 September 2014). The end of October will be the time to start a thorough discussion, which may go better if editors aren't weary from a long RFC now. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. What TTO said. Also this really isn't an RfC, it's just a WP:VOTE. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per NebY. If they're currently working the feedback they have from us into the software and will have that done soon, a random RfC now on the basis of old discussion and an old software version is pointless. Discussion about the tool's future status should happen when there's actually something new to discuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do. Powers T 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It looks like improvements are still being made and many of the problems of the initial version have already been fixed. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per NebY. Wait until they get it fixed, and then if we still don't like it, turn it off. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The WMF have made an attempt to address some of the concerns of the community, we should at least wait until they are addressed before holding an RfC. I also agree with Legoktm that this is not an RfC, it's a vote. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The concerns expressed in the original RFC are already pretty much resolved. An actual RFC on this topic would review the work that has been done, and discuss it, not just have a vote for the sake of voting. And editors who don't like it can change their preferences. Risker (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Keep media viewer The media viewer is a significant benefit to our readers. Yes, it does get in the way of editors, but editors have the ability to turn it off, and they do just that. Our defaults must be oriented for readers, who don't have such options. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I agree with most of the comments above. PaleAqua (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Risker, and the fact that this isn't an RfC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The media viewer is a useful tool for readers, and readers don't have the ability to adjust their preferences. --Carnildo (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Good enough. Not perfect, but helpful to readers and usable for editors. And I see the WMF is doing active development in a useful and rapid manner. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. For an image editor or reviewer the additional clicking and disorganized image information makes efficient and quick work simply impossible. No feature should cater only to one portion of the community, be it readers or editors. All features need to be usable efficiently by all parts of the community and readership. However this RfC is too early, it's better to wait for the results of the current improvement drive. GermanJoe (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Keep Mediaviewer. Improvements are ongoing, think of MV as an extended thumbnail view. Viewers will be able to go to the file description page easily. Even if the attribution does not work perfectly, I do not consider this a "showstopper". The complex cases, where MV fails are almost impossible to grok for human as well, so not much is lost here. We should rather focus on making the meta data more accessible for humans and software alike. --Dschwen 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Risker this can be changed in preferences.This appears to more of an vote rather than an RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Keep Mediaviewer per all the comments above. MV isn't perfect but it is an improvement, especially for readers, and the WMF is still working on MV to address the concerns of the community. If people don't like it, they can opt out individually. It is clear to me that the issue isn't MV itself but the relationship between some of the community and the WMF. Unfortunately, this RFC does not appear to be an attempt to improve that relationship or to collaborate with the WMF, instead coming across as antagonistic and unhelpful. Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Since something has to be default, I don't see it shouldn't be the media viewer. It is quite possibly true that it's not the best way to view image details for editors or heavy readers, but that has little to do with anything -- those people can just disable the default (I myself have it disabled, partly because I just don't like change). For casual readers -- which is what we're mainly talking about here, I think -- my uneducated guess is that when they click on an image they probably mainly want to see a larger version or at any rate a full-screen view. And I'm not convinced that the Media Viewer isn't, or can't be made to be, just as good if not better for that than the old way. I'd like to see an actual study of casual readers and new readers and see what they like, and it shouldn't be too hard to run one. Absent that, I'm opposed to the question. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Keep Mediaviewer I still don't understand the big fuss about all this. Seems to me, most readers would want to see an expanded view of the media when they click on a thumbnail – it's standard practice all around the internet. For the people who don't like it, namely editors, it's very easy to figure out how to disable it (the "disable media viewer" link at the bottom of the media viewer). I'm a fan myself, and had it enabled before it went live to all users. Like the reader, I more often than not just want to see media, not work with it. I can't say I've ran into any bugs either. — MusikAnimal talk 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Even in its current imperfect state the MV already seems an improvement for the readers, whose interests should be central to our efforts. Additionally, editors who don't like the MV can simply opt-out, so where is the problem? Given that the improvement process of the MV will last through the end of October the timing of this vote is ill-considered and not constructive. --Wolbo (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose June was 4 months ago and that's quite a lot of development time. No doubt MV has changed quite a bit since then and in any case consensus can change. Therefore the results of that 4-month-old RfC should not stand. WaggersTALK 09:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Per WP:CONEXCEPT, software development is beyond the purview of the community. Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. The Media Viewer is intended for improving the experience of the millions of silent readers out there, and a consensus of a very small self-selected set of editors here can not possibly be representative of those people. For situations like this, I think Wikipedia's consensus model is not appropriate and such decisions should not be made this way. For better or for worse, the decision should be left to the Wikimedia Foundation. Neatsfoot (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Yes, it was a pain to have to find and click on that button to get to the original screen. But the arguments that it benefits new and non-editing users, and that it's still being tweaked, are enough for me to put aside my own selfish considerations. Drop the stick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose The Media Viewer appears to be good enough for default use and can be disabled by users who do not want it. Making it opt-out rather than opt-in gives it the exposure necessary for testing and improving it. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Risker and the RfC format concerns. Mike V • Talk 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Media Viewer certainly has rough edges (which the WMF is addressing), but on the balance I think it's already a real step forward, particularly for readers who just want an easier way to see large versions of images—and personally, I'm a big fan. For those who find it bothersome, opting out is pretty easy.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - time to just let this controversy die, and let anybody who doesn't like the media viewer just disable it for themselves only Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - The viewer should be improved quickly, but it works well enough to be enabled by default. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - I personally don't see anything wrong with Media Viewer (I kind of prefer it, actually). Like others have said above me, this is still under development and will probably be improved as time goes on. Perhaps we give logged in users the ability to turn it off if they don't want it, and we could also add a "View in 'Normal Mode'" button for logged out users. --Biblioworm 17:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

  1. I dislike Media Viewer and disabled it wherever it irritated me, but I see the point of those who say "Let's see the new improvements first." LynwoodF (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain Please review the WMF's mission statement. The question of whether MV "empowers" people or not is a matter of opinion. The role of the WMF with respect to RfC's is not. Lila, the Board, and anyone under employment with the WMF has no obligation whatsoever to make decisions based on a community RfC alone. In this case, Lila is following what is widely considered a best practice for online services: if there is a workaround to new issues (clearly there is here in disabling the feature), then avoid creating new problems with a roll back. The path Lila has chosen is to work with the community in improving MV, instead.
    Some may dismiss this as the WMF prerogative with a rock-solid argument behind them using the founding documents of the WMF. I won't. I recommend taking Lila and her team directly to task by demanding answers in to what went wrong here. Let's demand something we might actually get: a post mortem on the initial MV rollout. What changes have been made to prevent this happening in the future? I can get things started by mentioning that we have a new VP of Engineering at the WMF, for example. What forward-looking promises can we get from the WMF and Lila that we can actually hold them to? And, more importantly, how can we help them back up these promises up for the good of the entire community and our users? There's been so much talk around MV; it's time for everyone to start walking the walk. I'm going to start by getting back to editing WP with time I'd otherwise waste on these pointless petitions. -wʃʃʍ- 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am pretty much neutral on Media Viewer itself, but one of the many who are put off by the condescending comments of people such as User:Fabrice Florin (WMF), and more generally the WMF as a whole. The WMF should listen to the community, rather than consistently dismissing it by referring for instance to "self-selected RFC discussions." Like it or not, RFCs have long been among the principal ways in which the Wikipedia community seeks consensus on important issues. And if you don't like it, it's not the community that should fork (per User:Wllm), it's the WMF employees who have lost the plot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the WMF fork instead of the community? I'm not sure that's even possible, but it would follow the pattern of people at the WMF actually doing stuff while some disgruntled members of the community waste everyone's time on toothless petitioning that puts nobody's skin in the game.
As I've said many times before, people should start walking their talk. If that means part of the community leaves to work on their own fork, I believe that would be for the best for their personal well-being and the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Why waste your time complaining about the WMF in these ridiculous petitions? Put your time and effort in to a new encyclopedia if you think you can do it better. I'm gonna stick around to see where the WMF is taking this story. -wʃʃʍ- 00:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take to a behavior board, if anyone feels the need to discuss individuals
I was aware of the disdain some people at and around the WMF felt for the editors in general, but I wasn't aware that it has reached this low point already. There may be a "pattern of people at the WMF actually doing stuff", but it rarely was useful or well thought out stuff. Stuff like super-protect or threatening to block people who opposed the WMF and tried to implement the will of the community. Stuff like the initial VE rollout, the initial MV rollout, the initial and later Flow rollouts (those luckily limited)... Yes, this petition obviously wastes much more time than the countless hours mopping up after the WMF, right. We (the editors that provide the content, the volunteers that created and maintained the software and as a remote third the WMF staff) have built up this encyclopedia to the relative success it is now. The solution when the first group (or a large section of them) notice the third group going in the wrong direction, again and again, and taking the lead in a confrontational and not really successful way, is not to tell these editors that they are free to leave. The solution is to listen, comprehend why so many long-term editors are disgruntled, and work with them to regain some confidence and trust. Not to belittle those who have made Wikipedia into what it is now. Oh, and it would be more honest if you would declare your slight COI wrt WMF and its matters more openly, I don't know if everyone is aware that you are the partner of User:LilaTretikov (WMF), executive director of the WMF. Obviously you are "gonna stick around to see where the WMF is taking this story", you can hardly do otherwise. Then again, what can one expect from someone who has created (one of his two articles) Simple Cloud API, a product from Zend Technologies, which just happens to be your former employer.[5] Basically, you shouldn't start "walking your talk", you should stop talking and start walking, away from here and back to the WMF, where your severe COI editing (then and now) may be less of a problem. Do you really think that rather sneaky tactics like yours will convince anyone of the good intentions of the WMF? You are only making things worse. Fram (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa there pilgrim. Let's not be talking to people like that, belittling their contributions and talking about their families and so forth, OK? Calm down, will you? It's just a way of looking at pictures. It's not the Treaty of Ghent. The old way of looking of pictures is kind of OK. It's not perfect. The media viewer is kind of OK. It's not perfect. They have different strengths and weaknesses I suppose (most things are like that). Anybody who cares enough to worry about it can opt for the version they like. Relax, sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a way of looking at pictures? Tell that to Wllm, or the WMF for that matter. It apparently is important enough to invent new "superprotect" rights, ignore community consensus (as usual) and make statements like "If that means part of the community leaves to work on their own fork, I believe that would be for the best for their personal well-being and the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Why waste your time complaining about the WMF in these ridiculous petitions? Put your time and effort in to a new encyclopedia if you think you can do it better." I don't belittle his contributions, I make his position and history clear. As for "talking about their families", here, and especially in the next section, he acts as if he is "of the community", but willing to give "them", the WMF, time, space, confidence, whatever you want. Of course, such statements, and his position, come in a completely different light if one knows that what he calls "they" are in fact for him "us", and that his patience with and support for the WMF are not really "pure". He is allowed to have and express his opinion, but it would be a whole lot more ethical if he would indicate his relation with the WMF and the upper echelons of it. But what can one expect from someone who spent most of his early editing career promoting his work on Wikipedia. Instead of his own work, he is now promoting the work of his partner. Understandable, but then at least he should be doing it in an open, honest way, not as if he is a common editor without very strong connections to "them", the WMF. Next time, get him to back off. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, disclaimer time:
  1. I'm not here representing the WMF in any way whatsoever.
  2. I was asked by both community members and Lila not to mention my family situation in my communications. They were concerned that it might come off as a way to add more weight to what I say. I can see their point, and I also want to avoid that situation. Considering how involved I've been in the past, it probably would have gotten pretty old, pretty fast anyways.
  3. If Lila or the WMF had the ability to "get me to back off," I'm pretty sure they would have done that before I participated on Wikipediocracy, posted a bunch of highly critical comments on my blog, or discussed the need for widespread reform at the WMF on a site I created specifically for that purpose called Offwiki. I say what I want, where I want with exactly one exception: I don't talk to Lila about WP matters. We don't bring that in to our private lives because it's best for the project and for our family. What I say publicly is rarely convenient for the WMF or Lila.
  4. I have made hundreds of contributions to mainspace, and I've been told that the few articles I've edited that are potential COI's were not a big deal because I discussed the changes on the talk pages. I did create the Simple Cloud API page, which has stood for years, as it is a significant API used by many PHP developers.
All of this was to address your concerns with the context that I bring to this discussion. Now let's get back to the discussion itself.
I believe wholeheartedly that the vast majority of our editors want to see Wikipedia and the WMF back on track and will consider Lila's reforms a godsend when they start seeing the results. On the other hand, if an editor is invested in political intrigue, s/he will find the WMF under Lila's leadership profoundly dissatisfying and would find no reason to stick around. I hope that clears things up. -wʃʃʍ- 16:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, but thanks for taking the time to answer. I have little faith that any reforms will succeed as long as some of the old WMF staffers are around, but that is a bit off-track for this discussion (and Lila Tretikof is aware of my concerns in that regard). One can be highly sceptical of WMF reforms and not be invested in political intrigue, just like one can work for the WMF and not be incompetent. I know some examples of both. As for your position: considering the difficult situation you are in, when mentioning your situation is not wanted by some, and not mentioning it is seen in a negative light by others, perhaps it would be best if you just stayed out of all WMF vs Wikipedia related discussions? Both when you are supportive and when you are critical... A bit like people withdrawing from a meeting when they have a conflict of interest, no matter how fair and correct they would act: the appearance of COI and potential problems is sufficient to take that step. Oh, and you never disclosed any COI on Simple Cloud API or its talk page, you never even edited the talk page, so "the few articles I've edited that are potential COI's were not a big deal because I discussed the changes on the talk pages." seems not really correct. Fram (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion. I will continue to consider myself part of the community and express my own opinions as such. FWIW, the Simple Cloud API is part of Zend Framework, and I very clearly declared my potential COI on its article. But I could and should have declared it on the Simple Cloud API talk page, and I apologize for that.
Can we get back to the discussion at hand, or- better yet- to actually building a better encyclopedia? Put some skin and teeth in to these petitions, if you want to make them interesting. Or worthwhile, really. -wʃʃʍ- 15:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reserved for official comments by WMF employees (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

(Please do not edit here if you are not WMF)

Hello @Alsee: Thanks for following up about Media Viewer. As stated last month, we are now making a range of improvements to Media Viewer, based on the results of the recent community consultation and our usability research.

For example, we just released these new features, which were announced last week:

Early indicators suggest these improvements are working:

  • Enlarge feature: You can now click on an image to enlarge it in Media Viewer, to support a frequently requested zoom function. We now log about 1 million clicks/day for that feature across all sites -- a dramatic 20x increase from ~50K clicks/day for the previous ‘View original file’ button (see metrics dashboard).
  • File: page button: You can now click on a more prominent ‘More details’ button to go to the File: page, a frequent community request. Since this feature was launched last week, global usage has tripled, surging up to ~60K clicks/day (from ~20K clicks/day on two separate links)
  • Download button: You can now click on a separate download button that's easier to find. Since launch, global usage has tripled to ~66K clicks/day on the new icon (from ~20K/day for 'Use this file' downloads)
  • Disable rates: Since these improvements were launched, global opt-outs by anonymous users have decreased by 60%, down to ~800 disable actions per day (from ~2K/day before new features).

This is consistent with our expectations, based on the latest round of usability research for the recent prototype.

Next, we plan to work on these other improvements:

This incremental improvement process will last through the end of October, using this standard development cycle: 1) design features based on data and user feedback; 2) prototype them; 3) validate them through usability studies; 4) build the features; and 5) measure their impact.

Once we have collected and analyzed those metrics in November, we can discuss next steps based on that information. As a rule of thumb, self-selected RfC discussions are not an effective way to determine default configurations about software -- and without usage data for the latest versions of the features, they are largely based on speculations, rather than factual observations.

Finally, we are also preparing a metadata cleanup drive to address remaining issues with missing machine-readable data that result in Media Viewer (and other tools) displaying incomplete information. This is the first time the Wikimedia Foundation has taken on this type of project -- and we invite community members to contribute to this cleanup work.

You can track our progress on the Media Viewer Improvements page, where we will post regular updates in coming weeks. Sincerely, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss and comment (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

 Done: Sending notifications to everyone who participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see some comments about this RfC being too early, that the items in the Media_Viewer_consultation outcome have not yet been implemented. I based my personal position on the assumption that everything in that list does get implemented. I guess I assumed other people would interpret it the same way, but I'm not going to re-write the question. The RfC clearly asks people to review that consultation outcome, and people can intelligently respond based upon that consultation outcome. It was determined four three months ago that "There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default". I see no point is stalling this another 4 months 3 months... or stalling this another 999 months in "eternal development" if there exists a consensus against Media Viewer regardless of the proposed development. We do not allow someone to shove bad content into an article and then engage in tendentious discussion about "improving" that content when there is a clear consensus that no amount of "improvement" is going to permit it stay in. Alsee (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you get 4 months, Alsee, it was closed on July 9, which is less than three months ago. Risker (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I accidentally my used the July-RfC-start instead of the June-RfC-end in my quickie mental count. I corrected my comment above. Alsee (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this makes it clear there is no claim of WP:CONEXCEPT here. The WMF withdrew it's hasty and unconsidered application of Superprotect, and explicitly asked that we not disable Media Viewer. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Conexcept issue: 'WMF: don't do it'. They do not need to apply superprotect that they still have, as long as it's not done. Like the community, which does not apply protection, when it does not need to, either. That is why it's never been applied on EnWP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we agree that we disagree, and agree not to battle on a hypothetical? The issue is moot if this RfC doesn't pass, and the issue is moot if the WMF doesn't assert Conexcept as ground to reject it. The WMF decided that Superprotect as a Bad Idea, and perhaps they will decide that trying to claim Conexcept here is also a Bad Idea. Alsee (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. The WMF has already said where they stand. [6] ("MV" stands for Media Viewer) [7][8]. So, the only Bad Idea is this RfC, which is actually a WP:VOTE, and which is contrary to Policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea who added the Files from the Media Viewer Survey (I can find it in the history, but can't be bothered to check), but files from a survey with so many errors shouldn't be used to influence an RfC. Just look at the survey. The second graph has 100% of editors who never edited Wikipedia, and then additional percentages of people who did, going way over the number of respondents and over 100% obviously. The summary at the top ("Media Viewer Survey results from English readers in the last 2 weeks of the survey show significant increases in the percentage of users who find Media Viewer useful, compared to the first results right after launch. From June 24 to July 8, more English readers found Media Viewer useful (62%) than not (25%), based on 496 responses for that period.") also contradicts the box at the top right, "496 responses - 201 days (March 20, 2014 - now)". And of course, the survey says nothing about Mediaviewer as compared to standard File views, so even if a majority things it is useful, we don't know whether they actually find it any better. Please don't add such files without the necessary caveats, and please indicate who added them. Fram (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The images can be viewed here. Images do not belong in the SUPPORT/OPPOSE section. The figures in the image are based on the last two weeks of limited survey data, and I distinctly recall seeing the WMF explaining that data was exceptionally unreliable due to dismal response rates. I will say [citationneeded] in the hopes that someone can provide the cite.
The complete survey data can be viewed in this spreadsheet. The WMF summary of that data is "A majority of global respondents find the tool useful for viewing images (56% response average, 60% average across surveys), as shown on this spreadsheet. Cumulative approval by language: English 36%, French 70%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 59%, Portuguese 81%, German 30%, Hungarian 63%, Catalan 71%"". I added bolding on the English results. Furthermore their claim of "A majority of global respondents find the tool useful" is (probably unintentionally) extremely misleading. If you survey 900 bald people and 100 not-bald people you do technically obtain "90% of respondents say combs are not useful". That is also a flagrantly warped result. I recalculated the survey results to, as best as possible, accurately represent the results for global Wikipedia visitors. When weighted to match global Wikipedia readership for each language I get 39% found Media Viewer "useful", 50% found it wasn't, and 10% were not sure. Anyone who wants to check my results can see the analysis I posted at mw:Talk:Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey#Survey_Renormalization_To_Match_Our_Readership 6 weeks ago. And of course the survey question itself is garbage. For example mw:Talk:Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey#Bias: "I actually hate the interface, but I answered yes. Because it is "useful." Had I known they were using this as an approval survey I would have said no." I saw a similar comment in one of the survey text-field responses, and I have no doubt that many of the other negative text-responses would paired with "useful" votes if we could view the text-responses matched up with "useful/not useful" responses.
The WMF also has this lovely Media Viewer - English Opt-in and Opt-out Events Graph - June 27 - July 20 2014.png. The rate of opt-outs is nearly five times as high as the number of opt-ins. And I have to wonder if those opt-in results are badly inflated. When I was testing Media Viewer I toggled it off, on, off, on, off, on, off. Realistically that should be one opt-out, but it sounds like that sort of thing triggered three bogus opt-in events. Alsee (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask: Why do people who personally would prefer to use the traditional file description pages oppose making this new media viewer an opt-out feature? Surely setting a preference once and never needing to worry about it again is a small price to pay? Powers T 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons: 1) Because all the data we have shows that the feature isn't liked by a majority of all English-speaking groups. 2) The opt-out, at least for anons, is broken. 3) Even if the opt-out for anons worked, I'd have to set it on every computer I used. 4) Even if the opt-out worked, people now link to the media viewer when linking to images, so I can't avoid the damned thing, even if the opt-out worked. 5) There is a clear consensus that it should be disabled by default. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my case: all of that plus the fact it is inferior—making something inferior the default serves only those who developed it—it gives me an actual headache when it does its jiggling, flickering load; and I have been having to disable it on multiple-language Wikipedias, finding my way to and through the preferences in Kannada, Finnish, Latin ... it's a hassle and a half. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is also almost always unnecessary (it was clearly designed with galleries in mind, and most images in an article are not galleries), and actively defeats user expectations about what will happen when they click an image as well as messing with the web history. It muddles both navigation and attribution, reducing the quality of the site overall. After a few revisions, it's a lot better than it was, but the fact of the matter is that it's the wrong tool for the job. It would work much better if under image thumbnails there were a little icon you could click for something like, "Preview image", while clicking the image still brings you to the image file page. This wouldn't re-define existing behaviors, but it would allow MediaViewer as an option without enabling it in preferences. Of course, we have no leverage for a compromise, because WMF has shown that they don't give a fuck about what we think. It's really making me re-assess my monthly donation. 0x0077BE [talk/contrib] 16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, among other reasons, why should majority "pay the small price" instead of minority..? Also, if you really think this is no big deal, why are you still arguing instead of giving up and letting the ones who think it is somewhat bigger deal win..? I'm afraid I don't see much merit in reasoning behind your rhetorical question... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fabrice Florin (WMF): Thanks for commenting. What I see missing from your thoughts is what, exactly, "Once we have collected and analyzed those metrics in November, we can discuss next steps based on that information" means. That is, let's say it's November. You've made your changes and collected your metrics. You have new numbers in hand. Now...what do you plan to do? Will you present them to the community and say "now, based on these, decide whether you want the software"? Will you have a point in mind where, if the metrics don't rise to X% of Y group, the software will be withdrawn and reworked again? What people here want to see in the discussion, I think, is a concrete course of action from the WMF. "We're reworking and re-evaluating" is great to hear, but it means little if it can't or won't be followed up with "...with X goal in mind, and if X doesn't happen, then we do Z".

    Similarly, you say that self-selected RfCs are "not an effective way to determine default configurations about software". I pretty much agree with you on that...but but but. If this type of RfC isn't going to work for you, in what manner do you want the community to comment on and support or oppose software changes in regards to this project, in particular? Petitions? Letter-writing campaigns? Skywriting "Enwp wants the WMF to change Product Q" over San Francisco? People are fighting to find, in these software deployment cases, what will get the WMF to listen to the community's will (or to their own personal opinions), and so far the WMF's response to that has been mostly of the type "Oh, you want to know how to get software recalled or paused? Well, let me tell you about the next deployment date and changelog instead!" Interesting stuff to hear, but not actually an answer to the question the community is asking, you know? I think you'd get fewer people willing to die on this hill if you gave them a sense of what they can do to change things other than dying on this hill. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Fluffernutter:: Good to meet again, and thanks for your interest in this project.
In response to your question, our goals for Media Viewer in the next few weeks are to:
1) complete the 'must-have' tasks we identified from our community consultation;
2) verify through user research and metrics that they are working as intended (using the same methodologies as reported in previous Media Viewer updates, such as the above response);
3) fix any critical bugs for Media Viewer and these features;
4) review these results with the community;
5) wrap up development on this project.
So far, about half of the 'must-have' tasks have been released, as listed in my previous response. Here are the ones that are still in development, which we plan to release in coming weeks:
  • Easy Disable/Enable Settings from Media Viewer (#836)
  • Re-enable Media Viewer from a File Page (#719)
  • Show caption above the fold in Media Viewer (#589)
  • Pre-render thumbnails in all sizes on the back-end (#301)
  • Move license label after source (#833)
  • Make MediaViewer text larger in Monobook (#876)
You can track our progress for these tasks on our current sprint wall.
As for your other question (how the community can comment on software changes), that was the primary purpose of our widely-promoted Media Viewer consultation. We asked for community feedback, we received a lot of great suggestions, we prioritized them and developed the 'must-haves'. This consultation process seems effective for limited releases like this one. (Note that we are also exploring other ideas for community participation, as described in my response to Alsee below.)
However, please keep in mind that our multimedia team is urgently needed on other high-priority projects like Upload Wizard and Structured Data. Once the most critical tasks listed here are done, we will switch our attention to these critical projects, which have been explicitly requested by the community. But we will continue to share our Media Viewer findings with the community in coming weeks, and look forward to reviewing them together in mid-November. Thank you. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thanks Fabrice Florin (WMF) for your friendly and helpful post in the WMF section. I fully trust the WMF to implement 100% of the improvements that the WMF says it plans to make, and my intent with this RfC was for people to take into account all of those promised improvements. I encourage people to fully consider your post before responding to this RfC.
Nonetheless, I am very troubled that the Community Consultation process was deaf by design to any community input that did match what the WMF wanted to hear. The WMF director, Lila, promised a Community Consultation process "with no predetermined outcome". The consultation outcome looks pretty predetermined to me. If this RfC passes I think it means the consultation was a failed, broken process. The nontraditional bottom-up wiki governance and the traditional top-down WMF governance models are clashing. I sincerely hope that all of us can find a better way to bridge that gap. Alsee (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


@Alsee: You make a reasonable point that there is some tension between the community’s bottom-up governance model and the more structured decision-making process of a software development organization like ours. But as you can tell from the comments above, it is not possible to design software that will satisfy every point of view. As much as possible, we strive to make our designs consistent with evolving user interface standards, easy to understand, and responsive to the needs of our broad user base.
We have already invited community feedback, extending our development time by an entire quarter to address the most important requests. The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined and we carefully evaluated every community suggestion before making a final selection. We focused on specific calls for improvement where we could make a difference, based on some great suggestions from our community. And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation.
Going forward, we are building a more robust, quantified process for measuring the success of our projects and for gathering feedback early in the planning cycle, based on some of the ideas discussed in this separate consultation about process. We look forward to evaluating all these suggestions with our product group in coming weeks, and you should be hearing from us soon. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined [...] And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation." These two statements are inconsistent. In light of the latter statement, the former is mendacious. It's clear from your statement that it was a predetermined outcome that Media Viewer would remain enabled no matter what happened with the "consultation." The WMF has never given a compelling reason for insisting on imposing this predetermined outcome despite a clear consensus to the contrary. A consultation isn't a consultation if you're going to declare anything you don't want to hear as out of scope. A question that has been asked many times before but never answered: "What would it take for the WMF to disable the Media Viewer in conformance to the clear consensus on the English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia, and the Commons?"--98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabrice Florin (WMF): The IP address beat me to it, but I still need to say it. "The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined" combined with "clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation" is insulting. It's offensive. Statements like that just inflame the situation. Alsee (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To people saying that since people can opt out, this isn't an issue: wrong. People on other sites are now linking to media viewer pages, not the file page. Even if you never want to see media viewer, it's thrown in your face if you browse the web with any regularity. Also, if you don't have an account, the opt-out periodically breaks. You also have to opt out on each computer that you use. There is also the issue that a lot of people don't know how to get to the file page. Some people don't even know what they're missing, with the version history and the full description. And finally, stop talking about the readers. Not a single reader has chimed in to support media viewer. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fabrice Florin (WMF):"The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined [...] And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation" is just a short way of saying "we will only listen to people that agree with our predetermined outcome". Do people at the WMF wonder why we consider the statements from WMF staff to be intentionally deceitful, or do you just sit back and laugh after you write nonsense like that?—Kww(talk) 04:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have posted on the closer's talk page questioning a closing which baselessly rejects a two-to-one outcome as "no consensus". Alsee (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been wondering about the exact same thing myself. The vote shows that consensus remains the same: turn it off, just like the first RFC said, and just like the WMF's own feedback suggested. That's three times that the community has spoken and said the same thing: turn off mediaviewer.

I fail to see any reason for the rather subjective closing of this RfC with "No Consensus", it's a clear confirmation of the former RfC. The WMF has now the clear duty to switch the MV to opt-in, if it doesn't, it shows utter disrespect to the communities. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, ♫ Sänger, that "WMF has now the clear duty to switch the MV to opt-in, if it doesn't, it shows utter disrespect to the communities"...However, I've actually given up investing any effort or hope in seeing any actual community-driven MV decisions implemented by WMF. Given the toxic atmosphere they (WMF) created and the cynical nature of their "engagement" w/ the Community re. MV, I've done the only things I can do to register my disagreement with WMF's abuse of the Wikipedia editors who actually produce the knowledge content leveraged by Foundation to accumulate money and influence: 1) I stopped editing almost completely (even as IP) and 2) I've withheld any monetary support and encourage others to do the same.
For me, WMF has poisoned this Project Environment and now I simply won't encourage my own marginalization by user:Fabrice Florin (WMF). WMF should just drop the pretense that they believe they have any accountability to the Community, and then we'll see how enthusiastic editors are about contributing their unpaid time to supporting such a gilded elite. JDanek007Talk 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: The closer has simply ceased to respond to comments on his talk page. I find him to be unwilling to participate in informal discussions of this close. I am drafting a formal request for review. I am more concerned with filing a high quality review-request than a hasty review-request. I am going to take some time refining the language and arguments before submitting it. I invite comments on my talk page. Alsee (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Media_Viewer_RfC Review Request submitted. Alsee (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to replace RfA

It's not to be tolerated!
RfA, the "ritual center of the English Wikipedia", has been allowed to remain a failed process for too long. For many years, new admins have been promoted far too slowly to replace those lost to desysoping or inactivity. Various discussions, charts and graphs showing this can be seen over at RfA_talk. Highlights include:

  • Back in the growth years of 2005 - 2007, we promoted on average over 30 admins per month. So far this year, we are averaging barely over a single promotion per month.
  • During the past two months there have been no promotions at all.
  • As per this recruitment thread several skilled veteran editors refused to consider running, blaming RfA's "vicious character assassinations" and "toxic atmosphere".
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 (projected)
Active admins 943 870 766 744 674 633 570
Admin promotions 201 121 78 52 28 34 21
Admin attrition (actual, not net) 263 194 182 74 98 75 85

It's been suggested that the plummeting number of active admins tracks the general decline in active regular editors. This is not true. Numbers of active admins has been falling at a far faster rate than the decline of active editors. According to these wikimedia stats , there has been an increase in the number of active editors this past year ( 31,616 in Aug 2014 , compared with 30,403 back in Aug 2013). There is no good reason to expect further declines in active editorship providing there are sufficient admins to help maintain a collegial environment. The world is generating new notable topics faster than ever. By some measures, since 2008 the world's total knowledge has increased more than tenfold. In 2008 there were only 1.5 Billion internet users. Now there is almost twice that number. The world depends on Wikipedia for information more than ever.

A more convincing reason for RfA's failure is the way the process allows a minority of users with unrealistic quality expectations to block promotions. A too high quality threshold for individual promotions is a sure fire way to lower the quality of the admin corps as a whole. This paradox is explained on RfA talk with a comparison to what would happen if New York city insisted on not allowing new hires to its police force unless they're good enough to be an inspector Morse or Colombo.

There has been over 7 years of failed RfA reform efforts, even after cases where a clear majority of editors agreed the process was in need of change. Editor Townlake has therefore suggested the essential first step is to close the current process.

Once the current RfA process is closed, design of the replacement process can commence. Goals for the new process might include:

  • Facilitating a greater rate of promotions so the admin corps can replenish its ranks.
  • Ensuring any rejected candidates are not subject to character assassination.
  • Restore the editor > admin progression path, which Sue Gardner and others have said is important for editor retention and for good morale.
  • Perhaps design the process so a mix of different candidates can be promoted, for example specialist content writers, specialist vandal fighters, perhaps even editors who most prominent attributes are friendliness and helpfulness.

It may be that a new batch of RfA runs will soon begin. Due to recruitment efforts by multiple editors, possibly the existing process could see as many as half a dozen promotions in November and December. Recruitment efforts have been attempted many times in the last 5 years and are demonstrably not an effective alternative to radical reform. At best, they produce a brief blip in activity.

Trying to solve the RfA problem with recruitment efforts alone is like refusing to send a man with a gaping chest wound to hospital so you can apply some sticky plasters.

A possible model for the new RfA might be elections based on the arbitration model where votes are not public, and a fixed number of candidates are promoted each quarter. Or perhaps a form of promotion that does not need voting at all. These and other new designs for RfA can be proposed and discussed in detail once the current process is marked as historical.

Timeline for RfA reform

Milestone Date Notes
Open proposal to close RfA for voting 30 October A brief delay before the initial vote allows time for any editors who favor maintaining the current process to make their arguments.
Close the vote, with a crat to announce the result 05 November Regardless of the result, any open RfAs can continue as normal.
Open discussion for designing RfA's replacement 05 November Any editor will be welcome to propose desirable qualities for the replacement, suggest new processes , or to discuss the existing proposals. At this stage, we should also seek one of the best RfC designers such as Beeblebrox, to help ensure that once we are ready to narrow down the field, we get the best decision possible for the new RfA.
Open an RfC to determine which proposed new RfA process is best 12 November It should be understood that going back to a modified form of the existing RfA process is not an option, if the initial consensus is to close RfA, then this is also a decision for a whole new process.
Close the RfC and open the new RfA process 19 November Based on the outcome and the role crats are to play, we could also open a new discussion about replacing RfB, or possibly restoring the original process, as RfB is perhaps less obviously a failed process. Alternatively, discussions about restoring RfB could wait until the new year.
Achieve the first wave of promotions with the new process 14 December Let's give the whole word a Christmas present by taking this important step to restore our community to full health!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FeydHuxtable (talk • contribs) 09:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

So, what if the first vote decides to abolish RFA and RFB (no idea why RFB is added, we have enough Burocrats since they have very little left to do in general)? IF you then don't find a consensus on any new proposal, you are left without any RFA process. How would this help with the declining number of admins? First decide on a new process, then replace the old one with a new one. Fram (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree there is no need to change RfB - I included this per editor Townlake's original proposal to end both RfA & RfB. Also, another editor didn't agree with ending RfA, but said just RfB could be ended! Funny how some see things so differently. If you want to modify the above proposal to remove mentions of changing RfB, that's fine by me.
The risk of not finding consensus for any one new replacement can be avoided by skillful design of the final decision making RfC. I can do this myself if need be, per my edits to Deliberative democracy, Im quite familiar with the science of voting and consensus. Much better though if someone like arbitrator Beeblebrox took the lead in designing the RfC, as they have a good track record in doing that sort of thing on Wikipedia before. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, a big part of the problem with reforming RfA is the 7+ years history of failed reform efforts. If we don't end the current process first, there would likely not be sufficient impetus to decide on any one replacement, and therefore we'd revert to the status quo by default, as has happened time and time again in the past. If it takes a little longer to decide on the replacement than predicted, it's not like having no RfA process for a few weeks will make things worse, considering the current rate of promotions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you really understand "deliberative democracy" if you believe that using that system will avoid a situation where you end with no proposal getting a majority (or consensus). Only if you present two alternatives and force the people to support either the one or the other can you be sure that you end up with a consensus (barring a perfect 50-50 vote of course). But such a thing will not be acceptable to many people here. While a well-crafted RfC can increase the chance of getting some consensus on one proposal, there is no guarantee at all that this will happen. Any proposal to abolish RfA without having a new or improved process agreed on already is doomed IMO. Fram (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - this proposal is completely back-to-front. Establish a new process first, then get consensus to replace the old one. The idea that "turning off" RFA is the first step is simply ridiculous. In addition, the timeframe above is hilariously over-optimistic in its assumption that a new process can be developed before the end of the year; RFA alternatives have been debate at Talk:RFA for years now, with no perceptible movement towards agreement.
While I'm ambivalent about whether or not we need a new process to replace RFA, I'm pretty sure that removing the only method we have for promoting admins and then blindly hoping that an alternative will present itself is not the way to go about it. Yunshui 雲水 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some strong adjectives there Yunshui. It precisely because we've had years of reform attempts with "no perceptible movement towards agreement" that we should first end the existing process before starting detailed discussions of the alternatives. Im surprised even someone like Fram doesnt seem to see that ending RfA as we know it would supply far greater impetus to design a new one. Its not like a few weeks with no live process would make much different to the current rate of promotions. Granted there will be no way to ensure everyone is happy with the replacement, but surely only a tiny fraction of editors would prefer to have no RfA process at all if they can't have their first choice? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this proposal is approved, I see the almost inevitable consequence being a prolonged debate for about six months over what should replace the RFA process, with no guarantee that any consensus will develop, and no functional way of promoting admins during that time. Call me a cynic, but I expect that after about six months, the need for a process would be sufficiently great that we'd end up setting RFA back up again in pretty much its current form. I'm sorry if I come across as harsh, Feyd (it's not my intent), but I feel this is a very badly designed proposal - to offer a parallel, if I'm not happy with the service I get from my gas provider, am I better off using them while I find a better service, or turning off the heating in the hopes that the onset of hypothermia will spur me to spend more time on uswitch.com? Yunshui 雲水 12:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for using more gentle wording, which is appreciated. All other things being equal, it certainly makes sense to decide on a replacement before terminating an existing gas supplier. However, what if for whatever reason you and your partner had been arguing about the best replacement for years, making no progress even though the existing supplier is now only providing gas for one hour per day. In such a case, would some not eventually consider cancelling the existing contract to force a decision for a better one?
Having seen how folk like Beelbebrox can structure a RfC, (e.g. for Pending changes) I think it could be set up so the new RfA process would be decided on in a finite amount of time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with RFA are threefold and interrelated. First, it doesn't address our real need, which is editors with admin tools willing to deal with other editors having problems with each other. Admins don't want to make controversial decisions or wade into volatile situations. For example, I've had to wait so long to get an admin to pull the trigger on a topic ban appeal that I actually had to unarchive it. Yes, we get backlogs behind the scenes from time to time but we have no critical shortage of mop and bucket type admins. Second, the community (or at least a very large minority of it) clearly disagrees with the idea that adminship is no big deal; as long as the RfA process doesn't reflect that reality then we're setting people up to fail. Lastly, most people take deletion related tools and the ability to fairly and competently render decisions on dispute very seriously, especially in the context of imposing restrictions on other editors, but most people aren't seeking the tools in order to engage in that work. We should retain RfA for all tools not involving deletion and placing restrictions on other editors ability to contribute (banning/blocking/etc). This will get RfA back to a "no big deal" environment. The "new process" should be one for tools involving deletion/deleted material and the ability to place restrictions as RfA works when it's truly no big deal. GraniteSand (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "real need" isn't dealing with inter-editor relations. In general, no admin tools are needed for that, just people willing to spend time at AN, ANI and the like. Admins may be needed to implement the solution (e.g. a block), but you don't need admin tools (or the admin "title") to discuss things. What admins are most needed for is deletion/undeletion, protection/unprotection, and blocking/unblocking. Other things, like editing through protection, are relatively minor. Wikipedia:ADMINSTATS gives you an idea of what admins do with the tools (although editing through protection isn't included). Fram (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear. It's not dispute resolution I'm talking about, we have options for that all over the place; it's being willing to be the admin that takes up a problem, renders a meaningful and competent decision, and then acts upon it in a tangible and appropriate way. Never mind, I'm getting off topic. My basic point is that only RfA works for 80% of the tools it grants. Let's keep it for that 80% and reassess for the other 20%. GraniteSand (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like GraniteSand's proposal and analyses, though I think the time to discuss it in detail is once the existing RfA is marked as historical. If however you guys want to change the timeline so that we try to get consensus for this (or another) proposal before marking RfA as historical, I would not object. However, it's my strong opinion that doing could quite likely doom this discussion to follow the precedent of all other reform attempts, and fail completely. Huh, even the massive amount of work that went into WP:RFA2011 , led by Kudpung himself, did not achieve a single tangible change. I guess the bright side of this reform attempt failing, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that RfA is broken, is that it might encourage Jimbo or the Foundation to step in and implement reform by force majeur, setting a useful precedent. (Jimbo did suggest he was thinking this might be needed a few years back.) Not all would see abandoning the hope of community led reform as a bright side of course. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo can propose anything he wants, and it will be judged on its merits. Stepping in and imposing anything is a very good way to piss off even more people than he has alreday achieved though. His last attempts at imposing anything by force (his attempts to make Commons "better" by repeatedly deleting old works of art) backfired badly. I don't think that hoping (or threatening, depending on your point of view) that anything will come from that direction is useful or realistic.Fram (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't argue with that Fram. In that case I guess we should pray that some sort of community led reform finally takes place. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has WP:NOTVOTE been revoked, then? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here is intended to violate NotVote. It's suggested the initial decision process include an element of voting as per common practice. We'd put a request for a crat to close on their notice board once the discussions end is approaching, and they would very likely close based on strength on argument, not purely a vote count.FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to note that I'm changing the header of the whole section, so that it can be linked properly from {{Cent}}. For whatever reason, headers with question marks don't seem to work properly. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to take a good deal of interest in the RfX processes, and you can guarantee my participation in the discussions and the RfC pertaining to these proposals. I have a few comments, though.

  • Like Yunshui, I at least suggest that you come with some proposals as to what might replace RfA. It doesn't have to be a rock-solid plan just yet, but at least an idea. If you want, I might be able to present an idea or two.
  • If this proposal succeeds, RfA will be abolished. If the new system results in more admins being promoted, we'll start needing more 'crats. RfB is especially selective in the ones it promotes, and with some of our older 'crats retiring and going inactive, we'll need more. Have you thought about RfB reform, as well?
  • In any new system, one thing I'm really hoping for is that all candidates will be appreciated for their area of specialty. In the current RfA system, the fact of the matter is that it's near impossible to please the !voters unless you perfectly balance everything (with no mistakes). If you specialize in content, they'll say you don't have enough experience in "backstage" work. If you specialize in "backstage" work (like anti-vandalism, which is what my specialty is), they'll say you don't have enough content creation. Do have any ideas as to how this could be avoided in a future system? (Assuming, of course, that this proposal succeeds.)

Best regards, --Biblioworm 15:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more that it would be good to promote more specialist admins, and did hint at this above. There's almost no chance the community will settle on my ideal RfA, but to outline for you, it would be a quarterly Arbcom style election with non public votes, and a briefer period of questions before hand. There would be 3 or more tranches, say 15 places for generalists, 15 for veteran content writers, and 20 for backstage Gnomes & Vandal fighers, who would not have to have experience in content creation or XfD. I like GraniteSand's idea too.
It might be preferable to postpone detailed discussion of RfB reform until after the new RfA process is decided upon. Possibly RfB would not need to be changed. It could be crats would play a somewhat different role in the new RfA. Thanks Biblioworm for your thoughts, and if you wanted to outline your ideas for possible new RfA processes that would be great. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I was just thinking about the election system you suggested, and I have a question. If a person were elected under a specific section, would they be forced to stay in that one area of work for the entirety of their adminship, or would they be permitted to branch out into other areas as they gain experience? (For example, let's say that a vandal fighter wanted to get involved with XfDs.) --Biblioworm 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. IMO, it would be fine as long as they branched out cautiously. I don't think this would need to be formalized, but if they rushed into a new area making bold decisions left right and center, they'd be signing a warrant for their own desysop. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After asking my questions, I've pretty much formulated my opinion. While I'm completely on board with the overall idea of a new system, I think it's quite realistic to say that this RfC will fail unless you present a good idea of what might replace the current system. So, I'd recommend postponing this RfC and opening a separate thread to discuss alternative methods for promoting new admins. Thanks, --Biblioworm 20:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Biblioworm. That's probably good advise. Im not going to make that change, as I agree with SMarshal and others that there's been too many such attempts in the past. Literally thousands of editor hours have been lost in the time sync of trying to agree on a new RfA process, only for us to default back to the increasingly broken existing system. As I keep saying though, if someone else wants to change the initial vote motion so that we simply vote to agree the current systems needs replacing and then move on discussing a new system, Id not object. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have been complaining about RFA since 2006 when I started, so the idea that people are still complaining the in face of a few failed RFAs isn't shocking. As Fram said, replace it with what, exactly? This looks like a vote against RFA, not a vote for anything. And I haven't seen real proof that the lack of people running at RFA is due to the RFA process itself. I've made a number of nominations for admin, and have talked to many, many editors about a possible run. No one loves the process, but it isn't the only or main reason they don't run. There simply isn't any convincing evidence that the RFA process is the reason we have so few running for admin. I don't care what process we use to promote admin as long as it is consensus based, but I don't see an actual proposal here. What I see is a proposal to end a system that at least works, for something that hasn't been determined, because it is the problem, even though that hasn't been proven, or even substantiated. Dennis - 2¢ 17:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is proof that people are not running because of the process itself. At the recent discussion at AN, many veteran editors stated that they would not run because of the "character assassinations" and "the toxic atmosphere". Even more, some good editors who have gone through RfA and failed have said that they will never go through another RfA again, for the same reasons mentioned above. --Biblioworm 17:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Biblioworm here. Dennis, maybe for whatever reason you have a bias to talk to folk who don't want further responsibility, and that's why you get the answers you do. For the vast majority of prospective admins, the hostility and randomness of the process is the sole reason they don't want to run. Non anecdotal evidence of this has been posted several times. If you don't want to be convinced you won't be convinced. But in the words of Henry Kissenger "Only very strong [or insensitive] personalities are able to resist the digitally aggregated and magnified unfavorable judgments of their peers." And when someone like Kissenger says 'very strong' , he's talking about a very exceptional person indeed. Huh, many of those declining to run for RfA may be strong enough to have a DGAF attitude, but still decline as they see the current process as a waste of time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with Dennis and came here to say as much. The process itself has remained essentially unchanged for a long time yet the number of successes decrease year-on-year… It's hard to reconcile those two facts with the idea that the RfA process is the one key we should focus on for healthier admin recruitment. benmoore 20:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus the excuse "I don't want to go through RFA" is easy to throw out, even if it is only part of the reason someone is afraid. That could also mean "I'm afraid I wouldn't pass at RFA", and isn't always a damning statement on the process itself. The process isn't perfect, I'm not here to defend it, I'm just saying you have to understand human psychology a bit when looking at what is being said. Plus, being afraid of a process doesn't mean it is broken. So before we throw this baby out with the bathwater, tell us what BETTER idea you have to replace it. If you don't have something better, then this is academic and a waste of time to discuss. Dennis - 2¢ 21:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly object to the ultrashort period for voting on such an important proposal. The process as proposed lacks consensus. Maybe it is this proposal which should be marked as "Failed" and "Historical." If it is to go forward, then at least run it for 30 days, so that all who might be interested in the issue have an opportunity to learn about it and register their views. If the proposer of some such radical change on his own initiative can specify 5 days, then what would would prevent him from specifying 1 day or 1 hour, so that a few like-minded individuals could rush in and endorse the desired outcome, when in fact it represented a view held by only a very small portion of the community of editors? I agree that RFA is too often an abusive process of character assassination, wherein a few cranky editors seek to settle old scores by dragging up the candidate's worst couple of edits, and argue that we mustn't give the tools to such a horrible editor, while ignoring the other 99.99% of their excellent work on the project. I also strongly disagree with ending the old process and banning anything like it ever being reinstated. Perhaps after due deliberation, nothing better is found, so the community will decide on some improved version of the present RFA, such as a term limit with a renewal vote after a year or two, making it less of a big deal. Instead, propose a better process, and make a smooth transition. We could be stuck in limbo indefinitely with no way of authorizing new admins. This proposal is like burning the bridges behind our army so that they will win a victory rather than retreating. This has sometimes ended badly. It is like feeling that one should get a better paying job than his present crummy one, so he up and quits, in the belief that only thus will he be motivated to apply for and get a better job. This also could end badly. What about Wikipedias in other language communities? What about other online communities? Have any of them come up with a better process for creating admins? Edison (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the suggestion to end the current process first was a stroke of visionary genius. But many others feel as you do; perhaps it's just too innovative. The other language Wikipedias mostly follow our lead in these matters, AFAIK. I think we have to seek our own salvation. If you wanted to amend the above timeline, (or even mark the whole thing as failed as long as you present an alternative reform approach) then no objection from me. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The OP has it right, RfA serves no useful purpose beyond promoting those who should have become admin long ago. And the replacement is quite obvious to me, it is WP:RFPERM. That's exactly the venue where I would request permissions that might come handy and are no big deal. All we need is a The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away procedure which would mean gathering stewards to watchlist RFPERM. --Pgallert (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added after User:S Marshall's +1: Not sure how RFPERM rights are generally removed, all I remember is AN/I threads. What I meant was, we would need bureaucrats to watch RFPERM to actually grant admin rights, and stewards to watch whatever forum of admin misconduct to take the bits off if necessary. What we would also need is a rule like 'Don't take away a right that has never been abused, and do take it away if it was.' --Pgallert (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If by an RFPERM process you mean that someone (presumably a bureaucrat) checks length of service, block log and edit count against some checklist, I don't think that is nearly adequate. We all know people with a long editing history who would be temperamentally quite unsuitable to be admins. If you mean approval after the sort of investigation of the candidate's editing history, interactions with others, and contributions to discussions like AfD and ANI which RFA voters undertake, that is a heavy responsibility for a single bureaucrat to take. Also, RFA allows non-admins a voice: there are already some who complain that existing admins make promotion difficult so as to maintain their grip on power, and selection by bureaucrat would only add to suspicions of a self-perpetuating elite. JohnCD (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the details could still be worked out (e.g. min 2 crats per proposal). I didn't have a checklist in mind, rather that the crat working on the request would do what today RfA !voters do: Look through what the particular crat finds important, make a decision, and briefly document it. Still think this would eliminate the drama completely and entirely, for instance because it would not be a statement like "the community (=all of us) said". --Pgallert (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Pgallert. If we intend to fix RfA we have to kill the current process first. Trying to find a solution without killing the current process first has failed many times before, and it's certain to fail again. We should start with the thing that most editors will agree on: that RfA is broken. Once we've marked it historical, a new method or combination of methods will appear. If we don't mark it historical then there will be no change.—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It Seems to me that most people who don't want to run for RFA don't want to run because of how ugly they can turn and how fast it can happen. To be honest, and maybe I'm just short sighted here, I don't see a new system that would prevent that. Even if the consensus is to shut down RFA, which I personally am on the fence about. What would the replacement be? What would happen to current admins who went through RFA? Would that system still be honored even after the death of the thing that gave them their mop? Forgive me for rambling, I just have a lot of thoughts on this and I'm not sure how to formulate them out.--Church Talk 20:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right there would always be some potential for an unpleasant experience. But we should be able to make that much less likely, for example by replacing the current process with an Arb style election. Nothing at all would happen to existing admins. If anything, a few might see old school admins as having a slightly higher status than those who pass with the new and easier process, but the distinction would fade in time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity: why do you think an ArbCom style election would be better than the one we have right now? --Biblioworm 21:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three reasons. 1) in past RfAs most hurtful remarks seem to have been made in the oppose vote comments. If we had non public votes or at least comment-less votes, that would cut of that form of attack. (There would still be a risk of attacks in the question phase, which btw would probably be more light weight than an existing arb election. As it would be a new process, we could maybe introduce more effective clerking to prevent loaded questions etc.) 2) The much lower pass threshold would help increase the promotion rate, and also any flak the candidates take would be easier to shrug off it it's not coupled with formal rejection. 3) We could have tranches for specialist admins. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is going to depend one exactly what you mean by "ArbCom-style elections". If you mean "secret votes", then eliminating the ability to post comments about why you vote against someone would reduce some of the nastiness that keeps candidates away. Alternatively, if by "ArbCom-style" you mean getting a bunch of candidates and taking the top 10 vote-getters (where "10" is however many we think we need to elect during the next X months), then it's possible that more people would be willing to run because losing wouldn't be so personal. You wouldn't lose because you personally were horrible; you would only lose because you happened to run when 10 even better people did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time though, most people would probably also be curious of what they could do better. I know during my RFA's many years ago I got a lot of good advice from my opposes that I took to heart. I agree that some of the nastiness needs to be kept away, but I think a new system should also allow the "candidate" (so to speak if that's how it happens) to know how they can improve and give them something to work forward if they don't happen to get the bid. Reading more of the discussion I'm starting to lean towards maybe splitting some of the tools.--Church Talk 22:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While not a bad idea, proposals to unbundle the admin tools have always failed. I think one major issue is that the WMF has made it clear that any person with access to deleted material (and admins, of course, can access deleted material), must have gone through thorough community scrutiny. Really, I don't think any unbundling proposals will ever succeed (just my opinion, of course).
Church does make a good point. It can be good to see why people !voted against you, so that you can work on those issues and improve next time around. As of now, however, the ability to freely (and publicly) voice your opinion on a candidate is being abused, as a person can make an editor look terrible by picking out a diff or two and saying, "Look! He made a mistake/got angry/etc.! He'll surely misuse the admin tools, so I oppose." (Of course, any human occasionally makes mistakes and gets angry.) I think a good solution (assuming that we adopt the ArbCom style election) would be to give !voters a place to make an optional comment when casting their !vote (while making it very clear that the comment should be reasonable and professional), and when the elections are all said and done, the comments could be sent to the candidate so they would have a chance to look over them. --Biblioworm 23:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals to unbundle admin tools have not always failed. Rollback used to be admin-only. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but I'm talking more about the "bigger" tools like blocking, protection, deletion, etc. --Biblioworm 02:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is what would be unbundled and what would be the deciding factor for who gets what tool? Some people may request the ability to block others to help out at AIV or one of the other boards but may not be trusted to delete articles. The problem is that all of these tools would require significant trust from the community which is what RFA was supposed to determine if there was. --Church Talk 02:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's get this right: to solve the problem of not having enough admins you want to prevent any more admins from being created? And this on the very uncertain assumption that the community will agree on a replacement? I could spend time to argue the wider points others have mentioned, but I don't have it right now. If you have a good idea for RfA reform, propose it and see what we think. Otherwise, we need some process for this, faulty as it may or may not be. BethNaught (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am highly sympathetic to the theory that nothing new will arise, nothing will get better, until we kill the existing process. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if we do decide to kill RFA and then no consensus can be reached in it's replacement? What would we do then?--Church Talk 02:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that would mean we would be forced to re-institute the old process. --Biblioworm 02:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the community will long tolerate a process that does not allow for new admins, and I would hope consensus in the new process would be developed in a process that started from "We have to do something, which is better, something like X, or something like Y, or something like Z", and recurse into specifics. It'll take a little time, but I'm confident we'll have a lot of motivation to settle on a mechanism. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you over prescribe the community's sense of urgency. That same community, myself included, is far more concerned about limiting the active damage of bad admins than it is about the procedural decay of being understaffed. GraniteSand (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me that not only is the current system not working, but it's driving away users and people are refusing to even run because it is so broken. We need to get rid of this system driving users away... Simple. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Active administrators on May 12: 592.
Active administrators on July 2: 590.
Active administrators on October 30: 591. Dekimasuよ! 21:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The graphs above are misleading and linear regression was not a good choice of model. It looks like a robust regression or non-linear model would show that actually the percent of passing RfAs, rather than being in monotonic decline, has remained essentially the same since 2007. benmoore 07:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion

This is no small deal, people. There's a systematic problem with our community. We've seen a number of superb admins like Fastily, WilliamH and others retire from enwiki (some of them left enwiki, but continued to work at Commons, meta and other wikis). I'm going to make this long, so just grab some popcorn (due to the current crisis of server kittens, free distribution of e-popcorn has stopped, visit your nearest Walmart ASAP), or something. First of all, we've understood one thing for sure, the RfA process is broken. But trust me, it's not that, it's US. Everything that happens here is because of us. We are the ones that cause problem and we're the ones that must find out the solution. RfA, now can be attributed to a slaughterhouse, a source of constant badgering to be received for the tiniest error. There's a concept that admins are super-users who control the well-being of everyone by using their almighty mop. But, trust me they're not. Just some users with more experience. With more knowledge. And most importantly, more wisdom. I've seen users getting opposed on criteria like:

  • Edits through IPs. Which when disclosed upon request to a few trusted users, cause more opposition.
  • Sense of humor. I mean......
  • Less article count.
  • And more...

I, am quoting a relevant comment from above:

In any new system, one thing I'm really hoping for is that all candidates will be appreciated for their area of specialty. In the current RfA system, the fact of the matter is that it's near impossible to please the !voters unless you perfectly balance everything (with no mistakes). If you specialize in content, they'll say you don't have enough experience in "backstage" work. If you specialize in "backstage" work (like anti-vandalism, which is what my specialty is), they'll say you don't have enough content creation.

Biblioworm

The fact that someone from the community has noticed is amazing enough. Trust me, before fixing the process, let's fix ourselves. Personal attacks, jeering at people, proposal to fish with CU to just to list a few of the various relatively good things we've done at RfAs. Before fixing the policies, let's just try a bit of self-reflection. And all will be well. Just my two cents. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 08:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment - I have not read this entire thread; I am not sure if this is even the right venue to post a comment on the process as a whole, but am going to nonetheless. I found my RfA to be an inherently non-toxic experience ... while I did pass without any opposition, that is not to say that editors did not express disagreement with my positions, ask probing questions, etc. Administrators need to be able to tolerate good faith criticism/interrogation, and the current RfA system is a good barometer of that, insofar as at least lately (let's say the past year), I have rarely seen much bad faith participation at RfA, and when there is, it is quickly quashed by a team of de facto clerks, who appropriately maintain decorum. Does our current process inhibit some from being elected? Sure. But does that mean we should rush to change it for the sake of having more administrators? Not necessarily. Rather than fix RfA, I think the community ought to focus its attention on a desysopping process (perhaps something like the administrative standards board mentioned below), which ultimately might make RfA "fix itself", as voters would have a willingness to "take a chance" on a candidate. Just my opinion. Thanks. Go Phightins! 03:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments or, more accurately, personal observations.
  1. I have considered a few times to go for admin in the past, when I was more active, but every once in a while I'd run into a conflict with another editor, so I was sure I would meet opposition. It is my personal opinion, that admins don't have to be ideal. The process is much too demanding. The only thing that should really be forbidden is misuse of admin privileges. Simply put, I agree that the acceptance process should be simpler and friendlier.
  2. On the other hand, as long as we don't have a process for demoting admins, it makes sense to be overly careful before we accept an admin. In other words, these two issues are related, and point in opposite directions. Nevertheless and taking all into account, I'd prefer to tip the scales in the direction of leniency with acceptance.
  3. In general, and not directly related to the above, I have noted on my watchlist that the number of straightforward reverts is raising. This, in my humble opinion, indicates that more and more articles have reach a point where the average change is not necessarily an improvement. I think it is important to take note of this fact. Perhaps this means we need more admins now, perhaps less, I am not sure, and both arguments could be made. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case for retention

OK, let's try to assemble a case for retaining the current RfA system. (1) It's what we're all used to, (2) we know WMF are OK with it, (3) any shortcomings could be addressed by reforms, not wholesale abolition: Noyster (talk), 10:18, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is (4) based on consensus, which is how most potentially controversial decisions are made around here. (5) It gives everyone a chance to express their opinion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't based on consensus. It's a popularity vote, with there only being a small margin within which bureaucrats exercise some decision making. Any stretch beyond that becomes instantly controversial. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; it is based on consensus; the fact that, in this one case, well over two thirds of participants need to agree on a course of action for it to be taken does not deny that it is still a consensual issue. As for calling it a popularity vote, i'm inclined to assume that the majority of !voters at RfA have given some thought to the candidate and are not simply voting based on whether they like him or not. I may be naïve and forgetful, but i do not remember seeing a lot of comments/!votes i'm not willing to make that assumption about. Cheers, LindsayHello 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And (6) it has proven in practice to be more or less effective in eliminating bad candidates for Administrator. That is, potential bad actors are not gaining tools, they are being weeded out. Carrite (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until the replacement is agreed to and has the blessing of WMF I do not endorse any process that closes down the current regime for promoting Admins. Closing down the current shop and then holding us hostage to come up with a new process is dangerous and only going to cause more stress for the already stressed admin corps. Hasteur (talk) 16:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal hat on: yes, they do. RfA is a process LCA are likely to care about, given the implications it has for accessing deleted content. There have been discussions around granting OS permissions to non-admins in the past that made this clear. Ironholds (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ironholds From remembering what Sue had to say on deletion matters when we met her at the Pendell arms back in 2010, and from Phillipe's post ...any permission which includes the ability to view deleted content must be identical in style and substance to the RFA process of the time. As long as that requirement is met, we're unlikely to object... I'd have agreed with Hammersoft that there would be no risk of WMF vetoing a community led change as long as the new process retains at least some element of vetting. As staff you'd know better than me. If you're saying it would be advisable to seek pre approval from WMF for any replacement before proceeding, I think we ought to close this thread right now, so as to avoid wasting community time. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a research-monkey, not a lawyer ;p. I think you should certainly throw the idea off Maggie or James or Philippe just to ascertain what vetting they'd require, as due dilligence. I'm not qualified to say if it'd be pre-approval or post-approval or..what. Ironholds (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. I have some experience with lawyer speak, and Im not going to ask at this stage as it wouldn't feel respectful of their time. If we pass the initial motion to mark current RfA as historical, that would be the point when I'd ask Philippe. I've a feeling they might unfortunately rule out Pgallert's suggestion of WP:RFPERM due to insufficient vetting, but I'd eat my hat if they vetoed most other alternatives. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even on RFPERM any particular thing to look for in future admins could be documented and implemented. After all, only the 'crats can hand out this permission. They are so few they could be informed by personal messages ;) Pgallert (talk) 05:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noyster and Graeme Bartlett have it right. Adminship will continue to be a big deal until desysopping gets easier. Only the draconian RfA process currently in place gives me a reasonable belief that the candidates can be minimally trusted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really argue with that logic either. I'd give up half the active admins we have from the promiscuous days of '05-'07 for a quarter of their number in contemporary peers. Bad, entrenched admins have left such a nasty taste in people's mouths that RfAs have become something resembling a security clearance investigation. GraniteSand (talk) 09:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that part of the reason the present system is draconian is that we are creating a life tenure for the new admin, unless his behavior is so egregious that there must be a de-sysopping. One solution is to have an easy-peasy process for desysopping, but that would allow some abusive group who were dedicated fans of some fringe theory, some proud nation, some walled-garden subject, some hobby or some religion to eliminate any admin who follows Wikipedia guidelines and policies and gets in their way of creating vanispamcruftisements or of slanting articles to suit them. We would just have to make sure that a broad enough portion of the community participated in any recall election to keep in place good admins who had stepped on the toes of bullying publicists, nationalists, partisans or loons. I've also suggested having the election to adminship be for a set term such as one or 2 years. That said having 500 or 1000 discussions and votes a year would be tedious and it would be hard to get enough eyes on each one to prevent some entrenched group from block-voting out those those get in their way, or to prevent machine politics from backing offline a slate of amenable admins. The present system does seem to get a number of editors to look at each candidate. Unfortunately some cranky editors seem overrepresented and spend too much time opposing RFA candidates than contributing otherwise to the project. In summary, I suggest keep something like the present RFA, but somehow improve the level of discourse, as well as making it easier to desysop those who turn out not to be good admins. There are probably cases where an editor walks on eggs to avoid controversy and build up unobjectionable edits until get gets the bit, then lets his true feelings become clear and acts harshly toward others. Edison (talk)

The "system" is fine, we're just using it wrong. Take a look at how other projects do it - this Wikinews "requests for permissions" archive is a great example. The system they have is the same as ours, they just don't go in for the full scale interrogation of every candidate. That's what we need to change. When there's an RfA the question we have to answer is simple: can/do I trust this editor? We should do so on an WP:AGF basis; not assume there's some dirt to dig up on them and bombard them with questions until it comes out. Frankly it's the attitude of the community of editors that frequent RfA that needs to change, not the methodology itself. WaggersTALK 12:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cast a wider net

One thing that might help is to cast a wider net. Some people watch RfAs, some just coincidentally notice an editor they know is running, and apparently there are allegations of off-wiki canvassing, which only brings in the negatives. With the current load, we could put a notice on people's watchlist, which would bring in more editors who have had positive relations with the candidate, and increase the amount of qualified admins passing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad thought, although notification fatigue could set in, especially with the NOTNOWs gumming up serious candidacies. As it stands, participation isn't broad and is prone to serious selection bias. Alternately, but along the same vein, we could accept and list nominations all month long and then have a set period of every month when active questions with the candidate and !voting is accepted. This would expand exposure, allow for persistent banner notifications (it's RfA time!) as well as allow for people to assemble their thoughts on candidates and perform coaching in the Talk space without votes dragging out. Something like the last five days of every month? The last ten days of every quarter? GraniteSand (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, add the notice only if 24 hours have passed since the beginning of the RfA. This weeds out most NOTNOWs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Participation isn't broad, but I don't remember the last time I saw someone post a note saying "So-and-so is at RFA now" (e.g., at a WikiProject or project page) without promptly being accused of canvassing. I eventually concluded that only people who had no idea who the candidate was were welcome to respond. If you want to bring in more voters, then you have to find ways of letting them find out about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a yellow top banner used by the WMF for project-wide announcements would be perfect. GraniteSand (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be seen by EVERYONE on Wikipedia? Including the readers who don't care at all who admins this site or not? To me, if I didn't know or care anything about Wikipedia I wouldn't want to see a notification about it.--Church Talk 03:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We're talking about a "crisis" here, right? Staffing the project with an adequate number of competent administrators is essential to the functioning of the project. Furthermore, admins affect everyone who edits here, one way or another. Much like fundraising or ArbCom elections or meetups, if editors choose not to acknowledge the broad call to participation then so be it, that's up to them. The imposition of passive notification is not arduous or unreasonable if conducted five out of every 30 days or 10 out of every 90. GraniteSand (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I started this...

I'm the editor Feyd cited as proposing to close RFA. I stand behind the idea. The current RFA system is laugh-out-loud stupid -- the population of potential admins has voted with its feet to verify that -- and there are many potential alternatives. But those alternatives will only be seriously considered by this shortsighted community if the current system closes. As long as the current system exists, our resident process wonks will insist everything is fine because the project hasn't exploded yet. Keep defending RFA, and it may well be the hill this project dies on. Townlake (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I say it's worth a shot. If things don't go so well, we can always revive what we currently have until another solution can be found.

Yes, the reason RfA is so difficult to pass is the fact that editors are held to an unrealistically high standard; they are expected to be well-rounded and have a breadth of experience in their professed areas of interest, as opposed to a demonstrated knowledge of how processes work and a willingness to think things through before acting. In my book, qualifications are far more important than credentials when assessing potential administrators. I also think that we should try to distance ourselves from this trend towards rejecting specialist administrators, or those that only wish to use the tools on a limited basis.

So how would an altogether different community process produce different results? In theory, it wouldn't. And in theory, a light object in free fall would descend at a slower pace than a heavier object. It wasn't until someone (often believed to be Galileo, but it probably wasn't) tested this hypothesis by dropping two objects of different masses in a controlled setting that this long-held belief was ultimately disproved; barring other factors (such as air resistance), acceleration due to gravity on Earth remains pretty much the same. It is always going to be roughly 9.81 m/s2. This person's experiment meant that we had to change the way we looked at gravity. These observations were made from a different perspective, and the results deviated from conventional thought. Perhaps an alternative to the current RfA process will actually bring about a change in community perspective; then again, it may not. But unless it is tried, we'll never know for sure. Kurtis (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem I keep pointing out is simple: you can't get rid of the existing system until you have a replacement, or you make the problem worse. If you ditch the existing system, NO ONE can run for admin until a new system is put in place. That could take weeks or months, and if the Foundation comes in and says the new system is inadequate (and they do have a vested interest in whether or not the system properly vets or not), then you start over. You effectively prevent anyone from becoming an admin for a while. Resorting to ad hominem and calling people wonks and such isn't helpful or persuasive. Many of us are already on the record being critical of the system, and here with open minds about a replacement, but if there is a better way to do RFA, show us before you kill off the only avenue we have for appointing new admin. Saying "kill it and we will figure out a better system later" is a very weak argument, particularly since people have been barking up that tree for years and no one has come up with a better way that the community agrees on. And if the current RFA system is the silver bullet that kills this project, then it needed to be put out of its misery anyway. That whole statement is nothing but hyperbole, which really doesn't add to the discussion. Dennis - 2¢ 13:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "You effectively prevent anyone from becoming an admin for a while" - That would only be marginally worse than the current system, which has promoted only 2 admins in the last 4 months. Mr.Z-man 14:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis cheerfully ignores the reality that years of efforts to fix the current system have yielded absolutely nothing. I'm trying to address the real problem; whether he realizes it or not, Dennis is falling back on the tired old defenses of the current system that are preventing this community from actually addressing the problem.
    Folks, if NO RFA system is in place, or an unpalatable system is used in the interim (e.g. let the bureaucrats handle all RFA permissions), then the community will feel a sense of urgency to rebuild the RFA permissions system in a better way. Townlake (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a bit rude, and you are reading things into my statements that aren't there. I've spent years trying to get changes in the RFA (easy to find the diffs if you check the RFA talk page). I've actually been through a particularly nasty and drama filled RFA (134/31/2) that had blocks, bad math, and bad faith, so its safe to say I actually know what it feels like, so the problems aren't just theoretical perceptions for me, they are actual experience. All I've said is "what do you have?" I've offered my ideas over the last few years, and even down below. You haven't offered an alternative, I have. So the phrase "put up or shut up" comes to mind, what do you have that is BETTER than what we have? Seriously, unless you have a replacement in mind or some basic idea, talking about removing the current system is just silly. Dennis - 2¢ 18:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years ago I was indefinitely topic banned by Arbcom from "making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia." That tells me all I need to know about the viability of this proposal. Eric Corbett 19:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Dennis, what you call "silly" seems to be getting some serious traction here. I can offer you a hug if that will spare your feelings; otherwise you should stand aside. Your. Way. Failed. Townlake (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His way may have failed, but I haven't seen anything from this discussion that points to any other method of appointing administrators gaining steam. Tone it down a little bit, we don't need tempers getting heated before the vote starts. Hell, we don't need it at all.--Church Talk 20:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder Church. Dennis is a longtime contributor to this project and I respect him. I think he's a grownup and can understand that we're just speaking frankly here. He clearly has a particular point of view on this, mine is a polar opposite, and we both are taking this seriously. Townlake (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Dennis. We're not offering a specific solution as we don't have one we know would be broadly acceptable. What we are offering is what we consider to be a close to infallible method to agree on something better. (Possibly the first new method we decide on would not be better in practice, but then we just need to use this same method again to replace it.) We're saying have faith in the community's ability for positive change. I've gave it my best shot at explaining this in the 'No safe option' section below.
@ Eric. I'd not normally take the liberty, but as you're here, my opinion is that it's bizarre to the point of perversity that an editor who's done as much for the project as you - in article writing, helping others to write, and (mostly) being friendly - hasn't been given adminship. Maybe you'd unblock a few friends, but you'd not be the sort to use tools to block an opponent or delete their article. On the other hand, I also think anyone using the C word should trigger an automatic desysop and 4 week block. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're an American? For myself, I don't see this C word as being any worse than many others, but if you feel like agitating for a change in the rules about what words can and can't be used on WP then feel free to do so. I'm much more enraged by being accused of being married to another editor I've never met simply because we both belong to the same WikiProject, as that has real-life implications. But this is of course an unnecessary digression. Eric Corbett 20:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im English 'till I die! Myself and the Colonel (also very British) tried to push for a change back in the great civ case of 2012. Probably a lost cause. I agree accusations that might afffect real life relationships are worse. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't get blocked for them, you get blocked for using the C word. Anyway, I'm probably already stretching my ArbCom topic ban to the limit so I'll say no more. Eric Corbett 21:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking in general and not just this RFA concept, my experience has been that nothing ever gets done because there is always a group that wants EVERYTHING changed, and when someone supports an incremental change towards their goal, they flip out. "All or nothing" is their mantra, and they get exactly that: nothing. I'm an incrementalist, willing to accept small steps in the right direction to test out ideas, where the risk is lower and the rewards are delayed but more likely. You might think you are getting traction, but wait til the voting starts. Even if the community voted RFA out, WMF wouldn't allow that. I would rather try to find common ground and a partial solution that will do some good, than talk in circles and a month later, not a damn thing is different. This IS a perennial proposal because people try to do too much at once and are usually ill prepared to answer the tough questions. RFA has problems, yet I've still managed to push 6 candidates through as nom or conom and about to nom at least one more this year. But I do a lot of homework and vet them myself. [9] Not all the problems are the RFA system, which is why I say come minor tweaks might be a good place to start. If that doesn't work, try something bigger. Dennis - 2¢ 21:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like gradual changes too, but again this has been tried before. Dozens of minor changes are on offer at this page alone , some as minor as ending the use of 'weak' and 'strong' support. AFAIK only one of these ideas got consensus (albeit informal) on RfA talk itself. This was for clerking. MBizance himself tried to put this into practice, redacting overly harsh votes. Despite the previous apparent consensus, he soon got push back, including from a fellow crat, and the system went back to character assassination as normal. The existing RfA is like something out of a horror film. It can't be changed. Kill it! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
seems to me that the idea of ending character assassination could get consensus. Eiler7 (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about tweaking the current system?

I doubt abolition with no replacement is going to pass, nor should it. It seems to me that tweaks to the current system have a better probability of success. For example: (1) Reducing the super-majority needed for approval from 70% to 60%; (2) Changing the basic questions asked from 3 bland ones to a dozen better ones and segregating unique questions to a lower visibility area of the page; (3) Making Adminiship a 2 step process with a 12 month probationary period followed by a reconfirmation vote rather than instant granting of a lifetime term; (4) Creation of a process making recall of bad Admins easier. Make no mistake, WMF is going to meddle with this process and even in the unlikely scenario in which RFA is abolished with no replacement, coming up with a new system which not only meets community muster but WMF's legal concerns is unlikely. Carrite (talk) 11:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Carrite. We should ask the WMF now what their requirements are, rather than work something out and then have a battle with them. I like the 12-month reconfirmation idea for new admins; or, in default of an easier desysop process, three-year reconfirmation RFAs for all could become feasible as the number of admins falls. There would be several per week, but with a lighter-touch process that would be manageable.
My suggestion for improvement would be to disallow threaded exchanges, where most of the venom turns up. At least one person is already banned from threaded exchanges at RFA, while still allowed to vote, for this reason. Each opposer (or supporter) gives their reason; the candidate may reply if s/he chooses; that's it.
It would be possible to show only the totals, hide the comments and communicate them to the candidate privately. That could help to avoid pile-ons, but I don't like the loss of openness. While I don't say hostile comment during RFA is a good thing, anyone unwilling to face it is unlikely to be an effective admin, which can bring much worse abuse. JohnCD (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if Im reading this wrong, but it's almost like some think our relationship with WMF is adversarial. I can see there is some reason for this, but IMO at least, WMF absolutely want to have a friendly and collaborative relationship with the community. In specific cases where their objectives are opposed by a significant portion of the editors, there is always a risk of friction. But as long as our objectives are aligned, as Im sure they would be in terms of having a functional RfA, there's no reason to think they'll make things difficult for us. However, as several much more experienced editors seem to think differently, I've asked Philippe, and if he responds just on his talk page, I'll cross post here. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I phrased that badly, but RFC result versus what WMF will allow has been a sensitive issue lately. What I meant was, we know that WMF Legal have concerns about the selection/vetting process for people able to see deleted content which may include BLP violations; therefore we should understand their concerns and take them into account when devising a new system, rather than agree on something and then find it is unacceptable and have to go back to the drawing board. It will be hard enough to reach agreement once. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Hopefully Phillip will clarify for us soon. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always thought you limit the support/oppose/neutral vote to around 50 words (or a different number, and diffs count at 0 words), no threads, and move the threaded discussion to the bottom below Neutral. This lets each !voter give a reason for their vote, allows passersby to view the rationales, you still have the discussion about being fit on the front page, but it prevents the threads from drowning out the big picture. Crats should consider the entire front page, including threads at the bottom. This is a tiny tweak, but I think it is a safe tweak to start with and might reduce a little drama, as the reward for the drama is less, the impact is less. We need to do small things first. The basic layout isn't the problem, but allowing threads up top gives drama mongers a perfect stage to beat their drum. Currently, we don't even USE the "discussion" area very often (which is currently above the voting), except for procedural notes, it all gets jammed into the polling, which is the problem. Dennis - 2¢ 13:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tweaks to the current system have a better probability of success" - As Feyd pointed out at the beginning, people have been proposing reform and tweaks for years and nothing significant has come of it. If we're considering that approach to be the most likely to succeed, we might as well just give up. Mr.Z-man 15:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can't agree on tweaks, what makes you think we can agree on a completely new system? Dennis - 2¢ 15:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debating how to fix the current system is in the "perennial proposals" section for a reason. Suggesting modifications to the failed system already in place is a waste of time. Townlake (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A 12 month "probation" would, at least for me, result in more "support" !votes than currently is the case. I'm hesitant in the current RFA for example, but would not have been in case of a probation. Making de-sysopping easier would also be a good idea, although the process would have to be designed carefully (admins tend to make enemies, no matter how careful and friendly they are...). As for the current RFA process being toxic, I disagree. This may have been the case some years ago, but in the 12 months or so that I have been following them, I find most comments constructive (there's always the odd exception, but those are generally ignored by everybody). --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate RfA

What about having a new process coinciding with the existing one, and allowing candidates to choose? That would allow us to close the old one if it works, or close the alternate one if it fails. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me it seems that consensus is that the old system doesn't work, which is why we're here.--Church Talk 18:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On paper an excellent idea Oiyarbepsy. Jimbo Wales himself championed a possible parallel alternate RfA back in 2011. Unfortunately, is seems to have failed for the same reason all other reform attempts have. As long as the old system remains in place, there's just not sufficient impetus for consensus to cohere on any one possible alternative. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the !votes below that give rationale for maintaining the current one point out that they would have gone for another system if it would first exist and then removing the existing one should be debated - which is a good argument in itself. Creating a parallel process first with option to choose any would pave way for taking that out of the equation (or maybe not and the wiki can have two permanent ways). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the approach I support. Create the alternate process and let it run concurrent with RFA as we have it now. The candidates can choose for themselves which process they prefer.—John Cline (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Safe option

There's three broad options to the RfA problem.

Do nothing
This is essentially a choice to embark on a dangerous social experiment. There will be further concentration of power and responsibility on admins who chose to remain. The unwavering decline in active admins over the past 7 years leave no doubt this is where 'Existing RfA road' leads. To a place that seems unfair both to admins and the community. At best, conscientious and dedicated admins will put an increasingly amount time and effort into Wikipedia, neglecting their own best interests, but perhaps keeping things ticking over for another 5 years. At worse, the perceived gap between regular editors and admins will widen to a chasm. Increasingly powerful admins will be more prone to abuse and harder to desysop. Admins will have less time to make considerate decisions, and the resulting distress caused by a more hostile editing environment could take years to heal.

Attempt to agree on a replacement RfA process while leaving the existing process in place
On paper this is the obvious choice. The only problem is its been tried hundreds of times before, to no effect. Thousands of editor hours have been expended on this cause, including from some of our very brightest editors. To see evidence of this, click WP:RFA2011.

Each new attempt to decide on a new process seems not only to waste time, cause frustration, and increase reform fatigue, thus making successful reform even less likely. Einstein had a word to describe the practice of repeatedly trying the same approach and exspecting to get a different result. That word was insanity.

End the existing disused RfA process, then agree on a replacment

Cortés scuttling his own fleet so there is no going back to how things were before. He then proceeded to conquer the smallpox-crippled Aztec empire with only a few hundred men.

Several editors understandably feel ending RfA without first agreeing on its replacement is reckless. To clarify, Townlake, myself, SMarshal, Mr Z and others are not lunatics. We're trying to be realistic about the fact that historical failure to reform RfA means we're dealing with something close to mission impossible. Burning ones bridges or ships is not something one does lightly, but it does have a track record of being used to pull of close to impossible feats. The tactic's been used by the ancient Chinese and Romans even before Christ, and perhaps most famously by Cortés.

In our case, we have all the advantages this method conferred upon the Spaniard, but almost none of the risks. This is how easy it was to create an RfA process from a clean slate

It's not going to be quite as simple as it was for Camembert back in 2003. So we're proposing a more structured method. After we agree to mark the current RfA as historical, we can have a week long creative period where we build up new and existing ideas for replacement, such as a modified version of RFPERM, or Arbcom light style elections with tranches for specialists. Then a further week where we eliminate the less well supported options, until we settle on our final choice. With a well structured RfC to ensure we get a result, and with no option to return to the harmful status quo, how can this fail? FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: administrators must be civil servants, not politicians

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrative Standards Commission

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with RfA, as it is presently structured, is that it is based on what are essentially democratic principles. Being a Wikipedia administrator is a technocratic job. It is a job of maintenance. It is not a position of leadership, nor is it a legislative position. Democratic principles stymie and obfuscate the purpose of adminiship, and turn it into a populist post. Civil servants are properly appointed, not elected. That's the way it works in most governments, and that's how it should work here. We need to remove the democratic element, and stop this mob rule nonsense. Therefore, I'd propose the following. This is just a basic idea, sans details. A search committee is created with the sole purpose of appointing administrators. The committee is elected by the community, similarly to the present Arb Com elections. The committee would accept applications for adminship, and evaluate them based on merit. A simple majority of committee members in favour of a candidate would lead to that candidate being granted adminship. The committee would not just accept applications, but would also seek out potential candidates. This strikes me as the best way forward. Democracy is not the answer to every question. RGloucester — ☎ 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I like - the first major change proposal here that I could support, though success should require more than a simple majority. Suggestions to flesh it out: number on the committee at least six, maybe ten. Once it's established, two-year terms with half retiring (but re-electable) each year, to maintain continuity. Committee's deliberations are private, but where they decline a candidate the reasons are stated publicly. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested this before, in the labyrinthine by-ways of Wikipedia RFA discussions. This culture directly elects its enforcers and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see why that's a problem. What we should do is elect a supervisory body ("commissioners"?) who will run our admin corps: they'll select, promote, coach, support, discipline, encourage, demote where necessary. Arbcom lose their "emergency desysop" function in this proposal, which I think is a good thing: they're already overempowered and overloaded.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A system like that would have my preference, too. It saves time for the community (no need for dozens of editors going through candidate's histories) and be easier on the candidates themselves (I certainly would have gone for admin earlier under such a system). --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a variation of that idea more than once, but it hasn't received any traction. While it doesn't address all issues, I think it does address some of the important issues. My most recent post was written as a response to someone else,, I've edited slightly to write it as an essay: User:Sphilbrick/RfA reform. It short, we should start with an organized selection committee.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew I had already seen this idea. And the problem is also that the Foundation requires vetting by the community to see deleted stuff, as it contains copyvio and other bad things. The other problem is that being on that committee to select admins, that is a LOT OF POWER, so you've made that a political position. One corrupt person there, or someone that is forcing their ideology in secret (no Christians allowed / No Republicans /No whatever) and you have a worse situation. That method is vulnerable to corruption, which would be far reaching before it was noticed. Dennis - 2¢ 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The committee members would be held to account by elections, just as arbitrators are. As suggested above, they'd be required to release a report on why a candidate was granted adminship. To be frank, I feel the fear of corruption is unwarranted. The present populist system is much more prone to "corruption by mob", than this system will be prone to "corruption by individual". Also note that there are enough members on the committee to override any one corrupt individual. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I accept that the community need to have an up-or-down vote, partly because the community ought to have that role, and partly because the WMF requires a vetting process. I see a two-stage process, where a committee reviews candidates in an organized way, presents the candidate to the community with a summary report and recommendation, then the community gets to do an up-or-down vote. Some "voters" will not trust the committee report, and do their own review, which is fine, some will trust the committee completely, and vote accordingly, some, like myself, will review the report, and do my own review based upon areas of weakness identified by the committee. Obviously, there are details to be worked out. The use of the word "committee" implies a fixed set of editors chosen for the task, while I envision that anyone could sign up to do the review of some aspect of the candidate and contribute to the summary report. A hybrid is also an option, with a small elected committee whose job is mainly coordination and organization of the summary write-up.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Democracy is crap system. It doesn't choose the best possible candidates, just those that haven't rubbed certain people the wrong way. The point of this committee is to take the failure that is direct democracy out of the equation, and allow the community to elect a Commission that will grant administrative tools on merit. Your proposed system doesn't solve any of the current problems with RfA, and continues to rely on the bunk system that is democracy. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting idea and in theory I think would be better. The biggest practical problem I can foresee is in selecting the committee, in particular the risk of a shortage of good candidates. There's also the risk of giving the appearance of adminship being a "private club" if the majority (or all) of the committee members are admins. Mr.Z-man 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the committee should have an equal number of seats for administrators and non-administrators, so that both sides of the coin are included. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, this is not a bad idea, and something to think about if all other alternatives fail to work. However, I'm concerned about the lack of outside participation and the extra level of bureaucracy that this would add to our already bureaucratic system. I have an idea or two concerning a new election process, but I'm not going to post them until the RfC is finished. --Biblioworm 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our system is one of mob rule, and it isn't working. Sysop candidates should not ever be subjected to a public humiliation, a popularity contest, or indeed any kind of mass vote. They need to be selected on merit. We need administrators with skills. We do not need political leaders who can figure out how to wheel-and-deal people into "voting" for them. There would be outside participation, that is, the committee would be elected by the community. We need a way to check the mob, and this is it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would the requirements be to get elected into this committee? Would there be terms for committee members? How could a committee member be stripped of his membership if he started to behave unacceptably? --Biblioworm 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd want to offer Eric Corbett one of the seats on the first commission.  :) Yes, I think there'd have to be terms for commissioners: they'd be re-elected every year or so. Unacceptable behaviour by a commissioner strikes me as an unlikely circumstance, but part of their charter might be that a commissioner could be de-appointed by simple majority vote among the other commissioners (which action would trigger a by-election for a new commissioner). Or something. The details can be sorted.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose that the body we create be termed the Administrative Standards Commission. This body would consist of eight commissioners, each elected by the community for a term of one year. Election procedure would mimic the Arbitration Committee's election procedure. I would propose that four commissioners be non-administrators, whilst the other four would be administrators. As stated above, a commissioner could be removed from office by a simple majority vote amongst the other commissioners, triggering a new election. The duty of the commissioners would be as follows: to search for potential candidates for adminship, to accept applications for adminship, evaluate those applications, to appoint administrators, and to serve as a forum for the review of administrative actions. I'm not opposed to the idea of maintaining the existing RfA process as a parallel option in the interim period. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely an interesting system that I would be willing to try out. My only concern would be what to do in case of ties? Say the four administrators vote for a candidate and the four non-admins don't? Is it just marked no consensus? My suggestion would be to forget the whole admin, non-admin thing and just let the entire community elect who they feel is right and have an ODD number of people (Say, 7) there to prevent that from happening. --Church Talk 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is good to ensure representation for non-administrators. We must remember that "adminship is no big deal". It has become inflated in importance in recent years, but that's not how it should be. Having non-administrator representatives will entrench the idea that adminship is no big deal, and that administrators are not "ranked" higher than anyone else. They are technocrats employed by the community to take on tasks important to the maintenance of the encyclopaedia. I wouldn't be opposed to an odd number, say the seven you proposed. In that case, I'd recommend three non-administrators and three administrators, with one slot open to anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea, but there should be a limit on how long anyone can serve, so that we do not get an entrenched oligarchy. I suggest a three year term, with zero or one repeat (community choice when it is set up). There would be three classes with initial elections for one, two and three year terms. If we wanted an odd number there could be 9 positions, with three new ones elected per year. There could be 5 designated nonadmin seats and 4 designated admin seats. To avoid a buddy system, nonadmins leaving the body could be excluded from running for admin for one year. Edison (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind if all members would be non-admins, in the spirit of "no big deal". I would not even object a system where admins would be excluded, given that this committee would also deal with desysopping. The elections would ensure that non-qualified people (e.g. somebody who just joined with 300 edits and such) would not get a seat. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think excluding admins entirely would be a good idea. The main job of the board is choosing people to be admins, desysopping will hopefully be a much smaller task (if not, then they're probably doing their first job poorly). It makes sense to have some people who actually know what being an admin entails. Not having any admins would be like having a medical board with no doctors on it. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why 4/4 or 3/3/powercard? Administrators make up about 4% to 6% of the population of active editors on wiki, so why give them so much power in this process? I'd much rather see a 1 crat, 2 admin, and 4 non-crat/non-admin editors who would not be eligible for the admin tools during their term. I'd see this as a much closer representation of the population of editors (although still skewed in favor of crats and admins). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be extremely hard for commissioners to do their admin-supervising job unless they could view deleted contributions, so I think that for reasons of practicality they'd have to receive the admin tools on being elected.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be possible to grant them the ability to see deleted contributions without giving them other administrator powers? Given that these candidates will have been vetted by the community in the elections, I see no reason for the Foundation to object. RGloucester — ☎ 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is getting out of hand. The key to proposals like this is that they cannot be overly complicated. I stick by my suggestion that we should have one-year terms. I'm strongly opposed to complicated distributions of power based on population representation. As said above, administrators are the ones that deal with administrative matters on a daily basis, and hence are important to a balanced Administrative Standards Commission. I think that a 3/3/1 allocation is the best we can hope for. Three administrators, three non-administrators, one open seat. I see no necessity for bureaucrats to be allocated a seat. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With that said though, I don't think we should prohibit a crat from holding the seat if the community decides that. Crats are admins after all.--Church Talk 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. They merely would not be allocated a special seat. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this change, as it removes the popularity contest element and the issue of previously begrudged editors derailing nominations. I actually think a majority of long-term regular editors would be suitable for adminship. The raw goods are there and allowing a small group of appointed people would also reduce the overheads in the process (as the appointees would gain the skills to review more candidates more quickly and no more than seven people would need to go through the editor's past edits etc). SFB 20:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RGloucester: You wrote above: "Sysop candidates should not ever be subjected to a public humiliation". Why not? Sysops are subjected to public humiliation when they take a controversial action. Why not be prepared? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think public humiliation is ever appropriate. We have a pillar that's supposed to address that issue, don't we? RGloucester — ☎ 22:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that it's fine to humiliate RfA candidates because they "...are subjected to public humiliation when they take a controversial action" is a convenient excuse for ignoring the WP:CIVIL policy. Candidates' ability to perform under pressure should be evaluated based on earlier behavior, such as conduct on noticeboards, their response to criticism, etc. --Biblioworm 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of incremental improvements to RFA over the last five years

There's been tons of time and typing spilled on the RFA issue in various wikifora over the last 5+ years, attempting to achieve incremental improvements to the process. Can someone provide a list of the actual improvements to RFA that have come from all this effort in the last five years? Townlake (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we limiting the list to reforms that lasted, rather than something that was tried a couple of times and given up on? If so, then I believe that the complete list of lasting reforms is in this box:
  
  
But perhaps someone else knows more than I do, because I don't usually follow RFA reform discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of RFA Alternatives Proposed

Regardless of the vote calls for I see no harm in getting all of our ideas in one place for convenience and this is my attempt to do that, please feel free to add your idea if I forgot to add it.

  1. unbundling the admin tools and having them be open in a process like Requests for Permission.
  2. Arb-Com Style Elections for Administrators
  3. The creation of a committee that would actively "search for potential candidates for adminship, accept applications for adminship, evaluate those applications, to appoint administrators, and to serve as a forum for the review of administrative actions." - see WP:Administrative Standards Commission
  4. Tweaks to RFA to limit commenting, appoint clerks, and other suggestions that would keep the basic RFA process we've come to know. See also User:Application Drafter/Sysop applications draft. (Sorry for inserting this in someone else's comment, but I don't know how else to do this.) Application Drafter (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform#Upbundling, especially of the block button.
Feel free to update this list as you see fit. Regardless of if we close RFA or not I think we should not give up until we can hammer something out. This multi-year long debate dies here if we make it die here. I'm not for RFA, I just think it should stay until we can actively set up an alternative.--Church Talk 19:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the upbundling one (#5), since the block button is the one that most makes one want to look at demeanour issues, and these are where the criticisms can get personal. --Stfg (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See item number 6, above. Application Drafter (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved item 6 as a subsection of tweaking RFA. This proposal basically keeps RFA the same, it just changes the questions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am against the first two. #1 is too less scrutiny. We need consensus. #2 is too much drama. As we've seen before. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Admins should serve terms

Main page: Wikipedia:Administrative Standards Commission

As most people probably know, if you are elected as an admin in the current system, you hold the position for life unless you voluntarily resign or ArbCom takes it away. This fact may play a part in the restrictiveness of RfA, because as of now, there is no easy way to remove adminship, so the candidates that you elect must be really good.
However, this problem could be solved by having admins serve "terms". How long your "term" is depends upon the amount of support you get. For example, if you get 50%-75% support, you're only elected for a one year term. If you get 75%-100% support, you get elected for a two year term. At the end of this "term", the admin would go through a reconfirmation, where it would be confirmed that they haven't done anything to warrant a desysopping. A predefined list of things deserving a desysopping would exist as a guideline, so that we could ensure that an admin couldn't be desysopped merely for making a couple of mistakes, which would not be out of the question if it was up to the mob. If no outstanding issues arise during the reconfirmation, a 'crat would close it as successful, and the admin would serve for another term. As long as the admin remains trustworthy and does not violate the desysopping criteria, there would be no limit to the amount of terms that an admin could serve.
I feel that, if implemented, this would loosen the requirements in electing new admins, because an admin could always be desysopped if he acted unacceptably during his term. I'm looking forward to everyone's input. Thanks, --Biblioworm 23:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose – As I said above, adminship is not a political position, nor a leadership position, nor a legislative position. Admins should continue to serve on merit, in line with their duty as technical servants of the Wikipedia community. Forcing them to run for "election" will politicise the post even further, resulting in administrators who are good at wheeling-and-dealing, not dealing with the maintenance of the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 23:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to turn this into a political position (besides, being a member of a committee is also a political position). I'm just saying that the notion of "admin for life" is probably a main reason why the admin position is thought to be a big deal. Once you have it, you cannot lose it unless ArbCom revokes it, which can be difficult to do. In my opinion, we'll never fully get rid of the "power", "authority", and "mystery" surrounding admins until we have a more convenient way to desysop. In fact, this proposal is not completely incompatible with the proposed ASC, as the committee could review admins at the end of their term. --Biblioworm 00:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good and thoughtful proposal. I especially like the protection you've built in against mobs. I don't fully agree with RGloucester on admins being purely servants. In practice their role does contain an element of executive function and leadership , even if some of the more maintenance orientated admins chose not to get involved in that side of things. IMO opinion you wouldn't get rid of the "power" element even with an easier desysop (which I probably wouldn't support due to the risk of anti admin witch hunts) There's two reasons I like RGloucester's ASC idea even more. It wouldn't feel right to retrospectively apply terms to existing admins, and so this would risk making all new admins second class. And compared to the selection board, this proposal would still allow scope for the same sort character assassination that happens with existing RfA. (Im skeptical that even bolting on clerking would not prevent this.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, this proposal can easily be adapted to fit the ASC. I suppose, though, that the advantage of the ASC is that desysoppings can be done on a rolling basis rather than at set intervals. Even if my proposal isn't accepted in its current state, I do strongly believe that we should have some sort of convenient desysopping procedure. I really don't care if the ASC or the community handles it, so long as it's something. (However, I am beginning to increasingly support the concept of the ASC, but it does still need some work.) Whatever desysopping procedure we adopt, it has to have some sort of "mob protection". --Biblioworm 00:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do strongly agree that administrators should be able to carry out their duties without being hanged on a whim, which is one of the reasons I like the idea of the WP:ASC (the proposal now has its own page). RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, this could work. It would mean a lot of "re-adminships", but what do we have to lose? --AmaryllisGardener talk 01:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty to lose. Such a proposal further entrenches the wrong idea that adminship is a "big deal". We need to be curtailing this notion, not furthering it. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, and from the last 30 times this has been proposed: you stand to lose a lot of admins. If we already have trouble finding enough candidates willing to run the gauntlet that is RFA, forcing everyone to run it again and again will only exacerbate attrition. Not to mention a significant additional bureaucratic burden that takes everyone away from what we are supposed to be here for: building an encyclopedia. You also risk massively reducing the number of admins willing to take on controversial tasks because of the very same predilection for "character assassination" as FeydHuxtable so aptly terms it above. Why would anyone take on a tough job if the only they they can expect as a result is reams of abuse? Resolute 13:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, adminship is a bigger deal than it was in 2003 because Wikipedia is a bigger deal than it was in 2003; there's probably no going back on this. Standards are a bit higher, because the seriousness of our fuckups is higher. In the interim "I'm concerned there aren't enough administrators, so let's start removing admin status from the existing admins" makes no sense. WilyD 13:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree more with this comment. This would insure fewer admins. Term limits make perfect sense for arbcom, or for real-world politicians, but I have never heard of a scenario where low-level unpaid volunteers need to run for re-election n order to do thankless drudge work. I have always felt that such proposals are based on the very, very wrong assumption that being admin fills one with a godlike sense of power and authority. It isn't like that at all. For good admins, having the tools is an obligation, to help out the community to the best of their ability wherever they can. There are not so many bad admins that we should subject every last one to a reconfirmation. The only form of this I would support would be for very long terms, like ten years or so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMPROMISE IDEA. How about keeping the RFA system. But also allow people to apply for interim administratorship. These positions would be for a year with reconfirmation into a regular administrator after that. So that everyone wouldn't be forced to apply for this (and face being discriminated against compared to what the current administrators have to go through), have it so you could apply for interim administrator only if your qualifications were a little short (someone could come up with the criteria but maybe a user with 5,000 edits, not 20,000). See if the interim administrators are a success. If they are, they could encourage people who don't live on wikipedia to apply. Disclaimer: I am not interested in interim adminship. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already hard enough to find admins who are wiling to make controversial decisions, or even decisions that will make a minority of people angry. "Term limits" will only exacerbate this problem at their future RfAs. GraniteSand (talk)

Oppose The hassle of adminship and re-adminship with the help of community consensus will cause way too many problems. De-adminship is waste of time. If the community believes that the admin is useless, we'll force them to run for a second RfA, do a RfC/A or ask them for a recall. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 14:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beeblebrox. Let me be frank. I've been an administrator now for nearly three years. I'm not a very controversial admin: I've had the occasional moment where I've said something dumb or made a silly mistake, but I mostly seem to get things about right, I hope. I don't block many people. I don't use my admin tools much, but when I do, I mostly get it right. I've not had decisions taken to deletion review or really made any controversial blocks. I mostly steer clear of WP:ANI and so on these days and just plod away with what I want to work on. I edit, and I have some extra buttons I can push when I feel the need to. I close some deletion discussions occasionally, hand out some user rights at WP:RFPERM when I feel like it, and occasionally WP:RFPP requests when there's a bit of a backlog. There are lots of admins like this: they keep themselves to themselves. Sometimes they are even less public-facing than I am, just merrily working away in some quiet backlog—the file namespace or the category tree or closing MfDs or enforcing some bit of bureaucracy that the community decided admins should work on.

I'm perfectly happy to be accountable to the community: if I make mistakes or make bad judgments, I like to think I'd handle that in a mature and responsible way. The RfA process is stressful even if it is a shoe-in—there's always a risk some grudge-bearing sock or weirdo is going to turn up out of the blue and turn it into a circus. Would the reconfirmation RfAs happen every year at the same time? What if you are busy at work or you've got a family holiday or some personal crisis and don't exactly want to participate in another blasted RfA? After the first or second reconfirmation, I'd almost be tempted to pack it in. Wikipedia is something I participate in because it is fun and I try not to participate in the bits that aren't fun—there are other far more important things in life to care about. RfA was a chore once, let alone doing it again and again forever more. Indeed, if I were contemplating running for adminship and annual reconfirmation were in place, I'd probably consider whether I'd bother running in the first place.

Most admins I think are trying to do their best. Let us do the job that we're (not) paid to do. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to proposal) An administrator hoping to be re-elected, might be tempted towards favouritism. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I concur entirely with Beeblebrox and Tom Morris. Furthermore, a term system would simply introduce tons more bureaucracy and increase the number of venues and opportunities where people can be nasty - exactly which has been putting off users of the right calibre from running for adminship in the first place. And as per Tom, the very thought that they would have to run again in a year or two would discourage even more candidates. There is also the fact that some admins might work towards re-election/reconfirmation and thus be less bold in dealing with contentious issues. There will always be some admins that need to be desysoped - even arbs have been thrown out - but there is no proof whatsoever that 'admin for life' spawns an intolerably high number of badmins. What we need is a faster (and efficient) system for addressing poor admin behaviour, one that is far less bogged down in its own bureaucracy than Arbcom and which unlike Arbcom, ANI, or RFC/U, will take a formal look at patterns of long term inappropriate behaviour and/or reckless use of the tools rather than just isolated ussues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

If you support the proposal but advise any changes to the suggested timeline above , please mention in your vote.

The proposal to vote on is:
The community supports marking the existing RfA / RfB process as historical, thus providing a clean slate on which to design a suitable replacement.

Please vote Abolish (Support) to abolish our current RfA system or Maintain (Oppose) to maintain it (for now).

[[#ref_{{{1}}}|^]] I just felt this was required. Forgive me, WikiKnights. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 15:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abolish current RfA system

  1. Strong Support. (I'm the first one here. ) The more I'm thinking about this, the more I'm becoming convinced that we're not going to get anywhere unless we just blow it up and start over again. For years, the community has wasted time and effort trying to reform RfA, but none of them have yielded results. Unless the current system is shut down, there will be no motivation to come up with a new one. (By the way, I do think this RfC should be extended to last about 30 days, since this is such a major proposal.) Thanks, --Biblioworm 00:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    While I'm not opposed to the idea of blowing it up and starting it over, I think we should do it in the other order - first construct the new process, then demolish the old one and start using the new one. If this proposal passes, then how will a user try to become an adin the day after we close down RFA? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong Support per Biblioworm. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Me too. In order to address some of the opposers' concerns, I suggest that if this process succeeds and RfA is marked historical, then the RfA process should be suspended with effect from, say, 1 January 2015, so we've got a known end date but we also maintain some process for promotion (even if it's dysfunctional) for a month or so until the end of December.—S Marshall T/C 00:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Years (7 according to Feyd) of incremental reform efforts have led nowhere. It's time to try something different. In the past, RFA was functional enough that this plan would be too extreme. But at this point, the promotion rate is so low, not having a process for a couple months will barely make a difference. Mr.Z-man 03:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the only way to fix RFA, but I expect this effort to not achieve "consensus". It's a shining example of the failure of the consensus model to govern a community that has clearly outgrown it. With no adults in charge, clearly-broken processes can't be changed. Good luck making those "incremental changes," folks. Townlake (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Essentially agree with Biblioworm and Mr.Z-man, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Let's dispense with the notion that it's radical or irresponsible to deconstruct a system (and what is permissible within it) that is gradually failing to do its job, particularly with the understanding that we are dedicated to work together to build something better. Editors arguing that there are other factors besides the system are probably right, but there is sufficient evidence that the system is a major factor and is something malleable that can be improved. I encourage editors who do not consider the system to be a significant problem to read over WereSpielChequers observations, comments in this recent invitation for candidates on AN, some of the feedback at User:Juliancolton/Why I hate RfA, and User:Dayewalker#My RfA, and good faith advice on yours. I, JethroBT drop me a line 08:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Unbundle the tools, unbundle the tools, unbundle the tools. Come up with weak and strong versions of the tools, so that some users can demonstrate their facility with the weak version before getting the strong version. For example get a permission to block only anons, and only for a short time, with progressively more authority needed to block registered editors, and to impose longer/indefinite blocks. bd2412 T 19:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You realize some people would go completely nuts over that proposal, calling you an elitist, IP hater, via WP:IPs are people too, as that makes IP sound less human than registered editors? Dennis - 2¢ 20:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support For those who are opposing because it would disrupt the adminship process: What has RfA done for you in the past two months? Nothing? Then I don't see why suspending the process would be disruptive. KonveyorBelt 20:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, the current system comes from another time and another place. It has served us well, but it's time to let it go, because it's clearly not serving us well anymore. It's clear after years that 'reforms' aren't going to stick, so I think the first step to a better way to fill the admin corps is to abolish the current system, and force us to design a better one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  11. Abolish which is a support !vote for those who didn't read the directions above :) - this process is clearly broken, otherwise why would RfA reform be one of our most well-known perennial proposals? Nuke it, it's the only way. I'll not be opposed to maintaining the existing RfA until the RfC closes, to placate those worried that being without a system with such a pathetically low turnover rate would be disastrous (it clearly wouldn't), but when the RfC closes, the existing RfA must close with it. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. It doesn't work anymore; almost nobody is getting through. Everyking (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support and see my proposed template at User:Application Drafter/Sysop applications draft. Application Drafter (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support There must be better ways of doing this, getting rid of Rfas would be a start. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support I don't understand all the hand-wringing about how this would temporarily leave us with no promotion process. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the current process was being regularly used. What's the difference? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Let's give it a shot and see what happens. It's not like it can't be undone later. Kurtis (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Changing anything on this project is like pulling teeth, but sometimes change is necessary, and clearly the RFA process needs to be changed. If abolishing the current system must be the way to motivate such change, then so be it. It's not as if the current sytem can't be brought right back to life later on, if need be.. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, in my view RfA is broken beyond repair. --Pgallert (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - I totally support the idea of specialist admins, not everyone is a content writer (which still remains the most absurd requirement) or wants to go vandal hunting and overhauling the system so you can at least be judged on your ability and the fact you'll use the tools, not if you've gotten enough articles to FA standard. tutterMouse (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Comment -- Speaking from my experience on Wikipedia, I like the idea of unbundling the Admin tools. One of the chief barriers to being an effective Admin is lack of experience using the tools, & being allowed to get accustomed to them gradually would allow a new Admin gain the necessary skills & experience to use them. Further, when a given Wikipedian has a majority of these Admin tools, it becomes more difficult for nay-sayers to claim that person is *not* qualified, thus hounding qualified people away from being Admins. And it appears this is the method the English Wikipedia is moving towards: we already have unbundled many of the Admin tools; & this process can be followed in parallel with the current -- but barely functioning -- process. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong Support/Abolish. I completely agree with Biblioworm and Mr.Z-man (above). It is time for change, and unless the current process is abolished, change is not possible (as seen in the past). --Tony Tan98 · talk 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Agree with Biblioworm and Mr.Z-man, above. As Gough Whitlam would say, it's time. Luxure Σ 08:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain current RfA system

  1. Oppose I'm afraid that I can't get behind this idea. I'm not comfortable removing RFA with at least a general idea of what the replacement would be. With that said, I'm not opposed to moving to support and I plan to think this over in the coming days but for right now I just have too many questions and concerns and too little answers. We can go gun-ho all we want about this, but I can't help but think incremental changes would be better then destroying RFA completely. The big argument is that it's been done and it didn't work numerous times. I don't have an answer for that right now, but I'm extremely uneasy removing the one way we have to promote administrators for any amount of time.--Church Talk 00:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe one idea is an ArbCom-style election, but there hasn't been extensive discussion about that. If this RfC does fail, I suppose we can open yet another discussion to collect some ideas for a new election system. --Biblioworm 00:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the data, not enough people are using the RfA process to make it worth keeping. Why not just blow it up and build something new and useful? — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.--Church Talk 01:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What you are saying is you'd rather have something that won't be used and is apparently harmful to the wiki instead of build something new that will be useful in increasing our core of editors and producing new and improved content for our readers. I entirely understand. Why does Wikipedia need administrators anyways? Let's just do away with all of them! Nevermind, my sarcasm would simply be wasted in this forum...  ;) — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) I never said that I was against change or removing RFA. I simply said that I'm not willing to take a leap of faith with the only option we have right now. RFA has apparently been detrimental to the community for a long time, I don't see how it could hurt to have it awhile longer to at least have a good list of alternatives before we decide to retire it.--Church Talk 01:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Maintain I oppose abolishing as reckless. Where is the study that says the RfA system is the problem? Better may be: 1) Conduct a study that explains the low numbers. 2) If the study shows that the system itself is the reason for the low numbers, design a new system. 3) Post here proposing switch. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maintain What Anna said. Well meaning, but this isn't going to make things better, it will just divide the community even more. We should look at tweaking what we have instead. Dennis - 2¢ 01:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose any proposal in which RfA is disbanded without an immediate replacement by something else. This is being done backward; first get consensus for a new process, then either modify or disband the old one. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose a specific transition plan should be ready to take over, perhaps even with an overlap (during "beta" of the new process) prior to discontinuance of the existing process. — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maintain Not a single person has suggested a replacement system, and some proposed fixes have been suggested here that I don't think have been tried. If someone had some good replacement, I'd reconsider, but I don't see that happening. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Maintain per Anna and Dennis. INeverCry 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maintain, what Anna said. I'm not convinced RfA is the problem (my personal opinion is that it lies closer to the lack of its opposite process); whatever the problem, i believe it would be foolish, at best, to dump a process with no replacement in place. Yeah, Cortés burned his ships, as is mentioned above; he also was unbelievably brutal, benefited from disease, and inaugurated several hundred years of exploitation. Not sure i'm comfortable following his example.... Cheers, LindsayHello 05:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Maintain, at least until something better is worked out. The work still needs to be done. As I have remarked elsewhere, any process can be made ineffective by complaining, belittling and pointing out problems until no one wants to be a part of it, and then pointing to the resulting lack of participation as further evidence against it.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Maintain, but experiment - I have no problem with the proposal to appoint a board for a limited term as an experiment (maybe limit their chosen admins to needing an RfA after a year), I just think it is highly premature to eliminate RfA. If the board can act with good judgment and find competent and thoughtful admins who would not have pursued RfA, then I think it would just become the de facto adminship process. But eliminating RfA without any experience with a new system is madness. VanIsaacWScont 06:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose I don't think the problem is with RfA, but with attitudes towards adminship generally. If people don't want the job, they're not going to apply, regardless of what the application process is. --ais523 06:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. RfA is not too great a hassle or an insurmountable obstacle. Rather, the performance of admin work is a stick with no carrot. Most editors who would be good candidates for the job are not interested in having it, and that's not a problem with RfA. Dekimasuよ! 07:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose as ill-thought out and quite possibly misguided. We need to find more editors who want to stand and who have a chance; the current process does promote people who are qualified. BethNaught (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose RfA related RfCs/proposals won't pass when it's just one or two editors dreaming up a wacky "solution" and then opening it to a vote. It should have been obvious from the short thread at WT:RfA that Townlake's suggestion was not widely supported. For actual change you need to take part in existing discussions, feel the way the wind is blowing, reach out to people and look for something likely to be accepted by the community. benmoore 08:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Maintain current system, but experiment. Full marks to Feyd and Townlake for a BOLD proposal, but I don't accept either of the propositions behind it: (a) RFA is so uniquely bad that anything cobbled together under pressure against a short deadline must be better, and (b) the unique badness of RFA is the reason why so few are applying. As regards (a), I don't see much evidence that RFA is passing people who shouldn't be admins or failing people who should; as regards (b) this year's numbers are about one third of those for 2011 - has RFA got so much more terrifying? We should look elsewhere for the reasons why the numbers of people who want to do this fairly thankless task are falling. JohnCD (talk) 08:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose/Maintain. The whole thing seems to hinge on the idea that once RFA is abolished, it would only take a week or so to put together an acceptable alternative. That is hopelessly naive. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Maintain Marking it historical is a sure way to ensure failure. But I do like the idea of adding additional mechanisms. I have proposed the idea of a selection board in the past as mentioned above by Vanisaac. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Maintain I'd love to see improvements in the RFA process. Those who say it's the people that's broken, not the process, overlook that processes are there to be operated by people. So I agree that RFA needs improvement to remove, or at least reduce, the nastiness and arbitrariness. But this is rushed; the idea that we can come up with consensus so quickly just because we've marked the current one historical is wildly optimistic; and the prescription that "going back to a modified form of the existing RfA process is not an option" prejudices consensus and is a showstopper for me. Instead, we should be trying out ideas like some of those suggested in User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform, piecemeal and with the option to reverse them. --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Maintain but move straight on to agree a reform package. Credit to the proposers for kickstarting this debate. Don't agree "it can't be reformed without scrapping it": when previous credible attempts were launched, the recruitment rate had not been so low for so long: Noyster (talk), 10:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, though I find myself extremely sympathetic to the other side as well. I think the proposers might well be right that the best way forward from our current format might be "blow it up and start again from the ground up," but I find the notion that if we do blow it up, the people will magically come together, quickly and neatly, into consensus to be naive. Historical efforts to change RFA have failed largely because while everyone agrees it's broken and needs to change, everyone's fix is different; if we want any hope of fixing RFA, we're going to have to first find a way to route around the tendency to agree in a cacophony of disagreement. I think we may have reached a point now where people are going to be willing to compromise on RFA/proposal format in exchange for a discussion that ends actually-truly-actionably, and I think floating that sort of proposal should be our first step, not just blowing up RFA and hoping the rest fixes itself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks fluff. In fact our thinking wasn't quite as naive as it might seem. We did anticipate some of the difficulty you foresee (the Abilene paradox ) but we felt if we could first kill the beast , it would open the way for a well structured RfC (perhaps a recursive version of the pending changes RfC) to narrow down the available alternatives. Beeblebrox was mentioned above as the first choice to lead that had the first stage of this reform attempt found consensus, and had he declined, I had your good self in mind as the second choice. In hindsight it might had been better to have planned this out better, I was perhaps too concious of the too much prep/ not enough action issue that has sunk so many previous attempts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As a former Abilenian, I will grant you +1 point for linking to that relevant article. Dennis - 2¢ 15:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Maintain - There's nothing wrong with RfA as it is. Good candidates are approved without much fuss (apparently we have right now a good example ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn), bad candidates ared snowed under, and controversial candidates will have to answer a lot of questions. Those who complain are mostly the candidates who are either ambitious or egocentric and were voted down for evident failure to comply with the minimum requirements. Please give me some examples when a real good candidate was voted down by vicious antis for no good reason. Kraxler (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Three good candidates have passed in the last four months, counting Jackmcbarn. I don't mean to pick on you, but your rationale doesn't address the underlying problem. I completely agree with you that the current system rejects bad candidates, and that's desirable. But it also repels good candidates who aren't interested in subjecting themselves to the scrutiny of hundreds of self selected evaluators who all get to use their own criteria. Look at how many candidates sign up for an RFA nowadays; something is quite obviously wrong with RFA as it is. Townlake (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have to think about what is truly "bad". The problem is that many !voters sometimes have unreasonable expectations of candidates, and when they (understandably) don't meet them, we call them "bad" candidates. If we loosened the expectations a bit, I think we would find that some candidates who would normally be called "bad" would actually make pretty good admins. --Biblioworm 15:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good point Biblioworm. A few seem to have such a strong belief in the infallibility of the current system, they think the very fact someone failed is proof they were a bad candidate. There are several failed candidates who would have been top tier admins IMO, but pointless to point out who they are. The problem is there's no comparable alternate way to assess someones quality that would be widely accepted. And no point pitting one's personal opinion against aggregate community judgement as expressed by the RfA monster! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I also want to add here that a single nomination that appears to successful (so far) is not sufficient evidence to claim that this downward trend is changing. I, JethroBT drop me a line 01:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. So, no examples are coming forth, just theoretical diffuse criticism, because someone you supported was voted down. I've not always voted the same as the eventual result, but I've never been on the verge of abandoning Wikipedia because of it. Strange/unconvincing/nonsensical oppose rationales can amount to 30% of the votes without prejudice. I doubt that more than 30% "trolls" (many rationales are judged unconvincing and nonsensical by some, but heartily endorsed by others, but for argument's sake let's say "trolls") would appear at any RfA. Overall, explanations for the declining number of successful candidatures might be: A)) Editors who create mainspace-content don't want to lose time with janitorial tasks. B)) A general decline of the number of editors leads to a general decline of numbers of admins/RfAs. C)) Many, including otherwise "good", long-time editors have been involved in unsavoury controversies and scandals in the past. If they run, they are voted down despite their expertise, because the community wants to avoid more trouble. If they don't run, the number of RfAs declines, but at least the editors show common sense. Etc. et al. Kraxler (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose - we should either reform RFA, or draft a new one and replace the current one with that. We shouldn't shut down RFA until we have a new process to replace it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Maintain - By all means experiment by limiting comments as suggested above but I am not convinced there is a better way of doing it. I get the impression that almost anyone could get to be an admin in the early years. We are now getting the best.Charles (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Maintain - Blowing it up solves nothing other than more arguments and nothing getting done, There's no doubt about it RFA one way or another needs to change but personally I have no idea how!.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Expecting a polarized, dysfunctional group of people to behave less dysfunctionally when put under additional pressure seems unwise. See Budget sequestration in 2013. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Maintain RfA works for most tools. We should remove the two sets of privileges which people have real trust issues with (deletion and restriction oriented tools) and then move forward from there. GraniteSand (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Simmer down, folks. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Read WP:RFA2011 - apart from the fact that NOTNOW applications happen, RFA is about where the community wants. Although a lot of people agree that it's "broken", their perceptions of the brokenness go in various directions, and it's the sensible compromise. If I think the thermostat is five degrees too hot, and my wife thinks it's five degrees too cold, we both agree that it's at the wrong temperature, and yet, that doesn't mean there's a better temperature for us to set it at. Parallel process proposals don't fail because the existing process exists, they fail because other potential processes all have less community support than the process we have. If you want to increase the number of successful RfAs, there's only one course of action. Go do new page patrol, and assist and mentor new editors, rather than chasing them away and deleting their work. In the interim ... well "We want more new admins to be created; therefor, we want to eliminate the only method of creating new admins" is a sow's ear. WilyD 13:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Counterproductive and reckless to hold a vote on abolishing RfA when you haven't come up with a community-approved replacement beforehand. Resolute 13:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep seeing this argument and I consider it bizarre. The current system is virtually unused, and has been for a long time. It isn't reckless to bulldoze an abandoned house. Townlake (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternately Townlake it isn't "doing" anything or "impeding" anything and there are candidates who could pass that are not running. One or more might decide to run soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose until consensus reached on alternative. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Maintain. RfA generally works (maybe needs a few tweaks) but we need more editors to want to take on the admin tools, and there are factors unrelated to RfA that put people off. The constant complaining about how terrible the RfA process is is probably as off-putting as the process itself. Make adminship a more pleasant experience and encourage good editors with sufficient experience who we can trust with the tools to apply and the rest will take care of itself. --Michig (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Maintain - much good has come of this discussion. Its Achilles heel is the notion that RFA must be dismantled before a new process is developed. It may be best to recognize this flaw, and withdraw this proposal now; refocusing on an alternative process while there is still a surplus of positive energy.—John Cline (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion John. As the original thread starter, I don't plan on having further involvement here unless by some miracle this !vote gets close enough so it's worth calling in a crat to determine the result. But if anyone wants to close this vote and re-purpose the discussion to seek consensus for a parallel or replacement RfA process, that would be fine by me. Pinging I, JethroBT , Church and Oiyarbepsy as they seemed especially interested in a new process or were the first to propose running one in parallel, but yourself or any other editor would be most welcome to step in too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you FeydHuxtable, for acknowledging my dissent in such a kind manner! You can expect my participation in any discussion that ensues from here. I do have some information, not yet shown by a link, that I believe could be helpful and will gladly share. But I could not muster the strength, participation requires, unless I was following your lead; a beneficiary of the therapeutic recharge you exude – in optimism, sincerity of purpose, and tireless zeal. These infectious qualities are more essential to success than any other tangible thing and they manifest in abundance by your thoughtful endeavors. I do hope you've the strength to forge on! Sincerely.—John Cline (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Secret account 02:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Maintain/Oppose. If it ain't broke don't fix it.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It ain't broken, eh? [10]. --Biblioworm 19:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Maintain/Oppose An imperfect system is better than none at all, and per my comment in the discussion above. WaggersTALK 13:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Maintain the current — This is a conflation of correlation and causation. Speaking as an admin myself, I simply have less time in real life, and I feel a similar sentiment from others society-wide. We're volunteers, and the current political and economic landscape is not conducive (even hostile) to volunteering, because the time spent volunteering is instead being spent trying to stay alive. There's a political rant to be made, but I'll refrain. Of course, wiki-side, the simple problem with RFA is that !votes aren't ignored by patrolling bureaucrats when they aren't in line with current admin policy. For example, when people "oppose" based on "not enough article improvement edits" or "I don't like this edit they made" or "this edit made a mistake" (an extremely common occurrence) when someone's clearly almost exclusively an anti-vandal patroller or something, it's not at all an argument that's in line with the admin policy (there's precisely zero requirement for admins to make article improvement edits or be generally well-rounded wiki citizens); therefore, they should probably summarily be ignored but in actuality aren't. I, myself, probably haven't made substantial mainspace edits for years—doesn't mean I don't try my best to clear out backlogs—the place where admins are most needed—when and if I have free time. Similarly, RFA questions that are divisive, contentious, or loaded to select for an ideology, much like those posed to political candidates, could also be screened for and removed by bureaucrats or other editors. Regardless, nuke-and-rebuild is contrary to the way things typically work in this community, and I think simple changes—diffs—should be the method of first resort when possible, and, for RfA, it's obviously possible. --slakr\ talk / 15:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose When we come up with something better then our current system will become moot. Until then we should not dismantle what we have in the hopes that we come up with something better later. Chillum 15:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Maintain It is an unwarranted assumption that some new admin process will gain consensus soon after we scuttle the present process. There will be just as many naysayers, power-mad demagogues or just-plain stubborn people insisting on having things their way with RFA dead as there have been in the past. Burning bridges is not always a winning proposition. Let's see a replacement process. I for one would welcome an improvement. Many of the brainstorms suggested above were very unworkable. Wikipedia editors have the ability to craft a really good process for choosing and supervising sysops. Edison (talk) 20:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Maintain. Unless having no new admins is an acceptable outcome, removing the current process is not the first step in approving a new process; it's the first step toward anarchy. (Some say we are already there.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  40. If you have a broken arm (minor injury), you just don't replace it. You need to find a way to repair it. Many months ago, a proposal by Anna Frodesiak wanted a pre-RFA page where possible candidates get to have a feel and understanding on what they may expect in an RFA and if they are qualified for it (or something like that, I forgot where the discussion page is). A process like that is ideal for an RFA as it gives possible candidates confidence and most of all a good feedback on your standpoint. RFA may be a difficult process for some, rather than replace a process which have been on Wikipedia for years, there is no need to replace it at this time. If there is need for more candidates, just look around, it isn't complicated. ///EuroCarGT 19:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The thread is here. The best argument against it was that one can create it in their own userspace. However, I reject claims that it would be another hoop to jump through because it would be optional. (I was out of town during the discussion and was unable to state my views.) I think it may produce admins, and being optional, would at the very least do no harm. Plus, it may inspire watchers to consider themselves as candidates. I really wish it could be created and tested for a month. If it doesn't work out, MfD it. What do we have to lose? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Maintain After much thought, I've come to this: RfA is very broken, but the process isn't the problem. RfA has community problems. The community wouldn't agree on any new system even if RfA was abolished. --AmaryllisGardener talk 19:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Andrevan@ 05:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose – The system certainly has its flaws to an extent and requires community input to adequately consider what specifically needs change. With that said, I don't believe scrapping the system in its entirety is appropriate, in response to aspects which can be worked on should we get a common understanding on where it's failing. —MelbourneStar☆talk 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Until a replacement is in place that is accepted by the community, the burecrats, and WMF I will not close the route for promoting new admins. Hasteur (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, not because RfA works as it is (it's flawed at the moment and right now not enough people are being promoted), but because there hasn't been consensus for a replacement yet. Theoretically, if consensus dictates that RfA be abolished, but a replacement system is not implemented until later, we could go for quite a while without any new admins. I'd rather have only a handful of editors becoming admins than none at all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose My comment is pretty much the same as most other people's ones here; we need to have a proper solid framework for a new process before abolishing the current one. RfA is seriously flawed, and can be derailed by trolls very quickly... but it IS better than nothing, albeit marginally. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Maintain . There was a time when I was one of the loudest proponents for change or replacement. If WP:RFA2011 didn't bring about ay physical changes, it nevertheless provided masses of useful data, most of which is still relevant today, and demonstrated that that the problems were largely do to the behaviour of the !voters. It sent a clear message to the community and if the proponents of this RfC had done their homework, they would not have ignored the fact that for a year or two now RfA has become far less of the venue where editors and trolls could post their drivel with impunity. The issues with the voters can be fixed as recent RfA have shown and in doing so reinforces the message to the community that excessive drama on RfA is no longer going to be passively tolerated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and implement a parallel (or replacement) system first

I have added a third option here as I think the whole discussion, suffers from impromptu structuring and is missing to target something that is being supported but not asked for in the RFC section itself. Many 'maintain' / 'oppose' !votes state (including mine) they would rather support a replacement or parallel but not outright abolishing; effectively supporting the #list of parallel options in a section above but not taking it into consideration here in objective consensus building. With that in mind, I have added this and moved my own comment here to establish consensus for clearing out atleast one thing that a parallel process is okay if there is no abolishing or abolishing is done on its own merit if at all at a later stage (or not; that can still be counted if no one moves their !vote here). Hopefully achieving a clear cut consensus on going for a parallel or replacement (either or both) process will perhaps result in a fresh discussion such as hashing out Wikipedia talk:Administrative standards commission on basis "now that consensus for trying without abolishing is established". If this section gets a wide consensus, this debate is less likely to die out as community would have made clear that they want to start a structured discussion on proposals and not WP:SNOW any attempt for new proposals and that would automatically start a discussion about just proposals (as per consensus even if it includes sorting of all possible proposals in the list). --lTopGunl (talk) 10:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support parallel as nom. Maintain for now, while I propose another section right below this which defines and establishes consensus on one or more experimental proposals. Such a proposal can run as an alternate route to RFA in parallel and we'll have A/B testing results soon enough while at the same time there will be iterations on the experimental system to near the refinement of RFA. While the experimental system remains (and ofcourse after some basic refinement), it can be optional for candidates to choose either. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Moved here from oppose. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - I have no doubt that the current system is problematic, but we need some system in place continuously. Once a new systewm is prepared, we can discuss replacing the current system with it, or having both in parallel. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support yes we need a replacement, but RFA does let some people through and should be kept until we have a replacement ready. ϢereSpielChequers 14:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I proposed a weaker consensus requirement for admins open to recall, and there was not much opposition. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC).
  5. Support - As per Od Mishehu. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 06:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support - This discussion is unlikely to give birth to any clear, sane alternative to the current RfA process, which is what we'd need in order to facilitate a swift and orderly transition. Blowing something away before you've even built the replacement is almost certain to cause a meltdown. Reticulated Spline (t • c) 00:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Obviously we should first have something ready to replace the existing process. Or, even simpler, just make the existing process simpler. Debresser (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support while I agree the existing system is very flawed, I would feel a lot more comfortable if with ditching it if we had some other way of creating admins available, as not having any coherent system available is the most certain way of ensuring we get fewer admins. John Carter (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support in principle - but any parallel beta test should not under any circumstances make the tools easier to obtain. To do so would play into the hands of those who are simply hoping that reform will increase their likelihood of getting the bit; also to do so would play into the hands of those who maintain that it is already too easy, who believe that too many badmins abound, and who generally tar all admins with the same brush. An alternative scheme must have a clear consensus for testing only by a large turnout of the community , with a firm promise that implementation would only follow after a further RfC following proven, positive results of the test. Let it be noted however that for any test to be realistic, we need to get back to having a sufficient number of candidates every month for at least a year for such testing to be conclusive. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it might be useful if we created something like "yeoman" or "-in-training" admins. Giving the people who seek adminship some of the lesser tools first, particularly any that they might have some interest in using, and seeing how well they do with them for maybe up to a year before seeking the more controversial admin tools, might be one way to ferret out some people with perhaps less than optimum judgment. And, maybe, having some more people active in an editor review process for wannabe admins might be useful to, although we would know that a lot of those seeking such review will be editing very carefully in preparation to their candidacy. John Carter (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, not wishing to deflate your idea, but similar suggestions are WP:PEREN and have never reached consensus. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What problem are we trying to solve?

I think more important than the number of admins or the process for making admins is: what problem are we trying to solve here? Are we trying to reduce backlogs? Close more discussions? Deal with AN/I reports in a different manner? We only have about 3,000 users making more than 100 edits a month, yet we have 500 admins (1/6). I think a better way forward for this discussion would be for concerned users to identify and discuss what areas they'd actually like to see improved (eg. backlogs, etc.), as I don't believe simply having more admins will resolve some of the underlying problems which many users discuss above (eg dealing with difficult, contentious or stressful issues). So my question is: if we have more admins, what problems will be solved? --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need 500 admins. We need 500 active ones. And the fact that the number of them is appalling and the fact that the current RfA has been described as a "toxic atmosphere" and "character assassination" (just to state the relatively good ones) by our most veteran editors makes me ashamed, if not all of us. --Ankit Maity «T § C» 13:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we have circa 3,000 editors who make over 100 edits a month and 500, rather 580 "active" admins, but the "active" admins are those doing over 30 edits in the last two months, I don't know if anyone measures how many editors we have who have done over 30 edits in the last two months, but I'd bet it is far more than 3,000. However those aren't the numbers I would compare. Our need for admins is more closely related to article creation and new editors than it is to the number of active editors. Apart from edit warring and occasionally incivility the regulars don't generate much work for the admins, or not much compared to newbies and IPs. A high proportion of new articles by newbies get deleted, and the vast majority of blocks are of IP editors or newbies. We need admin cover 24 hours a day, seven days a week in order to delete attack pages and block vandals as fast as we do. Doing that with volunteers, many of whom put little time into doing admin work, requires a lot of volunteers. If 500 of our 3,000 most active editors were admins then I could see people getting complacent and thinking we have plenty of time to solve the admin problem, but that depends on your definition of the admin problem. To me one of our admin problems is that we have a wikigeneration of editors who are almost unrepresented in the admin cadre, with only 18 admins whose first edit was this decade, and some of those will have had earlier accounts we have a gulf between a large part of the community and the admins. My solution to that would be to encourage candidates who started editing in 2012 or before and meet the de facto criteria. As long as have added referenced content, have had no recent blocks and any deletion tagging you have done recently is accurate, then an active editor can have an easy ride at RFA. If anything the increased emphasis on the question section and the lack of people who actually spend hours looking through your edits means that RFA is easier than it has been at some times in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I passed RFA in April of 2012, and yes, it is easier to pass now. I had 1800 AFDs with a 80+% success rate, and over 90% CSD correct ratio, and 31 opposed. You see people complain (me) if they have ZERO experience in deletions (which is a fair reason), but the bar and drama is noticeably lower than it was 2-4 years ago. Dennis - 2¢ 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins aren't necessarily needed to police the 3000 active, known, good-faith editors at Wikipedia, but the tens of thousands of drive-by, random, vandalous, ax-grinding, sock-puppet accounts we have. The idea that admins should be some fraction of the "active" editorship, and that over (or less than) that fraction is bad is fallacious, and a bullshit stat. Indeed, there was a time when "active editors" were basically all admins; the bit was given to anyone who hung around long enough to prove they weren't going to screw it up. Perhaps we should formally go back to those days. The admin bit has become far to precious, and if we gave it away more freely, we could take it away freely too, and people wouldn't make such a big deal about it. --Jayron32 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia moves very fast when there's a real problem that needs a real solution. As things stand now, de-sysopping is easily done by presenting evidence of actual abuse. When there's been real abuse, community pressure is intense, and the admin usually resigns right away. If not, the case is brought to ArbCom and rectified. I've come around to the view that this process works well enough. If it didn't people would jump aboard some of these other proposals. Jehochman Talk 15:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a case before ArbCom that will likely be accepted very shortly. At the crux of that case is an administrator who has been uncivil for many years. It's taken that long for something to be done about it. If that's working "well enough", then I agree it's working as well as RFA is at vetting candidates. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, but the problem with that case is Wikipedia has never found a good way to define incivility or deal with it on any level. I don't think RFC would help. On balance I think it's good to minimize the venues where people can talk about each other, and instead get them to talk with each other (via user talk pages) or to go edit an article. Jehochman Talk 13:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not really trying to solve anything. What this recent flurry of discussion is doing is simply to propose solutions/measures that will just create even more bureaucrcy on a Wikipedia that is totally bureaucratic already, and based on a very loose theory that RfA is still as toxic as it was when I started WP:RFA2011.
Jehochman, you might move very fast sometimes, especially in areas where you feel passionately concerned, but Arbcom is a very sluggish engine, one which even needs to calculate the quantity and quality of its fuel before it will accept a charter for each journey. It is also in fact quite rare that it will entertain the taking of patterns of behaviour into consideration. If it would, a lot more admins, paid editors, agents of incivility, and self-proclaimed prolific content editors who consider themselves immune to sanctions would have been subjected to restrictions by now. It's interesting to see how many admins have been desysopeed 'for cause' over the last 4 years (and Arbs thrown out), and in each and every case I saw the writing on the wall for them long before formal complaints were made. Even WMF staff are not exempt from being desysoped, but by and large, IMO, desysoping does not take place as often as it should. That's what the community should be looking at and not a reform of the RfA process right now; but of course without starting witch hunts or tarring all admins with the same brush as some are wont to do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A new kind of gadget

Hi all. I'm a persistent contributor since 2008, but mainly to the Spanish Wikipedia and MediaWiki. Some time ago I thought that many articles would benefit a lot if we could embed simple programs, widgets, to illustrate the concepts within them. More recently I realised that this may be accomplished through gadgets, so today I adapted an app I made some time ago, turned it into a gadget that could serve to illustrate the article Langton's ant (I make this proposal in the English Wikipedia because that article doesn't exist in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I don't feel like translating it yet). The code of the gadget can be found here and here. Basically, what it does is insert a small widget with a Langton's ant cellular automata inside any div with id "LangtonsAnt". I've put one of those divs in the Langton's ant article, so you can see it in action (after you copy the gadgets code to your own common.js and common.css, of course).

The widget/gadget is very simple, almost disappointing, but I didn't want to devote much time to it before knowing your opinion. If your response is a positive one, I'll enhance the widget/gadget and internationalise it for other Wikipedias to follow. I also want to do one for Elementary cellular automaton and maybe another for Conway's game of life. Other users may create widgets/gadgets for completely different articles of course. For example for ilustrating the movement of planets around the Sun, or old astronomical theories, or whatever, the field is huge.

If you visit the gadgets section in your preferences you'll notice that gadgets are divided in sections (Browsing, Watchlist, Editing, etc). What I propose is to start a new section, titled Articles or whatever, where would go gadgets that insert widgets into articles, to illustrate the concepts within them. I'm presenting the first of these widgets/gadgets to help convey the idea and start a healthy debate (if you criticise the gadget itself, you didn't understand the proposal). Any support? Any objections? Any comments? Thanks! --LFS (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I understand it correctly, I am vehemently opposed to this proposal. Gadgets are only usable by logged-in editors, which represent a miniscule proportion (I believe well below 1%) of en-wiki page views. If I'm understanding your proposal right in meaning that pages will contain certain content which is only visible by people who've registered, this creates a hierarchical structure among readers to go with the existing anti-IP prejudice among editors, and goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. 80.43.178.28 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Gadgets are only usable by logged-in editors" No they're not. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can anons use gadgets? I've been looking for a while but couldn't find a way. Anons can't even create a common.js page under their own user page. However, even if anons can't view the widgets right now, it doesn't mean that they will never be able to do so. For example, if we follow Technical 13's suggestion below and create a gadget that checks for widgets for each page, that gadget may eventually be moved to MediaWiki:Common.js, where it would run for every user, anon or not. --LFS (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what's confusing about this is the terminology. Basically what you're asking for here is a way to attach JavaScript to particular pages (that would run for anyone, user or not, visiting the page), the same way it's possible to attach editnotices to particular pages; this would be quite different from a gadget (other than with respect to programming languages). (It would certainly be a bad idea to have scripts intended for one page to work site-wide, for performance reasons). One thing that worries me is security, but that would likely be fixable (e.g. by only allowing admins, or perhaps template editors, to update the pages; this is the same restriction as exists for editnotices). With respect to the proposal as I see it, I'm reasonably neutral; technically it could be made to work, but I'm unclear as to whether it's a good idea. --ais523 22:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This could be done reasonably, but not in the way that the proposer has suggested. It would be done as a single gadget in the "Browsing" section. This gadget would check and see if a page existed called "MediaWiki:{{PAGENAME}}", and if such a page existed, it would import the script and reload the page. In order to get a script for a specific page, you would have to put in an edit request for an administrator to review your script (might be slow, not a lot of *.js reading admins atm) and post it to the appropriate page. Keep in mind, anything that would be done by a script for a specific page would need to be additional content for readability (generated table or content pulled from someplace else) and not required for the topic to exist as the topic would have to show it's own notability without the "extra". There are a couple places that such a feature might be useful, and I would support it if put together properly. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad to read that the objections are mainly to the implementation and not with the general idea of including widgets into the articles. I now see that making one gadget per article would be very inefficient, as it would load every gadget in every page, so I agree with Technical 13's suggestion of making one gadget that checks if there is a widget available for the current page and loads it. However, one correction: the gadget shouldn't check on MediaWiki:{{PAGENAME}}, but on MediaWiki:{{PAGENAME}}.js, MediaWiki:{{PAGENAME}}.css and MediaWiki:{{PAGENAME}}.i18n.json as I expect many of the widgets to have JavaScript, CSS and possibly internationalisation code. But that's a technical issue. The important thing is that I could code such a gadget. Should I? What other objections or problems are there? Also, one advantage of this gadget is that if the initiative works, its code could eventually be moved to MediaWiki:Common.js, where it would run for anons as well as for logged-in users. --LFS (talk) 15:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could be accomplished with Brion VIBBER's mw:Extension:EmbedScript. (The page says it's a work in progress.) --Yair rand (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's also the mw:Extension:Widgets, but the problem with these extensions is that in order to use them we would first need the Foundation to approve them and deploy them, which is a slow and uncertain process. I think it would be more efficient to first develop some widgets as gadgets, and if we see that the idea catches on, then request the Foundation to support it by deploying some extension more fit to the task. --LFS (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this kind of initiative – many of the best science museums are taking advantage of hands-on small-scale models to demonstrate concepts. Web applications can deliver something similar online. It is completely different from anything we have on Wikipedia at the moment, but I think this is a very valid expansion for a website like ours. Games can be amazing learning tools and such applications could help users engage more easily with complex topics, like Monte Carlo method for instance. SFB 20:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're discussing technical suggestions, I'd suggest causing page-specific scripts (I hate the term "gadget" for this, it clearly isn't) to replace images. Users with JavaScript disabled would just get an image (perhaps an animated one). With JavaScript enabled, they'd get an interactive image in the same place/size on the page. --ais523 12:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good caveat. SFB 18:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds fine for scripts that are intended to change an image, but not all scripts would do that. There might be a table on a page that has static information that is relatively up-to-date, and a script that pulls information from some source on the most up to the minute information. This might be a table in a category of images for example (not likely in article space as that would be OR) that gives the most recent information about it's members (page size, last updated, last editor, image size, etc). I remember someone asking me for such a script for a wikiproject a while back (which I had all but forgotten about until now). — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that having alternative content for users without JavaScript is a good idea, but there is no need for it to be an image. The widgets can enter the DOM by replacing the content of a span or div appropriately named (for example with id "HandsOn", see my comment below). If the div contains an image, then that image will be displayed for users without JavaScript. But the div could also contain a table, a gallery, a simple message, or nothing, whatever fits best. --LFS (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering what has been said, all that may need to be done to kickstart the project is to add the following to MediaWiki:Common.js:
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 0 && mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) === 'view' ) {
	importScript( 'MediaWiki:HandsOn-' + mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) + '.js' );
}
The code checks if the page is in the main namespace and if the user is viewing (as opposed to editing) the page. If yes, then it loads the script at MediaWiki:HandsOn-{{PAGENAME}}.js The "HandsOn" prefix is to avoid confusion until this project gets its own protected namespace. I chose "HandsOn" because of the comment by ais523 above, but if anyone has a better suggestion for naming the project and/or the prefix, please bring it forth. I mentioned earlier that many of the widgets will probably include CSS and i18n code, but the calls to import such resources should be done from within the widgets main JavaScript file, to avoid unnecessary calls when they don't exist. So what do you all think? Is this approach appropriate? --LFS (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, except it would need to check that there was page specific code to run before trying to import it. Also, do we want to limit this to article namespace, or could this be useful for portals, wikiprojects, categories, etc? The test for being in view mode is good. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about it, but to check if the title exists requires an API call, and then another call to include the script, whereas if we just import it, we would do only one call, and if the page doesn't exist then we would just include an empty document (I've checked). The console outputs no error. It's kind of ugly, but it's harmless and saving one call per page load may be worth it. What do you think? Regarding the other namespaces, I can't think of many uses yet, but I'm sure the community will eventually find them, so I'm in favor. --LFS (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a solution: to check the DOM for the existence of the #HandsOn div. If it exists, we can safely assume there is a corresponding page-specific script. If it doesn't, then we don't. This way we do one call max, and in the rare case in which there is a #HandsOn div and no page-specific script, we do the harmless import I was talking about above. --LFS (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if ( mw.config.get( 'wgNamespaceNumber' ) === 0 && mw.config.get( 'wgAction' ) === 'view' && $( '#HandsOn').length ) {
	importScript( 'MediaWiki:HandsOn-' + mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) + '.js' );
}

Thinking again, it is probably better to get rid of the first two conditions, and leave only the check for the existence of the #HandsOn div. This way the script can run in any namespace in which the div is found, and it can also be viewed in the preview of the edit form! --LFS (talk) 13:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

if ( $( '#HandsOn').length ) {
	importScript( 'MediaWiki:HandsOn-' + mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) + '.js' );
}

I've translated Langton's ant to Spanish so I'm also proposing this in the Spanish Wikipedia, my home project. While doing so I realised that "WikiWidget" would probably be a better name and prefix than "HandsOn", for being clearer and more understandable in other languages. --LFS (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Autocollapse" state (for templates) is not pretty good

There is currently a discussion as to if and how templates should autocollapse - see Template talk:Navbox#"Autocollapse" state is not pretty good Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Accidentally duplicated discussion that degrades into personal attacks

Why the default behavior is "autocollapse"? There are many articles with one template. Then is a problem: the expanded template takes more place on the page, attracts a lot of attention. Is not better "collapsed" or ""? Who want, can expand it for himself, and default it would be seen collapsed on the page--Unikalinho (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You already opened a thread about this at Template talk:Navbox#"Autocollapse" state is not pretty good. There's no need to have a second one. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I was sent here to discuss this theme!--Unikalinho (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Give a brief summary of exactly what you're proposing here, with a link back to there to actually have the discussion. Otherwise, we'll end up having it in both places. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm... AS to the link, I don't understand, you self indicated it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Navbox#.22Autocollapse.22_state_is_not_pretty_good
As to my theme: When a template has state "autocollapse", on the pages, which have one template, is this template expanded. I think, it's better to have it instead of this collapsed. So would the page have the compact form, and the template wouldn't attract a lot of attention... Example - here. The template, think I, would better to have collapsed.--Unikalinho (talk) 03:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I didn't send you here to duplicate your original question... I told you that if you wanted to globally change the navbox policy so that the default state for navboxes was collapse, you would need to get consensus here for that change. That is not what you have attempted to do here... — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 02:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I attempt to begin the discussion here... Must I select necessary the other speech?
When a consensus was reached, I would like to see it. When no -- why can I not discuss this theme?--Unikalinho (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only one man has expressed. I am allowing me to cite him:
I do not see a reason why it should be changed. When there is only one template, i think it's good that it is expanded right away..
All the users really think the same?--Unikalinho (talk) 09:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly. Allmost nobody want to discuss, so I summarize. In 30-50 years the temblates will be such massive youselves will collapse it :)--Unikalinho (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression there was some kind of CSS that meant navboxes only autocollapsed if there was more than one. That I think is a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC).

Do Away with RFC/U

The Request for Comments on User Conduct is not constructive or useful and should be discontinued. Because the requirements for certification are complicated and rigid, it is seldom used. When it is used, it is confrontational, and is typically a device for one combative editor to beat up another combative editor. The RFC/U process also is too often inconsistent, in that the stated objective of the certifiers is usually to persuade the subject editor to be more flexible, but the RFC/U is a process that promotes defensiveness, not flexibility, and typically the real objective of the RFC/U is not to change the behavior of the subject editor, but to restrict the editing privileges. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, it appears that one of its purposes was as a preliminary measure to requesting that an editor be banned by User:Jimbo Wales, when it was the basis for presenting the evidence to Jimbo. Jimbo no longer uses the reserved power to ban users. Users are instead banned by the ArbCom, based on a full evidentiary case, or by the community at the noticeboards. RFC/U is only seldom used as the basis for requesting arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It looks like Robert neglected to notify about this on the page he's proposing to abolish. I've put a notification there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with your thoughts on this, and thanks for bringing this up, Robert McClenon. In my experience it seems to be a prolonged way of letting users be reminded or notified about their past failures with hopes of inspiring a mea culpa and provoking change. I do not think this is a healthy process and, like you mention, "certifying" a request means it is rarely done and fills WP with yet more bureaucratic overhead. I hope this discussion continues here or elsewhere. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – This is a prime example of a process laden with bureaucratic nonsense, which serves no real purpose, and which does not function. It is a combative approach that is only bound to fail. We have other channels that work much better for this purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, conditionally. The absence of an RfC/U is often used as a basis for ArbCom to decline arbitration. If RfC/U is removed and ArbCom will not require it anyway, then we merely have a simplified structure. @RGloucester: What other channels do we have? ANI? I see three potential constructive uses of RfC/U, two which don't require the structure, and one which is, in fact, not constructive. (Using "he" for the subject of the RfC and "she" for commenters, without an attempt to imply which gender is more likely to be problematic.)
    1. To let him know what she thinks of his actions. (Good, but the structure is irrelevant as to whether it would be believed or followed. The discussion would need to be on a page other than his talk page, though, and that and ANI are the only current pages on which such a discussion would be allowed.)
    2. To let him know what she think he should do in order to avoid future problems. (Doesn't work.)
    3. To provide information for a future ArbCom request. (Currently required by ArbCom in some circumstances, and probably helpful to ArbCom even when not required. But, again, the structure is not necessary unless required by ArbCom.)
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish and find a more constructive way to discuss potential user issues. I do believe the process is useful, I just feel that the methods currently employed are degrading to all users that contribute. Our current method seem to me to be like putting someone in the Village stocks where the only thing you are allowed to throw at them are prickly cacti and they must be thrown with bare hands. This leads to editors with sore hands and one with a sore face... This is not productive to resolving conduct issues. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My views on RfC/U are long held, and I've only rarely seen instances where it was conducive to a positive outcome. Additionally, it has fallen into disuse over the past couple of years or so, which I think is emblematic of the evolution that our community has gone through over time. There have to be other ways of addressing user conduct issues; as far as I'm aware, AN and AN/I have yielded results more often than not. Kurtis (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish RfC/U and shift the process to an equivalent that can actually achieve results, e.g., ArbCom or AN/I. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support abolishing: it does not have any binding results and is a probable tool for harassment and confrontation without direct consequence. Technical 13 explains it elegantly. When things get bad, and discussion from more editors is needed about an editor who genuinely wants to improve without binding results or when an editor wants to get himself evaluated generally, a regular RFC can be used on their talk page. RFC/U is not of much value per se; and this is coming from an editor who has faced continuous hounding in past on many levels. As for ArbCom requirement, they can call an RFC on their own page or a subpage if they want community input before taking decision or for deferring to community. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification: Does this proposal to abolish RFC/U apply to "user of administrator privileges" RFCs as well as "general user conduct" ones? (Not supporting or opposing anything, just seeking clarity.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abolish. The only one I have ever taken part in was Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Apteva, you can see how much confusion there was at the end about a "motion to close", since the person did not agree with the comments made about them. Finding an admin to do anything about the results was another problem--back to the drama boards over and over. This was a year-long nightmare for the twenty or so editors involved, and ended in four editors getting sanctioned for no reason at all, when the user filed one of many frivolous WP:AE requests against one of the signers of the RFCU. The RFCU process is high risk for established editors, and low risk for disruptive editors. Compare incivility as a tactic--much more effective. When you see what the alternatives are for dealing with genuinely disruptive users, you start to have some sympathy for those who are chronically abusive. Now, imagine what it might have been like if the twenty of us had been able to spend our energies on editing that year, instead of dealing with the disruptive user. —Neotarf (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - abolition as proposer. For reasons given above, as a mechanism which maximizes disruption while minimizing likelihood of actual result. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Newyorkbrad: Yes, my intention was that it applies to "administrator abuse" as well as "general user conduct". At the beginning of this year, the ArbCom desysopped two administrators without a preliminary RFC/U. In the recent case before the ArbCom, there is unnecessary drama about the RFC/U itself, which complicates the issue of whether the ArbCom should review issues about the actual conduct of the administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Especially admins. It is a very, very bad idea for anyone to get on the bad side of an admin, especially an abusive admin, just in case the attempt fails. —Neotarf (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've been saying it is a toothless process for years. That said, a process between WP:ANI and WP:ARB for non-admin might be useful, a dedicated page where discussion can happen over a couple of weeks, BUT there is still the possibility of sanctions if needed. That shouldn't stop us from killing a process that has failed to deliver results almost every time it is used, and RFC/U certainly is a failure. Admin are an odd case, probably better served by lowering the threshold for Arb review instead of a middle process (unless it really was just about editing...rare indeed), since Arb is the only body that can take issue sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Dennis Brown is spot on. Hard pressed to find any success from RFC/U that is not based on the subject making change on their own behalf. Typically RFC/U serves as a barrier to meaningful dispute resolution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - RFC/U, just like AN/I, is a place where POV pushers write absolute bullshit about someone who has got in the way of their POV pushing, with no fear of negative consequences for the lies being written. Until BLP standards are applied to anything that's written about another editor on Wikipedia, both places are disaster areas for truth and justice, and the appearance of Wikipedia as a place for honest, informed, mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)1[reply]
  • Support - RFC/U is terribly designed - it is the antithesis of mediation as it is designed for people to make pronouncements and speak past each other...it actually doesn't appear to serve any purpose and its construction and layout likewise preclude anything useful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Truth to be told I've never seen the point in it - User conduct 9 times out of 10 goes straight to AN/I, & Jimbo does bugger all hence Arbcom deals with it all instead.... All in all IMHO the board's as much help as a chocolate teapot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - All things being relatively equal, having the unified document listing out the faults of an editor (or administrator) makes for a penultimate "Come to the light" discussion. Yes the target of the RFC/U is very adversarial, but if it's risen to the level of an RFC/U there's already been multiple attempts to try and prevent the behavior before. Having a RFC/U makes it easier for others to point at for the eventual ArbCom case or AN community ban. Until the advocates can present a valid replacement, I'd rather keep RFC/U with warts and all because it does somewhat work for the time. Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those warts include the ability to tell absolute lies about the accused, with complete impunity. That cannot be part of any sensible justice system. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I recall that you declined to participate in the RFC/U against you (you might recall that I defended your right to do so), but I don't recall any policy that says editors can "tell absolute lies about the accused, with complete impunity". In fact, I believe it's rather typical to see complaints made at ANI during RFC/Us, and editors do get reprimanded and blocked for what they say in RFC/U discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, essentially per Casliber (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's really hard to argue with the case Robert McClenon makes here. Like WP:WQA before it, what RfCU could be if done well and what it is at the moment are so far removed from each other that I think it's time (if not past time) to retire it. If that means that editor and admin conduct concerns go straight to ArbCom, then so be it: ArbCom has been pretty good (though not perfect, of course) about sorting out which disputes and conduct issues are ripe for arbitration and which ones aren't. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. While it used to be useful, I don't think it's serving the purpose it once did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, never had any real teeth and was at best a bump in the road to ArbCom or a community banning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Either have the community deal with it at AN(I) or just send it off to ArbCom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From what I've seen from RfC/U, it's a way for opposing fractions to lobby shots and accusations back and forth at each other in attempt to force one side to capitulate or be blocked. The process is toothless, and all it does is allow grievances perceived or otherwise to fester. I can't see most people facing an RfC/U seeing the light, but instead feeling rightly or wrongly that they have been unjustly attacked. RfC/U seems more harmful than helpful. PaleAqua (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support right now, RFC/U basically serves as an impediment. People will say 'this is at the wrong venue... it should be at RFC/U' even though almost everyone knows that RFC/U is toothless. Getting rid of it is the best solution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - RFC/U is overly bureaucratic, flawed and usually ineffective in actually resolving user conduct issues.- MrX 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: the certification process is precisely to prevent it being used as "a device for one combative editor to beat up another". Kicking this upstairs to Arbcom means more rushed, un-nuanced decisions. Alternatively we will need a Village Pump (user behaviour). Certainly I would be sympathetic to a more rigorously policed RFC/U where attacks, doxxing, outing, unsupported allegations etc, were summarily removed. I don;t see how RFC/U is worse than some of the mammoth threads on AN/I, except that there may be less admin/expuser oversight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
"Less oversight" is one of the primary problems. Such an RfC/U in any form, reformed or unchanged, will always have less oversight than a community noticeboard, leaving such RfC/Us open to the typical messes that they are. RGloucester — ☎ 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RFC/U and AN/I are both routinely full of lies, unsubstantiated allegations, and general bullshit from POV pushers, including Aministrators. Neither serves Wikipedia well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as I said below, at least the structure of the AN/I noticeboard itself is not adversarial. There are times when AN/I works, and times when it doesn't. When it doesn't, the dispute should go to ArbCom. There is no need to add on the extra layer of "RfC/U", which doesn't work at all and tends to make the situation worse. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak conditional oppose until and unless we have some sort of clear and clearly defined alternative available. Maybe all that would require would be a separate main section at ANI or elsewhere, but I have no real reason to think that if this proposal to move it to ANI is assumed to be the outcome by most that others will necessarily think so as well and the lack of a clearly defined place to report such concerns would itself be problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as being a process that is no longer useful. The thing is, if you're doing your job as an admin properly, you're going to make enemies. The problem with any discussion on admin conduct therefore becomes sorting out the whining of contributors who have properly had their spam/personal attacks/whatever removed, from legitimate criticism. RFC/U does not offer a way to filter out the chaff, so any filing becomes a mass of unfocused complaining and whingeing, often masking real problems with admin conduct. I think at this point ArbCom or some other body where there is a human review before a case becomes real, is the best way to work out which user conduct cases require further attention, and which are just sour grapes. For full disclosure, I am an administrator myself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support - We need (1) a working process for the community removal of tools from administrators acting badly; (2) a fast process for the removal of tendentious POV warriors from the project. The existence of RFC/U stands in the way of the processes we actually need. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Long overdue. → Call me Hahc21 19:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I can't support, because I might be seen as biased - I was recently taken there myself (and nobody saw it proper to actually inform me for a further twenty hours, during which time 13 people were talking about me behind my back) for a triple matter: (i) to complain about two edits that I made that were entirely in accordance with WP:PER; (ii) to get an edit made to a protected page (which is outside the purview of RFC/U); and (iii) to get a page protection lifted. Of these, (i) was a non-issue; (ii) could have been dealt with by following WP:PER procedure and letting any admin respond, rather than insisting that I do it; (iii) should really have been sorted by the simple expedient of filing a WP:RFPU. So perhaps there is a lack of understanding as to what RFC/U is actually for. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have said this for years now, RFC/U are a waste of bytes --Guerillero | My Talk 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Abolish it. RFC/U has outlived its usefulness. ANI and ArbCom are more efficient and more effective at dispute resolution. Keep it simple and go with what works. Ignocrates (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Having participated in 2 or 3, I've long since felt the process is a waste of space. WormTT(talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support RfC/U's are a huge time sink and rarely improve things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I get the impression that they're typically filed because other dispute resolution mechanisms can't be put into place until the RFCU has been tried. Process for process' sake: WP:BURO anyone? Meanwhile, most RFCUs seem to be either a pile of tendentious people piling onto an innocent editor, or a huge group of people rightfully making objections about someone who ought to be sanctioned somewhere else without waiting for the RFCU. Neither one is a good idea: leave the innocents alone, and don't make proper sanctions wait. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - For every RfC/U that has ever worked, there are a small handful that either achieved nothing, or made things worse. Whilst I disagree that ANI or ArbCom are necessarily any better - ANI is a cesspit at the best of times, and ArbCom is so broken that it's beyond a joke, after all - the simple fact of the matter is that RfC/U does nothing other than give trolls a great big target in most cases. It cannot provide any binding sanctions, it cannot provide any binding remedies, and I seriously doubt most people know how to actually use it properly in the first place; at least, anyone who hasn't been dragged there before, or anyone who hasn't filed a case there. An entirely new method is needed; something that avoids most of the flaws of both ANI/ArbCom and RfC/U. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I have in the last 5 years seen only one or two cases where it has resulted in anything, and those could have been settled informally. It's just another bureaucratic step, and we at WP are much better at devising bureaucratic procedures than in making rationalism. Yes, it will throw an addition burden on arb com, which perhaps should resume its former role of deciding quickly on relatively minor matters. I think it would also call for an major improvement in AN/I, and I'm going to make a suggestion about that in the section below. But the first step is getting rid of it; it accomplishes so little that having nothing would be an improvement. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. And please make AN/I removal/reform next. (Who made up these disgusting venues?! How much intelligent thought went into their designs before implementation?! [This is what Man had to show for itself in the 21st century!? How embarrassing.]) Happy to see this going WP:SNOW. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not much to add to the above, I see a lot of names above I trust to know what they're talking about, and I've always had reservations. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I didn't have a pleasurable experience in my own Rfc/U (who ever does?), yet until we come up with a replacement, we should keep the Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support abolishing – I see no practical use for this process anymore. The informal aspects can be talk page discussions, which can be structured or unstructured according to need. The formal aspects should be going to the Arbitration Committee anyway. I support abolishing processes that needlessly duplicate functions and make Wikipedia harder to use. Harej (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All the arguments have been expressed already. The RfC/U process is both ineffectual and subject to abuse. I would not object to another process replacing it if it had the appropriate safeguards. BMK (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Oh hell yes. I've participated in a number of conduct-related RfCs, and without exception they've been toothless delaying actions, putting back for as many as several months the point where decisive action is taken against serial offenders. I have never once seen a RfC that resulted in an offender saying "I've been so terribly wrong, and will mend my ways from now on." Far more often, they're a vehicle for admins and the community to chorus, "Well, we can't do anything against this prolific editor merely because he's committed civility and NPA violations that'd get fifty newbies banned -- you haven't gone through an RfC yet!" It's an absurd waste of all our time. Ravenswing 07:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support abolition: it's an obsolete and exceptionally nasty process that brings no benefit to anyone, instead acting as an ideal place for witch-hunting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - RFC/U is too bureaucratic and tries to be a mini Arbcom but with out the power. I've participated in a couple and although they achieved the desired result (after being referred back to ANI) I felt they were exceptionally tedious and an unnecessary step in addressing issues of user behaviour. (More in the discussion section below). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is too bad that this process is generally misused, but that is the way of it. It requires massive restraint and good-faith, generally among parties that are inclined not to. I think I would leave it for the possible times it can work, but its mere existence has been misused too many times, so that 'take it to RfCU' has become an increasingly poor failure to address issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment many comments here suggest that AN/I is adequate alternative, but see "ANI process ... no longer think it fit for purpose. AN/I just does not usually work for high profile editors. The AN/I process lacks natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner, which means that sections can become kangaroo courts. In other cases because the process is unstructured, it just becomes a rehash of a content dispute in another forum. If RFC/U is to go and there good reasons for it to do so as it too mixes up prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner, then an alternative needs to be considered as AN and AN/I are in most case not a suitable alternatives. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that AN/I is prone to thoughtless mob justice. It's okay for a simple "incident" that can be looked at in 30 seconds. For deeper matters, it's not deliberative. I think that the best place to discuss an editor is their own talk page. We can use some sort of flag, such as {{RFC}} to invite outside comments. If the user doesn't want to talk, then an admin can be summoned to apply a block if problematic behavior continues, the matter can be brought to arbitration. WP:ANI isn't for dispute resolution; it's for requesting administrative action when clearly needed. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like references to legal terminology, here. Such terminology strikes me as highly inappropriate. "AN/I does not work for high profile editors", PBS says. Nor do RfC/Us, nor would any other process that does not involve the Arbitration Committee. The only process that is capable of resolving intractable disputes of the kind that are not suited to the AN/I mob is ArbCom, because it is theoretically protected from the mob by elections. Whether that works out in practice is another sorry, and we shall have to see how, for example, the GGTF case turns out. Regardless, no proposed "replacement" would solve the problems you mention. The best thing to do is lower the threshold for ArbCom, and removing RfC/Us is one of the ways we can do that. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::AN/I has become all these things because we've allowed it to become the playground for meta wanabees and the peanut gallery, and that's why so few admins want to work there. Those who are sufficiently thick skinned have to run the gauntlet of the anti-adminship brigade who arrive there to defend anyone who has quite rightly been accused of inappropriate editing or behaviour. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, regrettably. RfC/U has not been a useable process for years. Unless and until there are rules of procedure, etc., along with a clear way of using the results, it's no different than an AN/ANI subpage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Support: If it works, its most 'useful' aspect is as a bludgeoning tool. We're at a ratio of 9-1 to close, and this RfC's been open for coming up on two weeks. There's little doubt about the outcome of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's a toothless tiger, just like Wikiquette assistance that is also abolished. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support. I like the idea of RfC/U. I have seen discussions hop straight from ANI to ArbCom (although I generally avoid reading the proceedings either much these days, having more important and enjoyable things to do with my life than watch Wikipedians bicker). The hopeful part of me wishes that with just a little bit more process—a little bit more weighing in from the community, a bit more reasoned discussion—some of the more tiresome disputes would sort themselves out, and that perhaps RfC/U would be part of that process. But the realist in me realises that this is a hope that shall not be fulfilled. RfC/U has failed as a process. The times I've seen it in action, it has ended up being a month where everyone airs their grievances and digs in their heels on whatever the drama of the moment currently is. At the end of it, everyone is more bitter, more partisan and more jaded than they were when they started—and the case usually still ends up going to ArbCom, where they spend another month (if you are lucky; if you aren't, a number of months) arguing about it. The toxic and bitter politicking of all these dispute processes keep most well-adjusted people far, far away to avoid breathing in the stench. The sad thing is I am so jaded with watching all of these processes fail, I can't think of any way to improve them anymore. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the target of a failed one of these [11], a month later I'm still waiting for it to be deleted. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this. Social discourse will have to replace bureaucratic process; people should discuss their reasons for change, draw consensus or compromise, then move on. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've only ever participated in one RFC/U and, while it seemed not to work at the time, the subject of it became a better, more cooperative editor in the years since. I don't know that RFC/U was solely responsible for that metamorphosis, but maybe seeing so many complaints against him from so many corners of the encyclopedia helped to make him realize that his behavior needed to change. In short, it sometimes works and still has some value in my opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, strongly. RFC/U is one remaining possible vehicle for editors who are concerned about Wikipedia's bullying and incivility to make a difference. It's possible that concerned editors could use RFC/U's systematically to document individual small matters of bullying going on, with formal consensus decision by the community that person X has indeed behaved badly. Such small but formal RFC/U actions are a way that records could be built up that establish a pattern of bullying and deeply incivil behavior, and cited in larger later actions such as arbitration. As it stands now, a typical victim of bullying can do nothing, nor can bystanders. Launching and "winning" a full arbcom case is huge and effectively impossible to complete, in terms of addressing any bullying. ANI and 3rr are not concerned with fairness, they do not determine fault. Launching an ANI or 3RR incident will not ever address bullying, nor will they establish even that one incident was an example of bullying. ANI and 3rr incidents are typically closed by administrators explicitly without attempting to determine fault, but rather to end disruption and close as soon as possible. Thus ANI and 3RR incidents effectively cannot be cited usefully in arbitration or anywhere. Arbitration is not feasible for bullying victims or concerned others to use in addressing bullying/incivility. Arbitration cases are too comprehensive and mixed and the arbitrators are looking to implement the community consensus and/or to end immediate disruption, and not to determine fairness, either. Arbitrators can just say that a bullying editor has other good qualities, like that they have contributed writing or whatever, and come to no judgement or action on bullying, like is done at ANI discussions. Arbitrators follow, do not lead, the community. What is needed is smaller, clear, finite judgements by the community. An RFC/U action can determine that in some article or Talk space that action A and action B were examples of unnecessary bullying by editor E. Editor E then would stand warned. If/when similar judgments pile up, the community can take further action. Victims of E can cite the judgements in arbitrations, etc, where the arbitrators could not simply dismiss it as complicated/mixed like they dismiss ANI discussions.
There is no new dispute resolution process on the horizon to address bullying, at all, and there are no real other prospects of the community taking on bullying, in the necessarily detailed way that is needed. It is nonsense to think that arbitrators will pick up slack and address what the community needs to do. I've been intending to propose at suitable venues that the existing process, RFC/U, be used by concerned editors in this way. Getting rid of RFC/U would play perfectly for entrenched administrators and other Wikipedia insiders who can never be touched. Eliminating RFC/U, the one remaining process that can at all be concerned with fairness, would be a mistake. I actually can't believe that this is being considered, much less achieving a lot of support. --doncram 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide an example of one RfC/U in the past year that has provided some kind of good result, and which hasn't merely fanned flames or been an inquisition. RGloucester — ☎ 02:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(With some repetition to my comment further below, against Snow closing this):
  • It would pretty horrible to end the one remaining method that the community can possibly use to determine fault / fairness, given failings in ANI, 3RR, arbitration in dealing with bullying and deep incivility. I think it would be rash and a big mistake to drop RFC/U. I myself don't have fond memories of any RFC/Us, but it is fair to say that the fault was in the unskilled implementation, I think. When a group of concerned editors want to work positively to label bad behavior as bad behavior, RFC/U, done right, is a possibility. There is no other possibility as I see it. I expect that many/most RFC/U's to date have been of the vindictive, bullying, throw-everything-negative-you-can type of "dispute resolution" processes, with hurt being extended, with bullying persons running rampant. In my opinion, the persons running the RFC/Us usually make a mistake in trying to include too much. But ANIs and 3RRs are rushed, and arbcom cases have their role but are corrupted from being "fair" by the arbitrary power given, and I have no hope those processes will really change anything. And, I do happen to have some hope, that some creative good people in Wikipedia who are concerned about deep incivility and bullying can get together and use the existing RFC/U process in a deliberately, limited way that is ultimately more constructive. I have no hope whatsoever that good people in Wikipedia can get some brand new process created, or change RFA, or change arbcom, or change the rules of RFC/U, or anything else major. By deliberately starting small with narrowly defined RFC/Us that within the existing rules of RFC/U and are "toothless", but in which a community judgment can be made, I think some progress can begin to be made. For example, a group of 10 or 20 editors, perhaps at something like the Editor Retention wikiproject could compile a current list of seemingly obvious injustices done against newbies, and commit to running a set of a dozen or so fair, limited RFC/Us, where the facts are properly considered, and come out with a dozen well-reasoned accurate consensus judgments on what actually happened. In each case the judgment would be on whether some experienced administrator or other experienced editor was indeed deliberately and unnecessarily bullying, in the common English sense of the word, or whether there were some extenuating circumstances that explain it otherwise. E.g. perhaps the apparent victim is not so innocent. It would really help the newbie victim-type, to have there be a real and fair judgment of the facts, either way it turns out. And it would really help me and a lot of other experienced editors too, I think, to see bad behavior called bad behavior, when it turns out that is what it clearly is. Frankly I would deliberately mix up the starter dozen RFC/Us, to include a variety of editors' apparent unfair moments, and I would seek to get the good 10 or 20 to commit to reading and judging all dozen of the RFC/Us fully, towards reducing anyone's ability to say the RFC/U was biased by only having involved editors judging.
  • I've been thinking about this for a while. I am not happy to be on the spot suggesting use of this approach right now, amidst a move to chuck it all. But it is unacceptable to completely give up on there ever being any process that gets after what is a fair judgment. Arbcom is not it. ANI is not it. This is it, or can be, I think. Don't pre-judge what I and a group of good people actually concerned about fairness, above all, might be able to do, just because you haven't seen it yet. It was a long time coming in U.S. history, before good people ran civil rights lawsuits with success, for one example...but at least there was a means for them to run them. --doncram 09:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nonsensical answer. I don't even know what "fairness" is, and I'm fairly certain the RfC/Us are not an avenue to fairness. They do not work, and you cannot even provide an example of them working. Rubbish gets tossed in the rubbish pile. "Bullying persons"? What "bullying persons"? This is a tough world. Wikipedia seems like the last place on Earth to be concerned about "bullying persons". In fact, it seems like your answer favours a "group of editors" holding an inquisition into an editor they dislike. "Bullying", though I prefer "badgering", if I've ever heard of it. That's all I can see here, and it is exactly why RfC/U is rubbish. "Real and fair judgement", again, what is this the "real and fair"? Nothing about RfC/Us is either "real" or "fair", and anyway, our goal here is not to be "fair", but to build an encyclopaedia. You can't even demonstrate why it is "real" and "fair". The existing avenues work. They curtail disruption. This is not a court of justice. We don't care about fault. We care about building an encyclopaedia, and ensuring that we can do so sans disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RfC/U is clearly not that forum, given that it doesn't actually handle anything, since it is not process that can provide results. The only body that really handles "long-term" abuse is ArbCom, and you can bet that if there is realy a problem, RfC/U would only be a bump on the road to ArbCom. Let's remove the bump, and provide a smooth path to the veritable arbitrator. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (RfC/U)

  • Question. Partially reflecting Newyorkbrad's question I'd like to know what the replacement device for serious requests for input on admins would be, short of a onerous filing at ArbCom. Is there a replacement? GraniteSand (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously not, but I can't think of a single Arb case on an admin that had a reasonable RFC/U first. It doesn't really change anything, except forcing Arb to have a lower threshold, which many are willing to do. Most singular admin issues are currently handled at WP:AN now, and we actually handle those fairly well: Block reviews and the like. We have other venues to review single events as well, such as WP:DRV, etc. RFC/U was for long term behavior problems/patterns, which is a miserable failure for admin and non-admin alike. Dennis - 2¢ 10:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question was more about the presentation of systemic issues with an admin but I'll concede that cases with traction didn't really end up at RfC/U. Still, with the way things are laid out, I'd say they should. I do take issue with your assertion as to the effectiveness of AP:AN. I have, for example, been waiting almost three weeks for admin input on a request for a block review at WP:AN. How does getting rid of this medium help people who can't meaningfully engage with admins on issues of other admins? GraniteSand (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • As that isn't related to this discussion, I will answer on your talk page. Dennis - 2¢ 10:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm unsure what it is you're going to answer on my talk page. My basic question here was, if we eliminate RFC/U are we replacing it with anything? If so, what? If not, then how does that affect editors ability to ask for comment, especially with admins? GraniteSand (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • I thought I had explained it, but we replace it with nothing. It doesn't work anyway, so nothing of value is lost. We deal with admin as we do now, using WP:AN, WP:DRV, etc. and then with RFC/U gone, Arb is quicker to take admin cases. So how do we handle it? Most likely poorly just as we do now, but with less bureaucracy, and less frustration as RFC/U gives the promise of a solution, but no possible chance of it. Dennis - 2¢ 11:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • No replacement required. WP:AN is better at attracting uninvolved editors, and isn't arranged in a confrontational way. Sure, there is drama at AN and AN/I, but at least the very structure of AN or AN/I don't lend themselves to that drama. I also support the lower threshold for ArbCom that would be established by eliminating RfC/Us. The best thing we can do is eliminate the bureaucratic processes we have that cause disputes to be stretched out over months. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • I did muse on what we should replace it with...but really it makes arbitration one step closer after discussion elsewhere, which is a good thing for admin tool use and some other issues as well. We need less bureaucracy and fewer venues to deal with all these sorts of issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding administrator misconduct, there is a current proposal, WP:Administrative Standards Commission, that could someday be given the right to review administrator conduct and revoke administrator rights. If approved, the commission wouldn't have this ability at first, but it could be added to their duties later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • discussion was prematurely closed at this point. I restarted it. Jehochman Talk 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-Discussion Comment: I only just now saw this discussion, so I thought I would say... I do agree that the chance of this changing is at most negligible, but I have always supported the idea of waiting one week. Would that be too much of a problem? This can really go for most any discussion which may affect any sort of community process, and I think that other editors should at least have a bit of time to see the discussion and maybe come up with superior alternatives (that are not already available) or similar suggestions. While I severely doubt that the consensus to abolish RFA/U will change, I do think it would be nice to allow other users the opportunity to possibly discuss what kind of changes to follow with, or otherwise. I mean more than just what I have said, but I think that is all I will say, at least for now. Dustin (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friends, the number of editors participating on this lightly watched page is not sufficient to establish such a consensus. Please advertise this discussion on the notice boards and consider listing on WP:MfD to generate more thorough feedback. If it's a good proposal, greater participation will only help. The process has been around for a decade. There is no rush to mark it historical after votes by a dozen or two editors. Also, this should not be closed by a non admin. Jehochman Talk 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me throw out an idea, to let simmer. Assuming RFC/U is shut down, it would fall on ANI to pick up the slack. If that were the case, then in some cases, it might be worthwhile (once a case gets large) to break it off into a separate page, but make sure there is a stub on the main ANI page pointing to it, and that stub doesn't get archived until the case is over. The new page would still be free-form and subject to all ANI standards (or lack thereof). This would be a purely procedural move and doesn't require an RFC, just a simple consensus on WP:AN to use this procedure under certain circumstances. It won't even require an admin to do it. It is something to think about once RFC goes down. Most of the time, it wouldn't be needed, but if a single case hit 100k (or some other number) and you have two or three on a page, it makes sense to do for technical reasons. As long as it isn't done to "hide" the discussion, I see this as a way to cope with the rare issues the lack of RFC/U will raise. Otherwise, the page can get so large, some browsers won't open it, making it impossible for some to participate. Dennis - 2¢ 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another alternative might be to institute some new procedures at WP:DRN to specifically deal with matters of editor conduct, and if the specific case is found by (in this case) the multiple or at least plural number of DRN volunteers to have sufficient merit there, or for problematic behavior to recur in similar form thereafter, to start a discussion at ANI with links to the prior discussion(s). John Carter (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I think that would be a mistake. DRN has enough troubles, it would just be RFC/U lite, and technically, these are matters that have already been to ANI individually, and the reason for review is for ANI grade behavior that is now a pattern of behavior. This is the same delimma with the failed WP:WQA, you are just better off getting in front of admin and editors who can quickly tell if it needs simple handling or a larger case, in a free-form environment. All this formality is the problem and stands in the way of solutions. Dennis - 2¢ 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Assuming it would be default fall on AN(I) to pick up the slack may not be accurate. However, in cases where it does, as a simply technical procedure, it does make sense to move the discussion to a subpage of AN(I) with a {{Moved}} and a {{DNAU}} as placeholders on the main AN(I) page. It would also make sense that all subpages of AN(I) fall under the same jurisdiction as the respective AN(I) page and all guidelines and expectations would be equivalent. I would also expect, just as it is the original poster's responsibility to notify all involved parties on their respective talk pages that there is a discussion on AN(I) about an issue they may have been involved in, that is would be the responsibility of whomever moved such a section to notify everyone that has contributed to the discussion thus-far or is mentioned in the discussion on their talk pages. As this would be a strictly technical move, I also would support the creation of a bot to monitor the section size (both prose size (number of words) and text size (number of bytes)), make the move when it hits the threshold, leave the notices, and take care of the notifications. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As for a bot, that is an interesting idea. I'm sure that ANI will be the venue to pick up the slack, unless we designate another board or create another board (I'm against that just yet). ANI is the de facto "I don't know where else to go" destination for any behavioral and sometimes content related issue. It is the editors that made it so, not the admin, by virtue of always going there for behavior and sometimes content issues. It reminds me of a story (true or not?) about a college that built new buildings, but intentionally left out sidewalks. A year later, they just poured the sidewalks where there was no grass due to foot traffic. Now the sidewalks are exactly where they are needed and the students stay off the grass. ANI is where there is no grass, it is where they are already coming to. It is simpler and better to find ways to accommodate editors instead of have them come there, then send them somewhere else. Dennis - 2¢ 19:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mr Brown. I'm not opposed to a long-term reform of the nature of the AN/I and AN boards, but that's a matter we should deal with after having dealt with this. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e-c) I basically have two reservations about using AN(I) for this purpose. (1) Although many editors, even newer editors, do use the boards, they are not the ones who frequent them or generally the ones who respond to comments posted by others. The people who respond tend to be admins (or in my case former admins) or other long-term editors who will often have some degree of pre-existing opinion about any "established" editor or admin and it might be harder to get some of them to not engage in "defending a friend" or otherwise rushing to some sort of "no action against the old hand" judgment. Others have complained of this sort of behavior before. (2) Honestly, the boards are too damn long as is. I know if I see a bowel-liquefying table of contents of 100 or more entries needing addressing on one of the noticeboards as is, I tend to give the list as a whole only a very quick once-over before basically saying "I'm outa here." If others do the same, and I think many of the less frequent contributors of the boards do the same, these requests will probably get only the same minimal attention many of the comments already posted on the pages complain of getting. If it would be possible to get them placed in a separate listing somewhere where even only a few individuals competent to address the concerns expressed can give some degree of more focused attention to them, particularly given the fact that RfC/U matters tend to be more serious than a lot of others on the boards, I would have to think that would be a net plus. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree there will be challenges and the page is already too long. Using subpages for the longer stuff (and having a bot do removes any question of neutrality) moves it out of sight and out of the temptation of bored eyes, which would shorten the page TODAY. ANI IS an admin board, we admin have more authority than we push there because we don't want the drama. If someone just goes and opines on every case without actually adding to the case, then we can take action now, we just seldom do. Then again, if a non-admin comes in an actually helps by his actions, then the system is less dependent on admin. We have some guys like that now; it adds balance. It WILL take a firm hand at times, but we can handle it. If it gets too bad, we could probably pass General Sanctions for ANI/AN specifically without too much problem, to quickly remove lurkers who are habitually causing drama. I don't have all the answers, but my gut says that centralizing it will be easier to manage, and each case can be paced and formatted in a way that is best for it. We need some rules (no closing a proposal in less than 24 hours, etc), but we can use WP:AN to adopt simple but flexible procedures to make ANI run more smoothly. Dennis - 2¢ 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question To those who find RFC/U useless/toothless...if RFC/U had teeth, would that make it useful again? That is, rather than an RfC/U's results being advisory, what if it operated like any other RfC, where the result is binding, and an RfC/U could impose sanctions on users? Revamping how RfC/U operates is also an option here, besides just eliminating it entirely; I'd like to hear from others whether they think such a revamping would make it useful again or just delay the inevitable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Such bureaucracy doesn't work and won't ever work. AN/I and ArbCom are better venues. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, the basic problem with a lot of RfC/U's is the often wildly disparate nature of the proposed remedies, and the fact that in at least some cases allies and adversaries of the "target" tend to more or less do as would be expected in such cases and make the real outcomes less clear. If a reasonable procedure to make RfC/U more effective could be enacted, I think that would help a lot, but that is a very big "if". John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fluff, I think we have three problems with RFC/U: 1. The format is limiting. 2. There is no one with any authority to police the proceedings with trouble makers/trolls/drama queens. 3. There is no chance of sanctions, so no motivation for the person to even participate in good faith. Above on this page, you see where I talk about making longer case integrated into ANI (I know, I know...) which is kind of making RFC/U a subset of ANI, but without format and with sanctions, and if it gets more than a fixed size, it goes to it's own page, with a stub at ANI pointing to it for as long as it is active. Some will just peter out, others en some will end in a block decided by an admin, in others, the community will vote for a topic ban, etc. Other times, the person can make a binding pledge to avoid sanction. Short issues would look like any other ANI case, there isn't a distinction anymore, ANI is just the "behavior problem" place for all levels of problem. That means every possible solution is on the table. RFC/U currently offers no solutions, just a place to talk about the problems. To me, if RFC/U goes away, ANI WILL become the default place, whether we want it to be or not. It is all about how we manage it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even Administrators don't seem to understand RFC/U. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Middayexpress we have two administrators, one setting it up, the other certifying it, asking for a topic ban during which it was hoped the editor would learn to play nice - despite the fact that you specifically cannot ask for a topic ban and the sentence introducing that sentence says "It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus." One solution might be simply to have volunteers run it. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a simpler process would be a very good idea. For instance, if you have a concern about a user, go to their talk page and discuss it. If that fails, go get a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Perhaps we need a central place where people can volunteer to provide such opinions. If that third person comes in and still the concerns aren't resolved, use the RFC template that we drop on article talk pages on the user's talk page to get more opinions about the issue. If that doesn't resolve things, go to WP:AN to request some sort of community action (maybe a sanction or reprimand), or in the case of an admin, go straight to ArbCom. I think people are complaining (rightly) about RFCU's bureaucracy. The underlying principal of getting more opinions to help resolve a problem is a good one and shouldn't be tossed. Jehochman Talk 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AN already has way, way too much irrelevant traffic as it is. It should be what it is supposed to be, announcements and such that are directly related to admin, including review of admin actions by any person requesting it. The admin corkboard. We tolerate a lot more there now, but really, we need less ANI type stuff there, not more. Otherwise, some admin will stop reading it altogether. Dennis - 2¢ 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that for each RFC/U, a moderator be selected who would consolidate the input of the commenters into a summary statement on an ongoing basis: as new comments are entered, the moderator would update the summary as necessary. This should help avoid redundant comments, thereby making the process more concise, and the moderator would be able to frame the commentary in a constructive manner. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a moderator or clerk is a good idea for disputes, but the place where it should be applied is at AN/I for those instances that warrant it. I'm not sure how we'd dod the details--perhaps there will simply be volunteers, with the understanding they would not also close the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For AN and AN/I it would make sense to have "on duty" admins (and even "on duty" non-admins, although it would be somewhat harder to select the pool of non-admins, because admins could just volunteer), with perhaps a four-six hour rotation. Anyone can participate as now but the "on duty" accounts would a least have a moral obligation to take care of business (with the usual restrictions eg., non-involvement). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be good to have more discussion on how to reform the process of giving feedback to another editor in a thoughtful way that minimizes confrontation, before closing down RFC/U. I know this is inherently difficult, but for the handful of cases where the editor in question is receptive to feedback, it is useful to provide a framework where someone can provide their comments in a standardized manner, as it can help depersonalize the comments, which typically reduces tension. In addition to my suggestion of moderators, here's another idea: perhaps we could have designated intermediaries (ombudsmen), whose role would be to accept feedback on an editor, and relay it in a standard format, using diplomatic language. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this RfC reaches a consensus to do away with RFC/U, some immediate thought must be given to an overhaul of ANI. Suggestions for clerking sound interesting but more admins need to be encouraged to be bold enough to watch the page - it appears that a relatively small number of rather brave admins regularly participate there. Much of the problem may be that of too much free-for-all commenting by uninvolved users, in particular the peanut gallery, in what is essentially an administrators' venue, hence its name. What puts me off from participating there more often (I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty) is that ANI is an unmanageable page: premature archiving and the inevitable frustrating edit conflicts due to someone editing an unrelated case, to name but a couple of the practical problems. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought is to conduct discussions on the user's own talk page rather than ANI. It's easy enough to put a template on the page that adds it to a category so uninvolved users can find the discussion. As for ANI, the problem is that the consensus there isn't representative. Most productive editors don't watch that page, while those more prone to disruption and drama mongering do, because they've been summoned there previously. The audience is far from being representative of our editors. Jehochman Talk 14:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, agree 100% your comments re the nature of ANI. But your idea of using a user's Talk, is a really bad idea. (Think a bit about a typical user's relationship to her/his Talk. Then think of the radical change you'd bring to it. Then think of the consequences re the previously mentioned relationship between a user and her/his Talk. [Today that relationship is a good one. Your idea would destroy that. Some editors' retentions may currently be only because they have some solice/control of their own user spaces. Your idea, if implemented, would be a destructive invasion to that, with damaging consequences even re editor retention, to mention only one.]) p.s. Which is my whole point about planning. No doubt RfC/U and ANI/I are dysfunctional because they were similar ideas not thought through, and simply implemented. We shouldn't want to do that again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Should people who obviously can't behave themselves be spared the embarrassement of such a disciplinry process taking place on their talk page? No not really, we do it with blocks all the time. But I'm not saying that I am necessarily in favour of Jehochman's idea. I work at ANI occasionally, but I don't have a high opinion of the place. With some careful consideration it could be vastly improved. As I've said before, the usefulness of ANI is diluted by the presence of too many uninvolved people who have nothing of substance to add and who just turn the ANI page into an even longer drama roll of virtual paper, or who simply populate the page just to maintain a strategic plan of opposition to all things adminship. Restrict ANI participation to admins, people who are directly concerned, and users in good standing, then there will be no peanuts thrown from kangaroos sitting in a virtual jurors' gallery. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed only to the extent AN/I being open to "anyone can edit" is the problem. (But your solution sucks. Some admins are the worst kangaroos around. Including you. [Didn't you just fuck w/ Jehochman's username signature? A reg editor would get warned of a block for that. Your supposition that "admins are better" is opposite to the reality that the behavior of admins is at a lower standard not a higher standard as espoused by Jimbo what is expectation of conduct from admins.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Replacement (RFC/U)

Instead of RFCU, the new procedure would be (1) discuss any concerns with an editor on their talk page. (2) If that proves insufficient to resolve concerns, use {{RFC}} on the user's talk page to obtain outside input on the issue under discussion with the editor. This process minimizes bureaucracy, reuses a process that works well already, provides a mechanism to obtain outside input, and avoids placing new burdens on noticeboards or ArbCom. If a concern can't be resolved on a user talk page, or if the user refuses to engage, the matter could then be escalated. I am sure this could be fine tuned in practice, but I think it would be a good start. Jehochman Talk 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No replacement necessary – Our other processes work as well as they need to, for the moment, and RfC/U is so inept that losing it will not actually affect our existing processes in a large way. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is exactly what my original comment stated in favour of abolishing RFC/U. Infact it does not matter if this proposal is supported or opposed here. It is a de facto fall back line after there's no RFC/U; the only difference is putting it out there for new users to follow too with instructions. I doubt there's any restriction in place stopping an RFC at a user talk page about their conduct so opposing here on that is pointless. If Jehochman wants to formally state it on wikipedia namespace so that newer editors can use it as a process before escalating, there's no issue with that. Since this will be the user's talkpage, there will be much less bureaucracy and this will only be able to continue if the user !owning the talkpage allows it, ie. wants to constructively engage. If he blanks the section, it simply suggests a refusal to go through the process and it can be escalated to a process like ANI on its own merit. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound very conducive to a positive result. The "default" option is not to involvee RfCs at all, which I think is for the better. If we're talking about contingencies, I support Dennis Brown's above proposal to spin-off a user-conduct sub-board of WP:AN. However, my primary position is that AN reform should be dealt with elsewhere. I oppose instituting any replacement, and I oppose recommending the use of "RfCs" on user pages. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)What I am saying is, it does not matter if this proposal was not even made by Jehochman or any one at all. This is something that can always be done. I take Jehochman's proposal to be opting for a suggestive WP guideline for new users who would not think this use of an RFC (I have seen user page RFCs in presence of RFC/U and I guess they would be class apart from RFC/U). This does not interfere with presence or absence of any other proposals. This is something that can be reverted at whim of the !targeted party and that makes it compatible to being toothless and collaborative. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is no doubt that the use of an RfC will still be "possible" on a user's talk page. I am merely saying that we should not recommend doing this as part of our guidelines or policies, or dispute resolution process. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't expressed my view on this as yet, I personally don't understand your comment RGloucester. I thought the whole idea is to suggest RfC as a possible step (not a compulstory step). Whether it's for users on their talk pages if they wish or some other space, that's a separate question; newer users would not be aware of how it works if it is not even suggested or recommended as a possible step anywhere. Were you were meaning to say policy/guideline pages shouldn't recommend it as an almost compulsory step like they have so far? Or something else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If he means it shouldn't be a threshold or prerequisite for something like ArbCom or ANI, I tend to agree. Otherwise I doubt why it can't go in atleast as an essay style suggestion if not formalized guideline. I'm fine either way. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that while such an RfC is possible, it should not be recommended, or otherwise endorsed as a possible part of the dispute resolution process. No new process should be created. The existing RfC process does not prohibit user-page RfCs, nor does it specifically allow for them. This is ideal. If it is determined in a particular case that an RfC of this sort should be held, then so be it. Otherwise, it is not appropriate process for dispute resolution, and is likely only to continue WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, given the way user talk pages are set-up, and given the nature of RfCs in general. I would not want new editors thinking that this process is even an option. It is a loop hole, rather than a generalised convention. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not tenable, because WP:TPO allows a user to remove comments from their own talk page. NE Ent 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that a user can remove the RFC or comments (although they can not remove comments that have replies without removing the replies too) is exactly why it will be clear to what extent it is useful and to what extent the user wishes to engage and as such, the user who started an RFC can also similarly remove the RFC tag and withdraw if the process is being hindered by talk page !owner. With that said, I get the point by RGloucester and would let consensus decide whether this should be used as a suggestive guideline or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:RGloucester wrote above "Our other processes work as well as they need to", no they do not neither AN or ANI are fit for purpose. As I wrote before:

For many high profile editors it is a lottery of how may of their friends and enemies happen to be online at the time and happen to be watching the ANI or are informed of it thought the bush telegraph. Add that some people are taking part in ANIs expressing opinions that are clearly not based on polices and guidelines and contributing nothing but clutter, making it harder to see what the real arguments are, and what the informed consensus is.
There are a number of other Wikipedia processes that deal with editorial behaviour (such as RFCs) that I think also lack natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner.
I have little faith in the ANI process because I no longer think it fit for purpose for anything but to carry out requests for the most simple tasks. I think it is time the whole process to be replaced.

Original written on 8 November 2011, See "ANI process ... no longer think it fit for purpose" for more details and links back to an example. -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever replaces Rfc/U, I strongly recommend that it be setup to exclude involved editors. Neutrality can only be secured with uninvolved editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that generally speaking, third-party bystanders won't be sufficiently motivated to perform the time-consuming research to get involved in a potentially confrontational process that doesn't directly involve them, so I believe input from involved parties will be needed. I think through effective moderation by a third party the feedback can be groomed to avoid redundancy and still capture the essential points, while removing the personal animus. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happen to agree that having too much "involvedness" has undermined the usefulness/effectiveness of many RFC/U's. That doesn't mean that that problem has to undermine every RFC/U. There's no replacement forthcoming. There's not going to be any replacement. So RFC/U has to be kept, for those good editors who might use the existing RFC/U process well, avoiding obvious pitfall of having too strong a voice of too-involved participants. It has to be kept to allow some to address some small issues in a toothless or not-so-toothless way, to determine fair judgments, to address rogue editors, administrators, arbitrators that other processes are not capable of addressing. You don't casually take away the public's one means to run a process that some skilled good persons can use productively, possibly, sometimes, please. --doncram 09:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Reversion of Nov 16 Snow close
===Reversion of Nov 16 Snow close===
WP:SNOW close. There is a clear consensus that RFC/U is not proving a net positive, and there are other avenues for complaints (WP:ANI or equivalent). The overcomplicated instructions and procedures also seem to be issues with the venue. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted this closure, as set out here. Please let the discussion run its course. As it is an established process which is likely to be shut down, if anyone does have proposals for alternate dispute resolution steps, or feels that no replacement or alternate proposal is necessary, your input is very welcome either way. Please note it with your comments. Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A note on closure: There is no need to rush and "snow close" this discussion. An RFC seeking to close down a process that has been in place for a decade is not appropriate for a non-admin snow-close. The RFC can run the full thirty days, and be closed in due course. There may well be additional insight and ideas generated from such. –xenotalk 14:33, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I strongly object to your reversion of the closure. Administrators are no less competent than non-administrators, and such a close was clearly in the spirt of the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The RfC "can run" does not mean it "should run", and this is a clear case where it has no need to. Your reversion should be reverted in turn, at once. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is less the who, and more the when and the how. This discussion is not the province of a "snow" closure, it deserves a proper closure - not a snow closure - at the appropriate time. There were already objections below about early closure and those should be addressed before another early closure is attempted. This discussion is not generating heat and it has potential to generate more light. There is no need to shut it down early. –xenotalk 14:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion below is generating light, yeah, however I struggle to see how the discussion above is going to achieve anything more. RFC/U is clearly not supported by the community, and as there are not current cases there, now seems a good time to impliment it, rather than giving it enough time to allow another case to start, and making the whole thing a lot messier. My close would be the same whether this was at the 30 day or 15 day mark. I have reinstated the close, and will once again leave the discussion open. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Edit-warring to re-instate a non-admin snow-closure? Please revert yourself. There is no rush and it is appropriate to give the community the full allocated time to reach a firm conclusion on this topic. –xenotalk 15:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are right, but as a practical matter this is what the result is going to be. Rather than arguing about a non-standard closure, why don't we put effort into reforming the dispute resolution process? We can discuss what should be. Jehochman Talk 15:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from INVOLVED editor (I recently filed an RFCU which was deleted as not being certified under disputed circumstances). I reviewed the discussion a day or two ago but chose not to add a "Me too!" comment as would add no value to the discussion, but will state Xeno is entirely correct in insisting the RFC be allowed to run its course. There was a clear consensus to discontinue WP:WQA a few years ago with insufficient thought given to what to replace it with, which I think was a mistake. The wind down of RFCU, if it is going to happen, should be done in a slow, thoughtful manner. NE Ent 16:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there should be some thought put into this. It would be good if the discussion could be advertised in the watchlist banner, seeing we are discussing the closure of a (perhaps too) long-established process - and one which existed even prior to WQA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested such a notice [12] NE Ent 17:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mdann, the reason we allow major decisions to be held for the full 30 days is to insure that we don't throw something out in the heat of the moment, based on a single problem, and that the community has had ample opportunity to consider the consequences. In any event, it would still need more than a SNOW's worth of explaining at the close. While it doesn't require an admin for most closes, this one is going to have a hell of a lot of paperwork to file and having the tools may be required to actually fulfill the close, so yes, it would be wise to allow someone with the tools to close. It is insufficient to just declare "snow" and walk away. Just as someone closing an AFD is expected to implement the decision (delete the article and talk page, close the discussion, etc), whoever closes this will likely have to be part of the process of marking as historical, and other things that we haven't even began to think of yet. Dennis - 2¢ 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with reverting the close. Today is the first time I have read the proposal, and there is no reason to hurry to close this. -- PBS (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. This premature closure which ignores our well founded standard practice for all RfC whether small article content issues or major meta changes rather illustrates my comment above regarding inexperienced users who just can't resist the temptation of interfering in serious stuff (however well intended), does it not? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to hurry this. It is major decision. I just joined and comment strongly, above, in Oppose vote, that it would pretty horrible to end the one remaining method that the community can possibly use to determine fault / fairness, given failings in ANI, 3RR, arbitration in dealing with bullying and deep incivility. I think it would be rash and a big mistake to drop RFC/U. I myself don't have fond memories of any RFC/Us, but the fault was in the unskilled implementation, I think. When a group of concerned editors want to work positively to label bad behavior as bad behavior, RFC/U, done right, is a possibility. There is no other possibility as I see it. --doncram 01:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I myself don't have fond memories of any RFC/Us, but the fault was in the unskilled implementation, I think. So the useful RfC/U you want to keep exists in theory only, as a potentiality, but not practice. (I.e. it doesn't exist.) So, your thoughts seem more oriented toward proposal yet undefined, or reformed RfC/U, as replacement, that has the positive potentialities you see. p.s. In the RfCUs I've read, the bullying shoe was on the other foot. (Do you really see the current structure of RfC/U as fostering ability to "determine fault/fairness"? [By its nature there are multiple motivated editors on one side of issue; a lone editor on the other. The result isn't forgone conclusion?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I expect that many/most RFC/U's to date have been of the vindictive, bullying, throw-everything-negative-you-can type of "dispute resolution" processes, with hurt being extended. In my opinion, the ones running the RFC/Us make a mistake in trying to include too much. But ANIs and 3RRs are rushed, and arbcom cases have their role but are corrupted from being "fair" by the arbitrary power given, and I have no hope those processes will really change anything. And, I do happen to have some hope, that some creative good people in Wikipedia who are concerned about deep incivility and bullying can get together and use the existing RFC/U process in a deliberately, limited way that is ultimately more constructive. I have no hope whatsoever that good people in Wikipedia can get some brand new process created, or change RFA, or change arbcom, or change the rules of RFC/U, or anything else major. By deliberately starting small with narrowly defined RFC/Us that within the existing rules of RFC/U and are "toothless", but in which a community judgment can be made, I think some progress can begin to be made. For example, a group of 10 or 20 editors, perhaps at something like the Editor Retention wikiproject could compile a current list of seemingly obvious injustices done against newbies, and commit to running a set of a dozen or so fair, limited RFC/Us, where the facts are properly considered, and come out with a dozen well-reasoned accurate consensus judgments on what actually happened. In each case the judgment would be on whether some experienced administrator or other experienced editor was indeed deliberately and unnecessarily bullying, in the common English sense of the word, or whether there were some extenuating circumstances that explain it otherwise. E.g. perhaps the apparent victim is not so innocent. It would really help the newbie victim-type, to have there be a real and fair judgment of the facts, either way it turns out. And it would really help me and a lot of other experienced editors too, I think, to see bad behavior called bad behavior, when it turns out that is what it clearly is. Frankly I would deliberately mix up the starter dozen RFC/Us, to include a variety of editors' apparent unfair moments, and I would seek to get the good 10 or 20 to commit to reading and judging all dozen of the RFC/Us fully, towards reducing anyone's ability to say the RFC/U was biased by only having involved editors judging.
    I've been thinking about this for a while. I am not happy to be on the spot suggesting use of this approach right now, amidst a move to chuck it all. But it is unacceptable to completely give up on there ever being any process that gets after what is a fair judgment. Arbcom is not it. ANI is not it. This is it, or can be, I think. Don't pre-judge what I and a group of good people actually concerned about fairness, above all, might be able to do. --doncram 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Am concerned about fairness, too. Am not sure what your idea is with the 10 or 20 to thoroughly examine a "starter dozen" cases -- are you suggesting that such thorough reviews would continue for all RfCUs!? (If so, I agree w/ you the results would have a great chance of being fairer. But what you're suggesting is time-intensive, resource-intensive, so would have no chance for successful promotion in the current "anyone can edit & enjoy the thrill of judge, jury, & executioner" culture. The deal is you are right -- time & uninvolved serious participation/review has probability to deliver fairer, more accurate views. But the environment is currently plain schizoid regarding sense of fairness expectations on the WP. [Otherwise how could admin Brown repeat for the 10,000th time his favorite chant: "No justice, only solutions" with apparently no protest from anyone other than me?!])

    Would you agree that elimination of "anyone can edit/review" in these cases would improve things? Would you also agree that one or two uninvolved/neutral admins as reviewers, without overwhelming time constraints on them, would improve things? (Well if you agreed those would be improvements, then you've just cut the people-time and drama-level down by vast amounts, even throwing in right or two of appeal. And wouldn't those savings render much greater chance for acceptance & implementation? Your idea how to achieve fairness can't be argued against, but would die on practicalities especially in current environment. [Agree?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems to me that fairness is pretty much disregarded on Wikipedia, in effect, though not the fault of many good editors who do speak up and try to get to fairness sometimes. Overall there's a crisis of confidence that anything can be done fairly, and those who care about fairness are burnt out. Many RFC/U's themselves have been unfair, and I think that is partly because of lack of skill/training/cooperation of good people who could use the tool better. It would not help to eliminate the RFC/U process, preventing good people from teaming up and trying to do it better in a series of cases that could make a difference. Yes, perhaps starting with a list of about a dozen cases where there is great perception of unfairness going on, e.g. where experienced administrator(s), arbitrator(s), or other experienced editors appear to have been bullying some relative newbie or other relatively defenseless editor. I hope to enlist, or to join up with, a group of editors who'd like to make a difference about cases like that.
    About your questions on whether "one or two uninvolved/neutral admins as reviewers, without overwhelming time constraints on them, would improve things?", I don't understand what you are driving at. You don't have any real proposal there, do you? --doncram 10:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of people agree that the current RfC/U is more fit for purpose. Rather than just dropping it completely how about modifying it and limiting its scope. For example putting in a level of clerks/overseers to make sure that the requirements for an RfC are met before it proceeds. To go with the clerks/overseers, detailed requirements to make the process more likely to be used positively rather than to bludgeon an opponent:

  • Is the content of the "Statement of Dispute" and the "Desired outcome" focused enough and within policy to be something that any reasonable editor would be willing to abide. -- Too often the "dispute" is defined using a shotgun approach of hitting multiple targets which makes the desired outcome to be too nebulous.
  • Does the description given meet the requirements for a description section?
  • Have to at least two user independent of the dispute in good faith tried and failed to resolve the dispute. At the moment some of the statements put forwards as "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are lamentable, and often include statements put forward by "Users certifying the basis for this dispute".

-- PBS (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's fix a process that people describe as rigid and bureaucratic by adding another level of bureaucracy to make it even more rigid. Mr.Z-man 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Village pump

I propose that this become the current incarnation of the Village pump template. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I love the initiative and the more modern look, it is too tall and bulky in it's current form. It's the image and the block next to it that make it a poor replacement in my eye. Dump the image and the saying, condense the block into a more readable form, and I'd support it. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 01:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The top half is great, I like it a lot. The bottom half is, for lack of a better term, butt ugly. It needs formatting fixes, and I'd say to completely ax the picture of the pump. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the image is already there in the current template. But why was the formatting screwed around with to reduce the space available to the decision table? Anomie⚔ 11:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt feedback. The main aim was to try to redistribute/reduce the whitespace left by the template's various elements rather than remove/replace any of them. As that doesn't seem to've worked too well so far<aside>e.g. there was no intention to reduce the space available to the table</aside> and the picture doesn't seem to have many fans, it looks like something more radical is desired. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the bottom content. Specifically:

  • The caption for the pump picture is now inside the regular image code.
  • The pump now floats left, and the "other" table is aligned right.
  • The shortcuts are moved to the top.
  • The table is no longer nowrap so zooming in doesn't cause problems.

Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • What do you think of my changes? Relocates all of the stuff at the bottom into the header section neatly, which there is agreement that it looks more modern and professional. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! Why didn't I think of that? But I have two somewhat minor comments:
  • You took out the pump image
  • I notice that the reference to RfCU ("or to make a user conduct dispute complaint") was removed. I am aware that it is rarely used and there is even an RfC here to get rid of it, but I just want to point this out for anyone who's interested.
Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Default headline font change

SNOW close as this is the wrong forum for the proposed change. Additionally, there are technical and practical issues that make this proposal a non starter. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that the default headline font be changed from Georgia to Minion Pro (or even Times New Roman) because it's visually much better option. Alex discussion ★ 14:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:
Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) (section)
Alex discussion ★ 20:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Minion Web Pro? That is a commercial Adobe font, and apart from a version (Minion Web) that was distributed as part of Internet Explorer 4(!), virtually no one has that font installed. The above example shows in the default (serif) font. A change to the header font is better discussed at the software level on MediaWiki.org anyway. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 21:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What you typed is displaying for me in Times, not in Minion Pro, because that's the default setting for my browser and I don't have Minion on this computer. Have you looked into your browser settings to see what its default serif setting is? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposing DRN for user conduct issues

Upon reading about the Wikipedia dispute resolution process, I have discovered that although there are many venues for resolving content issues (such as WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc.), there are not very many at all for resolving conduct issues, aside from WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, and WP:ARBCOM. There are issues with all of these:

  • ANI is not suitable for persons seeking friendly, moderated dispute resolution, as it is largely ruled by mob.
  • RFCU is about to be closed, because the latest DangerousPanda controversy has shown the process to be rather unhelpful.
  • ArbCom is only for the most serious of disputes, and the majority of disputes do not reach the level of seriousness required to justify an ArbCom case.

Therefore, I propose that we create another noticeboard, similar to WP:DRN. However, this noticeboard would be for resolving user conduct issues. Like the current DRN, this noticeboard would be a moderated environment (attended to by volunteers) where users in a dispute involving conduct could discuss the issues at hand. If implemented, this noticeboard would serve as a "stepping stone" between the initial talk page discussion and ANI, which would (hopefully) reduce the amount of drama and mob rule that regularly occurs as of now.
Thanks in advance for your input. --Biblioworm 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kind of like WP:WQA? The community shut it down[13] because it was "doing Wikipedia, and it's editors, more harm than good." The community seems to want less bureaucracy, it keeps shutting boards down, and I have to admit, it has been for the better. Let me add, I would probably be against ANYTHING unless the dust has settled with RFC/U gone. How do we know what void to fill until we've had time to look at the void? Like with WQA, we just *might* be better with NO replacement. Regardless, it seems early to be worrying about it. Dennis - 2¢ 21:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dennis... why not wait until after the RfC/U discussion above has had a chance to settle, and then see where we are? As the number of editors and admins declines, it's only reasonable that the number of processes and noticeboards should decline as well, as there are fewer volunteers and less volunteer time available to help at each one. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a suggestion above, a slight procedural change at ANI for cases that get too large. That alone should be sufficient to deal with the extra traffic, plus you don't have to "decide" if a case is ANI or more RFC-ish case when filing, it is allowed to grow and be dealt with in a more organic fashion. Unlike with RFC/U, it is a purely admin board, with tool use being an option. Dennis - 2¢ 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose expanding DRN, as my experience there is that it is a toothless process similar to RfC/U, and suffers from a certain bureaucracy that just doesn't work. Our best processes are the free form ones at AN/I and AN, and I support Mr Brown's suggestion above that we reform AN and AN/I to better serve the interests of community. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand you point about excessive bureaucracy and such, but is it possible to deny the fact that ANI is an uncivil battleground that is ruled by mob? If anything, AN and ANI need reform, like a couple of others above me have said. --Biblioworm 19:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that AN and AN/I need reform (as I said), but they work better than any other processes we have. AN/I often works. It can be uncivil, but that is not a problem particular to AN/I. It can be dramatic, but that is not a problem particular to AN/I. At the very least, AN/I allows grievances to be voiced in public, surrounded by "uninvolved" voices, and does not require the strict formatting requirements of RfC/Us or DRN. It is efficient. In cases when it is not efficient, the appropriate thing to do is head to ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose creation of a new DRN. Let's review: Serious user conduct issues requiring admin intervention go to AN or ANI, issues the community is otherwise unable to resolve go to ArbCom. Non-serious user conduct issues that don't require admin intervention then have nowhere to go, which is a good thing because it forces users to either talk these things out or simply let them go, either of which is better than formal dispute processes which tend to escalate things and result in hurt feelings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, not because I think it's a bad idea per se, but because AN/I tends to fulfill this purpose, although with frequent drama, but that comes with the nature of the requests. It is possible to have civil discourse there, but quite often hostility is brought over from whatever talk page the fighting is already happening on, and I don't see how any new or existing (or historical) process or noticeboard could deal with that drama more efficiently. And frequently, admin tools are required to implement the will of the community, so AN/I is a more appropriate venue anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: that's the same as WQA which was shut down. I didn't !vote at WQA, so I guess I can suggest the nom to try getting WQA back on with a new reform which would be something like he's proposing. Then again he has to watch for WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ANI is not suitable for persons seeking friendly, moderated dispute resolution, as it is largely ruled by mob." - what makes you think any new forum would not be the same (or, at least, would not suffer the same failings, whatever they are)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really even watching this discussion anymore. However, the reason I think this would work is because the current DRN for content disputes has seemed to work out fairly well, because civility is required and enforced there. ANI, however, is the place where people go to seek revenge, turn discussions around people who bring up good-faith complaints, etc. All in all, it's just a terrible place to get any rational dispute resolution done, unless some people make themselves self-appointed ANI mediators (not a bad idea). --Biblioworm 14:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think most users are dissatisfied with the system as it exists after having had some experience with it, and there seems to be a significant push in recent months for changing procedures and processes. The fact is though that this is all happening a bit late, and should have occurred some years ago - but alas, it was rashness which led to procedures being enacted back then, and it's the same rashness which is now shutting them down (without first putting in effective systems in place). For this reason, I must applaud Biblioworm for at least recognising some part of this and making an effort propose some alternative to add to the extremely limited options available. That said, I fear Wikipedia history has shown that enacting this particular idea is likely to end up being no different to previous noticeboards (such as the sanctions noticeboard and WQA) which were subsequently shut down. A proposal which would lead to a mediation of conduct disputes - so that if mediation fails and the parties are simply unable to come to a resolution, then it proceeds further - might be worthwhile, but it again comes down to a lack of incentive by parties to participate in a meaningful way. It is a website after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best venue for discussing user conduct is the user's own talk page. Go there, raise concerns politely and talk to them like a human. This usually works. No special noticeboards are needed. Taking a concern to a noticeboard is inherently hostile and almost always intensifies a dispute. Jehochman Talk 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A while back, a software change caused "external" links that actually go back to Wikipedia (like this one) to not be findable in Special:LinkSearch. We can fix that easily, but it's a config change and thus requires community consensus. Are there any objections to this? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should ArbCom be broken up into smaller boards

Proposal: Should ArbCom be broken up into several smaller, independent boards, each of which would be tasked with one part of the current ArbCom's responsibilities? --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended comments by proposer

Being on ArbCom kind of sucks, and as a result, the number of quality candidates has (IMHO) decreased steadily (so much so that last time *I* got elected!?!). I note that with 4 days to go this year, for example, we have a grand total of 2 declared candidate.

I've been sort of thinking about a different way we could go about organizing ArbCom, but it's in its early stages.

To the extent that I'm allowed to specify the scope of the discussion, I really hope we could avoid discussing specifics like exact # of boards, # of people per board, how they're elected, whether people could serve on more than one board, the exact process we'd follow to establish it, whether this should be for the 2015 election or the 2016 election, etc. First step is really just to gauge the interest, and uncover any disadvantages with the general idea that I haven't thought of.

So, the examples I give below are examples, not part of a specific proposal.

What I had in mind is, each board would have a fairly limited scope, and thus a smaller workload. I think if the workload was more reasonable, more good potential Arbitrators board members might be interested, and the damage that bad potential board members could do would be reduced. More people means an even smaller workload which would mean even more people: a virtuous cycle. A single 30-member ArbCom would become paralyzed, but (say) six 5-member boards might work much more efficiently.

Not too many boards, but enough so there is work to do on each, but not too much. Maybe something like (and this is off the top of my head, with about 3 minutes of thought):

  • Final block/ban/AE appeals
  • Icky child protection issues/accusations (which should be a WMF thing, but isn't)
  • Admin conduct review (I'm kind of burying the lede here, I think this might have a lot of interest) Note: This idea is currently under discussion and I added the link Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intractable user behavioral issues not solved by the community
  • Intractable content issues not solved by the community
  • Intractable policy interpretation issues
  • Some kind of group to liaison with WMF?

I hope this can either gain some traction, or the obvious problems with this that I haven't seen can be pointed out. I fear that inertia will kill an otherwise good idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Not trying to be difficult, but what is the current workload of ARBCOM? How many cases do they hear at any one time? How much time do ARBCOM members need to devote, on average, to be successful at their job? It would help to have some reference to know what is currently expected of ARBCOM members before we can know if splitting it up is needed. Also, it would be good to hear from more people on the inside of ARBCOM if they also think they are overburdened with their workload. --Jayron32 12:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not being difficult at all; good questions. I've used up my allotted Wikipedia time this morning, but I'll give some info on my experience, at least, later today. Sneak preview: hearing cases is not the majority of an Arb's time; For a while I was spending maybe 1 hour per day on it, and I was definitely not pulling my weight. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayron, the workload varies. Right now I'd say we have a "high" load, that is - 2 recently closed, 3 open, 3 pending requests (of which only one is at decline, and two have more accepts than decline), 6 (or 11 depending on how you look at it) clarifications/amendments. We've also handled about 20 BASC appeals in the past month. There are two reviews of procedures currently running or stalled, a rules review and a BASC review. There are other areas where we have work, which should not be discussed publicly. Additionally, there are Arbcom elections happening, meaning an intake to the committee who will need to be brought up to speed along with all the natural housekeeping of a turnover. I would DEFINITELY recommend splitting up the areas. NB, part of the reason I'm not planning to run again is that I need a break. WormTT(talk) 13:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Further - have a look at edit counts of arbitrators. The years they are on Arbcom generally have edit counts of between 1/4 and 1/2 of that which they have otherwise. It eats your time (and possibly your soul!) WormTT(talk) 14:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: About responsibilities: You're not just dealing with reading evidence and workshops and deciding actual cases, you're dealing with case requests, clarifications and amendments, ban and block appeals (this is a big one), dealing with people emailing information on suspected pedophiles and other malefactors, dealing with people emailing random complaints about other editors that you have to point to the proper on-wiki channels, wading through a truly massive amount of spam on the mailing list (the spam filter can't be trusted to not lose something important, so I believe every single piece of spam gets filtered out by one of the arbs who have volunteered to do so), helping coordinate the clerks. Not every arb does all of these things. To be clear/honest, when I was there I helped out very little or not at all on many of these tasks. Arbs kind of self-select for things they're interested in/have a skill for/have time for.
About the amount of time spent being an Arb: it varies wildly from one arb to another. Some have found a way to spend a relatively small amount of time, chiming in usefully now and then, and are happy to handle it that way; they aren't likely to burn out, but they aren't really reducing the workload. Others get burned out with too much work, and others (ahem, cough) get burned out worrying about the fact that they aren't doing too much work, but should be doing more. There are currently, I'd say, a couple of arbs I'd guess spending 20 hours or more on arb stuff; maybe another 4-5 that spend 1-2 hrs per day. But these are just guesses; all I can really say for sure is that I spent around 1 hr per day, which doesn't sound like too much, but really prevents the vast majority of people with real life complications from participating. At the risk of annoying them, I'll ping the current arbs @All of them: so they can describe their own workload if they wish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh; I should proofread more. replacing the placeholder ping above with an actual ping: @AGK, Beeblebrox, Carcharoth, David Fuchs, GorillaWarfare, and LFaraone: @NativeForeigner, Newyorkbrad, Salvio giuliano, Seraphimblade, and Timotheus Canens: --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot about Worm, @Floquenbeam. --Biblioworm 20:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm: He already commented above... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection in principle to this. I am concerned that it would lead to massive instruction creep. I would also point out that (just as on WP generally) there is no need for anyone to be involved in every decision/discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC).
  • I think ArbCom should be split, but more than 3 or 4 committees would be overkill. I suggested this a few times and most recently here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BASC reform 2014. Since this is very much to the point and I would only paraphrase myself, I'll cite and append if necessary :
    (...) I would go further in the mandate afforded to this new committee [Appeals Committee], extending it to cover all community sanctions (such as topic bans) [and maybe indeed AE too]. Now, the matter of its composition ? The structure proposed by Beeblebrox seems adequate for the time being, although in the long run I would prefer that all members be community elected. If the concern is that the pool of candidates is too small, this is already mitigated by the fact that users may stand in both ArbCom and 'AppCom', and if necessary we can have arbs filling missing seats. This would not be an issue in the long term though, see infra.
    Something similar should be done with AUSC, there must be a dedicated committee [Audit Committee] separate from ArbCom with final say on CU/OS matters. I had suggested this in the past but arbs were reluctant to the idea, arguing that this was the 'fiduciary duty' of ArbCom as mandated by the wmf privacy policy. In fact this is not at all the case, the policy makes possible for local arbitration committees matching certain conditions to take upon this duty, but this is in no way a requirement, and indeed several wikis have arbitration committees matching these conditions but without any of those responsibilities. Here again, I would extend the mandate of this 'AudCom', specifically to misconduct by administrators outside formal arbitration cases. Any case overlapping between the three different committees [ArbCom, AppCom, AudCom] would be resolved by a joint subcommittee.
    All in all, I think it is a step in the good direction to 'decentralize' ArbCom, and in fact return it to its more basic role. It is true that there has been lots of progress in the recent years and the threat of an 'all powerful' [...] arbcom has diminished, but it did not disappear altogether and introducing concurrent committees affected to different duties would make this threat much more remote. In addition, these committees would have a more focused role, so would be more efficient, the members wouldn't have to be proficient in so many areas and would have less work, meaning a less demanding job, so more attractive, and the pool of candidates would increase as a result.
    I'm going to resume my thoughts in a condensed manner. A large committee with a vast number of responsibilities is bound to be inefficient, the solution is to divide it in several committees with more focused responsibilities. Of course, I'm not advocating the extreme opposite which is just as inefficient, but a middle ground such as described above seems like the most efficient solution, not only for Wikipedia but for the committee members.
  • End citation. This isn't particularly refined, but you got the idea. Cenarium (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting idea, but I would be worried about splitting it up into too many groups. If you have one committee that needs to elect 6-7 people every year and you want 3x as many candidates to give people a good choice, then you only need 18-21 candidates. If you have 7 committees with same number of people, you might need over 100 candidates (depending on how many people decide to run for more than one committee). There's also the issue with managing such a large election, as well as voter turnout and information. For a major role like ArbCom, there's a lot of people willing to vote and hopefully most of them are doing some research before voting. But are enough people going to care about the smaller roles of smaller committees to research more candidates and vote? Mr.Z-man 14:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've long stated my opposition to proposed ideas for improving the project where there is a solution looking for a problem. It is all too common here that people have fantastic new ideas for how we can further the project. Indeed, our very ethos strongly encourages this. However, such methods catastrophically fail when they are implemented without an understanding of their place within problem solving. Here we have a demonstration of this; we have an idea for how to improve the situation with ArbCom, without scoping out what the situation is with ArbCom. There's general reference to a decline in candidates for ArbCom, and that's it. Where's the research to support this simple statement? Understand; if there is a decline, the decline isn't the problem. It's the symptom. The question is the symptom of what? The proposer says it's a symptom of ArbCom sucking. But, there's no research to support (or oppose) this. RfA is in decline too, but is it because RfA sucks? We don't know. General editing is trending down too, but is that because Wikipedia editing sucks? See the problem here with solutions looking for problems? With all respect to the proposer, this is a very unprofessional approach to "solving" the problem with ArbCom, and will lead to disaster. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC) (ps: for what it's worth, the average number of nominees at 4 days out from the deadline over the last 4 years was 8, and the final average number of nominees 22. Clearly there is a big increase of nominations in the days leading up to the deadline. One year does not a statistical trend make)[reply]

I definitely think some sort of admin conduct review venue is needed. Others not sure about. My worry would be shortage of applicants for multiple boards.....and not sure that it need to be split up. But will see after the nomination period has ended.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efficiency - well a smaller Arbcom would likely be more efficient - less votes needed to pass or decline - less waiting on the others, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of an ArbCom that is split so that cases can be undertaken more expeditiously. Seven people working on one thing and seven others working on another should help make our plodding school bus of a system more agile and zippy taking and disposing of cases in less than eight weeks... Carrite (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an idea here: Could we just expand the number of ARBCOM members, and then allow them to self-segregate into subcommittees based on interest/skills/needs? We could have one subcommittee dedicated to cases, one to BASC, one to ombudsman-type activities, etc. We could even have the members rotate through the subcommittees every few months to prevent burnout in any one segment. Just an idea. --Jayron32 20:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's likely that additional members will just make it harder to achieve compromise, which I assume is essential in the commottee's work. Perhaps it might make sense to reduce the number of members, and simultaneously give the new body the poser to decide certain kinds of cases with less of the bells and whistles a full case requires now - a streamlines procedure for a streamlines committee. BMK (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this proposal as complementary to the on on the BASC. This will increase the workload at arb com; the other will reduce it. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary problem I see with this proposal is that ArbCom interprets policy. Multiple mini-ArbComs are likely to interpret policy in slightly different ways, which gives rise to the need for a way to settle the differences between them, much as the US Supreme Court settles the differences in interpretations of US law made by the circuit courts. With such a Supreme ArbCom, we're back to having the ArbCom the proposal attempted to get rid of, with the unwanted addition of a bureaucratic level below it. I'm afraid that we're just going to have to continue sacrificing editors to the maw of a single, over-worked ArbCom. BMK (talk) 08:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To mostly repeat something I said in another section above: personally, I think most users are dissatisfied with the system as it exists after having had some experience with it, and there seems to be a significant push in recent months for changing procedures and processes. The fact is though that this is all happening a bit late, and should have occurred some years ago - but alas, it was rashness which led to procedures being enacted back then, and it's rashness which is dominating the proposals being actively floated at the moment. I agree with Hammersoft's comment above in respect of this proposal. To address one part of the proposal, I would add that it is sad that each group of users elected each year tend to be shocked by the "icky child protection issues/accusations" that they are stuck dealing with, but well, unless WMF do take those issues, I can't see why any decent number of ordinary volunteer editors/admins would actively want to have to deal with those issues, alone anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the idea of maybe breaking up the ArbCom into multiple functions, or, alternately, adding more members to the ArbCom to functionally decrease the load on each individual member of the ArbCom. I recently suggested to someone some of us are trying to talk into running for ArbCom that I think we would get more good candidates for ArbCom if the potential candidates knew they were not likely to be forced to review interminable reams of paper or the electronic equivalent on a regular basis, and maybe have some sort of month-on/month-off shifts on ArbCom. If separate entities with different purposes were to be created, which would presumably have different individuals, and hopefully more individuals, willing to take on those responsibilities, I think that would be a net plus for the community. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, I think a split committee would be effective. Having them would split their responsibilities into different segments.Sam.gov (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Croatian War of Independence

Those who are interested, may have their say there. Alex discussion ★ 22:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Template:Infobox person

This message is to notify you that there is an RfC ongoing on whether to add pronunciation info to {{Infobox person}}. Because this has the potential to affect a very large number of pages, I have attempted to advertise it widely. Your comments on the matter are appreciated. The discussion can be found here. Thanks! 0x0077BE (talk · contrib) 17:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia and Right to Information

There is an act in India called Right to Information Act, where any Indian citizen may go ahead and ask the central government for information related to government (like government expenditure. minister's salary, budgets.).
Recently I found a real-life process of Wikimedia Foundation "unclear". I experienced it when I attended a Wiki-conference. (I'll give details later (if needed)). I don't have membership of Wikipediocracy nor I like their site.
I'll better go and ask WMF or our community if I have questions. As of now a) how do we accept Wikipedians' "right to information"? b) what are the channels and procedure? --Tito☸Dutta 23:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC) 17:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Governments can take money from you (tax and fines), and can imprison you, and make laws that restrict what you can and cannot do. Therefore some governments try to level the playing field by providing some transparency. The WMF runs a few websites and cannot affect you in real life. Accordingly, there is no requirement for the WMF to be more transparent than required by relevant law. However, the WMF is in fact extremely transparent and does almost everything in public. Therefore, just ask your question at a suitable noticeboard. I removed the "Please read" from the heading because that is only going to encourage others to put similar messages; no one is going to put "Please do not read". Johnuniq (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a pragmatic matter, WMF relies on donations, and so it needs to be sensitive to its perception in the community of potential donors. A reputation for sound management is important to charities. However "can't affect you" IRL is something of an overstatement. Trusted information affects people IRL every day in a wide variety of ways. If it didn't we would not need policies on BLP, outing, etc. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have no "right to information" on Wikipedia or from the Wikimedia Foundation. Please see Foundation:Terms of Use for what rights you do have. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For questions about Foundation activities, unrelated to site content, press inquiries, or pending litigation, a likely approach is to ask via answers @ wikimedia.org as described at [14]. Questions sent to answers are referred to either WMF staff or community volunteers depending on the nature of the question, and take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to answer depending on the complexity of the request. Not all inquiries will receive an answer since privacy policies or other restrictions may apply, but they should at least tell you why they won't answer if that is the result. Submissions to answers @ wikimedia is considered public information and may be seen by volunteers and reproduced in public FAQs or other forums. If you need to discuss confidential or personal information, we can discuss other approaches. Dragons flight (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, I would note that some wiki conferences and events are organized through Wikimedia Chapters (usually organizations serving a particular geographic region, such as a particular country). If your inquiry relates to an event organized by one of the Chapters, it may be more appropriate to request information from the Chapter directly. The current Chapter list is at Wikimedia chapters. Dragons flight (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=634390517"