Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

'Temporary' comments

What is the community's view on support/opposes/neutral(s) which are 'temporary' or for any other reason, not permanent? Should comments only be permitted when the assessors (i.e. the individuals supporting or opposing) have the time to committ to reviewing the candidate? Its just I am seeing more as of late and wondering what the reason behind them really is (which although may be obvious, I don't understand why people don't wait until they can analyse contributions and what not). Caulde 18:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm neutral on your thread here for now, Caulde. I'll get back to you when I've formed an opinion, I need to do more research.  ;-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the exact situation. The people who show up and just stick up "Neutral, will look later", or similar seem to be wasting everyone's time for no great purpose. But the people who do something along the lines of "Support unless someone brings up something bad" are at least providing an opinion. As long as these people generally do return and reconsider their votes, it's not a big problem to me. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 18:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Mazca that first point you make is exactly what I'm saying! Thanks. Caulde 19:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So It depends on the exact situation is "exactly what you're saying? Keeper ǀ 76 19:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but who said that first sentence was a point, I'd say it's just me waffling. :-) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 19:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I meant the "Neutral, will look later bit". Caulde 19:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just messing with you Caulde. I know what you meant :-) Keeper ǀ 76 19:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the community's view is, or even if it has a consistent view, but as far as I'm concerned all Neutral votes are a waste of space. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come now. We both know that "neutral" votes serve a very useful purpose.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 18:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right; I'd forgotten about your legacy to wikipedia. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Neutral !votes can serve a purpose if they provide some good outlines for the candidate's improvement (ie: "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine"). "Neutral pending an answer to my question" is both unhelpful and as mind-boggingly obvious as saying that water is wet. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those kinds of analyses can be drawn and left up for discussion in..well..the discussion section. Neutral votes are essentially fluff, even though I've been neutral at times. MF is absolutely right. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My take is that the "Discussion" section is more of a "meta" section; that is, it's discussion about the RfA, rather than about the candidate. Candidate-specific discussion, without choosing a side, is done in the Neutral section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My own view is that comments like "I like your mainspace contributions, but saying 'OMG lol delete' in AfD discussions is asinine" are best made outside the pressure cooker of an RfA unless they're part of the justification for an oppose. A quiet word in the candidate's ear from an editor whose opinion (s)he might be inclined to take notice of would be likely to be more effective IMO. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally use variations of "provisional oppose as I can't see any evidence of xxx", if something I'd want to see isn't evidenced but I can't see any fault. IMO, as long you one is willing to change it if evidence does come up, I can't see any problem with this. (There's a fairly good example of this on IMatthew's WereSpielChequers RFA at present – as he hadn't mentioned them in his answers to the questions and they weren't obvious in his history, I'd overlooked his significant article-work). – iridescent 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that both supports and opposes can be as easily taken away as given whether they're prefixed with "provisional" or "temporary" or not, just by making a little edit, had I been concerned as you were I'd simply have raised the issue with IMatthew on his talk page, and then, depending on his response, decided whether to suppport or oppose. But each to his own I suppose. It's the Neutrals I don't understand. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A neutral vote should be easy to understand. An Rfa is a !vote, in theory anyway. The closing bureaucrat is supposed to look at positive and negative arguments and not focus on the votes. A neutral vote is a way of expressing concerns and positives about a candidate when an editor finds it hard to decide whether the positives outweigh the negatives. I don't see the big deal. (Fair disclosure: [1].)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll make you a deal. I'll believe that bollox when you show me an RfA that passed at less that 50% or failed at more than 90%. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can easily show you many such examples. I'll be back as soon as I finish selling the Brooklyn Bridge. (But, seriously. A neutral is just another statement of where someone is on an Rfa.) --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I will always fail to see the point in so-called neutral comments along the lines of "I can't support anyone who uses cat humor in an RfA, it seems like you're not taking the whole thing seriously." That's not neutral, it's a clear suggestion that the candidate isn't taking the RfA seriously. If that's a "neutral" comment then the Pope is my father. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Just occurred to me, slow tonight I know, that votes can't be neutral in any meaningful sense anyway. So logically !votes can't be neutral either. Ban 'em I say! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sign me on. As long as I can !vote in both the support and oppose columns! (What gets me is those guys, like this one, who go 'neutral, leaning toward support'. What's the deal with that? Either support or oppose and stop that backboneless leaning!)--Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We can stop the whole "leaning" phenomenon by adding MOAR levels of response. Why only three? Why not make it more like judging a dance or diving routine? Something out of ten. "8.5". "5.6". 9.9, 1.5, 3.7.... Add em up, and if teh crats have an average about 7.5 or above, they win!!!!. No more leaning. More judgment!!!! It's already a vote, we are only fooling ourselves. I can imagine the whole "badgering" phenomenon will disappear also. Who's gonna argue with a "After reviewing contribs, I give you a 6.8". How could anyone come back with "you SOB! He's at least a 7.4!!!". I think I just solved the RFA problem! Keeper ǀ 76 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I was just reminded of this. Useight (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Did this whole thread come up because of my "Weak Support for now" that I posted 8 minutes before this thread began? If so, I posted that because the tip of the iceberg looked good and I wanted to voice my opinion of that tip but also declare that I was going to look at the remainder when I had more time to do more than scratch the surface. Useight (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it was my "Provisional Oppose at this stage". – iridescent 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It was neither of them, in fact. I've just seen it a few times over my 'wiki-experience' and pondered the rationale behind them and whether or not supports & opposes based on an initial impressions and limited time for reading the RfA were acceptable. Caulde 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Or the 2 neutrals in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buckshot06? (which I so kindly addressed :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If RFA is supposed to be a discussion rather than a vote, then making a provisional vote which makes it clear as to what sort of evidence would lead you to reassess is exactly the sort of thing this process needs, and if people don't want all opposers and neutrals to be badgered it is also a great unsubtle way to tell the candidate which comments to spend their time responding to. Secondly and I'm afraid I can't say this without it sounding at least a little critical, if someone indicates a vote is provisional but then doesn't respond to further dialogue then it looks almost as bad as if they vote, post a question and then make no response to the answer to that question. I suspect that if the closing crats were to strike out a few such votes as "provisional vote, responded to by applicant" the second problem would disappear PDQ. Perhaps more controversially if opposers had to phrase their oppose along the lines of "I didn't see X in the part of the contributions that I reviewed - happy to reassess if given examples of that" then RFA might be a very different experience. ϢereSpielChequers 17:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding canvassing in RFAs

A question regarding canvassing. Would canvassing possibly be regarded as one individual advising another individual to oppose a candidate i.e. User A e-mails User B telling him to Oppose User C's RFA. Would a simple exchange as that class as canvassing? Also, can canvassing just involve two individuals, or would it have to involve several users? D.M.N. (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS puts that behaviour firmly in the inappropriate canvassing camp (Biased, Secret and likely Partisan). –xeno (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the RFA I'm talking about two users talking over e-mail *possibly* about an RFA and opposing - I have some evidence to back it up. Not quite sure whether this would be the appropriate place to tell all.... any outside party/admin open to an e-mail so I can speak to them? D.M.N. (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best you email the details to a 'crat... –xeno (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I just have to point out that we have a User:B ;) John Reaves 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Policy-based comment: WP:CANVASS says, right at the beginning (emphasis added by me): "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.". Common-sense based comment: If User A and User B know each other, I just can't figure out how this is a bad thing, how it would be policed, and why we would care. If User B doesn't know User A, the proper response from User B is "Go away". If there is a suspicion that this actually isn't just one user emailing just one other user, then that's a different story, but that's specifcally not how the question is worded. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK fair enough. Thanks for clarifying. D.M.N. (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • That really seems like reading the letter of the law, rather than the spirit. While it may not be canvassing on that read if it was just a single message from one user to another, in that case, it's meatpuppetry. –xeno (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

People are banned from discussing RFA's? ;-) Ok, so only RFA regulars will be able to comment on RFA's then, won't they? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They're banned from trying to sway others' opinions about an RfA in their favor.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing isn't really banned from RFA. The only things I can think of would be anon user !voting and blatant sockpuppetry. Nevertheless, barneca, you're kinda wikilawyering. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's the first time I've ever been accused of wikilawyering. By two people I respect no less. So, I went back and re-read WP:CANVASS, thinking I might be wrong. I'm not. I stand by my interpretation of both the spirit, and the letter, of the policy. also, note the "common-sense based comment" part of my earlier post. No one is going to tell me what I can and can't email a friend, and I'd love to see them try. --barneca (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, I understand where you're coming from, but wouldn't that classify as meatpuppetry..if worded in a non-neutral influential tone? I mean, it seems like vote stacking a small scale. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Telling anyone through any means "You should vote ________ in _______'s RfA" is canvassing. It doesn't change depending on how good of friends you are with the guy.--KojiDude ^(C) 01:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with KojiDude on this one. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, if User A tells User B to do something on wiki, and User B does it because User A said so, then the word for that is "User B is weakwilled". If User A knew this was going to happen, or if User A and User B agreed that they would always act in unison like this, then yes I'd use the term meatpuppet. But if User A emails User B "Did you notice that complete jerkoff User C is up for RFA? You haven't opposed yet.", and User B emails back "Yikes, I'd missed that, I'm off to vote Oppose", then no I don't call that canvassing, or meatpuppetry. I call it "conversation". Same goes for an email "You should vote ___ in ____'s RFA".

It's all academic, though because if it truly is limited to two friends, no one is going to find out. In that case, what name you choose to call it is a distinction with no difference.

And, since my cover is blown anyway, and now everyone knows I'm a wikilawyer, I'm actually curious why people think someone went to the trouble of putting the word "multiple" in WP:CANVASS, if it applies even to a single instance. Is that a new addition or soemthing? --barneca (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

<--This thread is reason #one billion for why I don't have email enabled. Sheesh. Keeper ǀ 76 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually if User A tells User B to do something, and A gives good reasons, then User B should really do it. It's called "good advice" ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh. true. Hopefully it was relatively clear what I was getting at... --barneca (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's good advice or bad advice, it's input that User B can consider and act on or reject. In any event, if it is a single one-on-one conversation between two users who know each other, I don't think it is the kind of thing covered by the spirit of WP:CANVASS. It's hard to see how someone sharing an opinion in that case can undermine the RFA process. -- DS1953 ^talk 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's verging on rules wonkery to disagree with Barneca here. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

7 admins created in Sep 08. Crat happy to nominate "unusual" RfAs.

The stats at User:NoSeptember/crat stats show that just 7 users became admins in September 2008 and that this is the lowest figure for any month (the stats go back to 2004).

In contrast, during 2007, we twice hit highs of more than 50 in one month.

Admins do become inactive. And the Project is growing larger all the time. So we need you to become an admin.

Therefore, I am posting here to make sure you know that I am happy to consider nominating editors for RfA. But, more than that, and as demonstrated by my two most recent nominations, I'm willing to nominate unusual candidates. Evidence shows (one successful RfA and one on the way to success it would seem) that such noms can pass - and pass well too.

So:

• If you're hanging about waiting for someone to notice you, don't. People may well think you're already an admin, so...

• If you had civility or edit-warring or other problems (even a block or two) early in your time here but an unblemished record for some time since...

• If you've not been editing for a long time, but do have experience in admin areas and are civil and helpful by nature...

• If the chances of you ever producing an FA are not just zero, but actually negative <grins> because you're content as a gnome...

• If you have no enormous "need for the tools" but if granted would use them occasionally just to clear up your own messes like G6 deletions, (so "not adding to the backlogs", rather than "helping reduce" them)...

• If you've had an unsuccessful RfA before, but have demonstrably moved on since then...

• Or you're similarly an unusual candidate...

...drop me a line.

Of course, I also welcome well-qualified candidates! Remember, we (the community) are not good at spotting good candidates - we tend to perceive you as admins already.

Drop me a "warts and all" message, disclosing any skeletons - these are best discovered before starting RfA, rather than being uncovered in the middle. And be prepared for me to lightly grill you before I offer a nom.

I can't guarantee to nominate you; I won't if I wouldn't support you myself. And I can't guarantee success. But please do try me.

Two last tips:

1. it may be worth doing an editor review first, but be polite and review at least one other editor who's been waiting a while.
2. the best admin candidates are those who already behave in an "adminlike fashion". Advice I spotted early in my time here and took to heart.

Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) PS Please be patient - my editing this month is heavily restricted by RL and that + my other responsibilities when I am "in" means it may take me a while to get to you.

I'd honestly suggest just giving people the mop without running them through the process. Who wants to answer 40 inane questions about hypothetical situations they have no intention or requirement to encounter, let alone deal with? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who does want to answer lots of questions can try RfB. Question City that is. The volume of RfAs is down. I seek to address that. --Dweller (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The questions are (almost) irrelevant. People do take them too seriously. Anyone can learn how to be an admin. The central issue is, does the community trust you? The answer is often "no." Experience is relevant in the sense that it is the medium in which that trust is built, but some very exp. people do not get the bit. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Have people tried looking through the list of admin hopefuls for potential candidates? -- how do you turn this on 12:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps talking to admin coaches to see if they think their coachees are about ready? Useight (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely the process of admin coaching involves a nomination at the end? I'm sure the coach would be aware of whether the candidate is ready or not. -- how do you turn this on 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I do "Editor Coaching", with no objective to eventually submit an RFA, just to help them out as an editor. Useight (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think coaching was significantly hurt back in Mar-Jun when 15 coachees were clearly not capable and where coaching was poorly done (and I say that as an advocate of coaching.) This gave coaching a bad name and people started to see coaching as bad by default. This legacy, kind of deterred some (including myself) from coaching.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Right you are, coaching took a big blow, I was just suggesting that there are going to be some coachees who are prepared and that finding those individuals would help increase the volume of RFAs. Useight (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I just recieved a message from Dweller asking if I would like to become an administrator. My answer would be yes, I would be intrested. Alex (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• I do agree more admins are needed. As ever, it's not so much raw numbers but the data behind it. As of now there are just shy of 1,600 admins (1597) yet only 970 are active. A quick look at this history [2] indicates that this figure has fluctuated over the last year but is now almost identical to what it was 11 months ago. So a year of RFA's has resulted in merely treading water in terms of active editors with +sysop. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  15:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To echo Gladys j cortez on WP:BN, the biggest problem is retarded opposes. Crats need to be more active and remove ridiculous oppose rationales. RfA is supposed to be a civil discussion about whether or not the candidate should be allowed to receive sysop rights. What it actually is is an oppurtunity for people to beat other users into the ground any possible reason And yes, the link was intentional. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(since J.Delanoy mentioned my comment, I figure it shoud go here too...)Truthfully, I think something that would go a long way toward pulling in more people for adminship would be some sort of boundaries concerning the reasons for which !voters can validly support or oppose. Not that I'm in a position to criticize, since a bunch of the "supports" in my current RfA are for exactly this reason, but "Influential person X likes you, so I do too"--not really valid. Similarly, I've had one person oppose because she thinks I have a "contrived persona" and one opposing because she read my blog, which has nothing at all to do with Wikipedia. The sole and only reasons for support and objections should lie in the candidate's ON-WIKI/wiki-related activity (adding the second half because yeah, I wouldn't want an admin whose sole off-Wiki life consisted of badmouthing Wikipedia!). I think a commitment from 'crats to focus the discussion where needed, and when necessary to use their judgement re: which !votes should be considered, would go a long way towards reassuring people. (No, I don't know how this might be done fairly; I'm just putting out the idea. I've seen some truly, truly cockamamie !vote rationales while watching recent RfA's--my own is incredibly tame in comparison.) Thanks...Gladys J Cortez 17:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe RFA should be like AFD, FAC, and every other discussion arena on the project. No votes, and reasoned arguments. The bureaucrat has complete discretion, like an admin (and Raul/Sandy) has. -- how do you turn this on 15:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But RfA is that way, isn't it? Opposes without any rational reason are usually discarded by the closing crats or at least they should be. But discussion and "stupid" opposes serve as a good test if the candidate is able to deal with people complaining about unimportant things. But Dweller's comment on WP:BN is true, maybe crats should step in sooner to remove discussions which are completely off the subject (as I can say happened on my RfA quite a lot).

If you think there are not enough candidates, have a look at WP:HOPEFUL. You can pick and choose amongst willing editors there. ;-) SoWhy 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dweller, I think that your idea and the motivation behind are both sound, and I commend you for the initiative – but it greatly intrigues me as to how people perceive the RfA process as more likely to be successful ("successful" here meaning resulting in promotion to sysop) if they request nomination by another established editor than if they self-nominate. Surely the sentiment behind both is identical, as in both cases, it is a conscious decision by the administrator hopeful to go through the process? Yet, for whatever reason, it is deemed better to "self-nominate via proxy", as it were, presumably to increase the perceived chance of success. And yet, if a candidate is nominated by another editor without having requested the nomination beforehand, and accepts that nomination, does that not express a desire equal to that of the self-nominator to run for adminship – should that be classed as "prima facie evidence of power hunger" as well? I'm sorry to go into Wikipedian sociology, but like I said, I find the whole aura of hostility towards self-nomination highly interesting. haz (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People should never want to be admins. We should find candidates among the unwilling, and drag them, kicking and screaming, and put them into the position. –xeno (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we force Sandy to become an admin? ;) -MBK₀₀₄ 18:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Change from vote

Right now RfA's are a vote. We have opposes and supports and neutrals separated out into their own categories. We then keep judicious records of the count in the tally section. We don't do this with XFD, FA, GAR, or any other area. RfA is the only place where we monitor counts like we do. I suggest that we do away with this numbering of comments and break down into separate sections. Have people comment where they comment---break up the "Supporters above" and "Opposes below." Take away this crutch of being able to easily count the votes. Make it a single read, like XfD's and make it more of a "Who has the strongest case?" This would mean that people who have 75%+ are more likely to fail and even the possibility of people with a 70% or less of passing. It would also add strength when issues are resolved or an "oppose" rationale is deemed invalid/outdated.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Unofficially and without lots of thought, I support this. Seems chaotic at first, but I bet many of the problems will be ameliorated by this. A burden on the 'crats, perhaps, but thems the breaks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We need to go one of two ways with this - either we call it a vote and stick to a certain percentage or move to an idea like this. I support this particular idea - it goes in line with other consensus based discussions. I actually suggested this about a year back, but nobody liked the idea. As with all discussions, people are supposed to, well, discuss! I'm seeing all to often people getting gunned down for responding to an oppose or a support - the term "badgering" is way overused. People should be free to question what they like to help make consensus clearer and I believe this method would promote discussion. Now, if only we could get rid of the bolded support and opposes then things might be perfect - I guess that's just a dream! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There's more to this than the (modest) proposal makes out. Deprecating percentages in favour of substantive analysis would discourage the concept of AGF support (i.e. "Support, no concerns/WP:WTHN") and of endorsing another's opposition (i.e. "Oppose per the very troubling diffs by Example (talk · contribs)"). The likely result would be that people would have to dig a little deeper in supporting, and add a little extra in opposing, which if AfD is the model to go on, would result in much more threaded discussion, which means a lot more "badgering" and acrimony. I tentatively support the idea, but let's not fool ourselves about the radical transformation this would bring. the skomorokh 18:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like how the heading for this thread is "minor change". Useight (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I pointed out that even AFDs are not supposed to be votes during my own RFA, and part (although far from most) of the opposition to my adminship is coming from this crazy idea I have that consensus comes about through debate and discussion, not by counting votes. I think you will have a hard time going anywhere with this.—Kww(talk) 19:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats were elected to evaluate consensus. This is what they're expected to do. The problem is with this is there are no policies for adminship. We have policies articles should follow, but we don't have policies for admins. At the moment, people can oppose and support for whatever reason they like, and often for no reason at all. This simply doesn't work in XFDs or FxCs, where comments are evaluated based on policy and not "ILIKEIT" comments, and is strictly not a vote, not counted and tallied up. An admin can easily close an AFD with 2 deletes and 5 keeps as delete without issue. If such a thing happened with RFA, there would be uproar. Either we make it a strict vote, with no comments, or we have bureaucrats evaluate consensus properly, and only take into account standards required for adminship when looking at comments. -- how do you turn this on 19:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference between AFD and RFA is that an article can be easily undeleted while admins cannot easily be desysopped. Useight (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We aren't promoting admins for the purpose of desysopping them. If they mess up, there are relevant processes to go through already. There are too many good candidates failing for extremely dubious reasons. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

We also aren't deleting articles for the purpose of undeleting them. My point was that one process is easily reversible while the other isn't. Useight (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe we should change that. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Just came across this. An RFA in RFC format? Interesting or what. -- how do you turn this on 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember that one, and I participated in it. A novel idea to be sure but I think it wound up causing more trouble than it was worth ... Shereth 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, this is merely a formatting change. Officially RFA's are already not a vote. --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC) In other words, if you want to change the layout and remove support and oppose percentages, this is entirely your prerogative.

Well they are a vote, as it evidenced by the fact that the number of RFAs promoted with less than 75% of support I can count with my fingers. Bureaucrats ignore the 75% boundary extremely rarely, and when they do, it causes uproar. It is most definitely a vote. -- how do you turn this on 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a very old promise/threat I made, where I said I would shut down RFA if it ever became a vote. O:-)

I propose the following playbook:

• Try and use the proposed layout for the following couple of nominations.
• If the layout is opposed on grounds of style, that's fine, let people improve it
• If the layout is opposed on grounds of "voting is mandatory", we kill RFA
• If the layout goes unopposed. Hurrah! :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The comment I was writing for this thread has become too long, so rather than disrupt the thread, I’ll post a link to it here: User:Barneca/The Problem With RFA. For those who don’t care to read it, the only one of my suggestions that has a chance of succeeding is: please stop trying to silence opposers whose criteria you find "invalid". Silencing dissenting opinions leads to Groupthink, and will turn it into even more of a popularity contest than it is now. If an opinion is rare, it is unlikely to affect a vote. If it is common, it is by definition not “invalid”, and shouldn’t be discounted. Anyway, lots of other brilliant IMHO solutions are in the essay. --barneca (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as it's ok to challenge any comment (support or oppose) -of course in good faith- I'm fine with whatever. Opposition gets challenged more often, because you get a better return on your invested time. But I have seen people challenge supporters too. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait, on reading, you want to take a straight vote, with no challenging. That way lies the destruction of RFA. There are VERY good reasons to keep voting off of the wiki entirely, if only just for consistency. Are you familiar with them? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, I want a straight vote after a discussion, where opinions can (and should) be challenged. And, of course, there's no reason to stop discussing after the vote starts; just that there should be a vote-free discussion first, to develop consensus, with voting second, to measure it. I'll re-read to see if I've implied opinions can't be challenged, and change it if I have; that was certainly not my intention. --barneca (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like an RFC, except at the end of the RFA, or a subpage, or somewhere, people end of voting after the discussion has gone on for a while. (haven't read the RFC thread below yet, going to do that now).--barneca (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nominations aren't the problem

Nominations aren't now, and haven't been at any time, the limiting factor in this process. The simple fact is that the support requirements have been much tougher, due in part (and this isn't criticism) to the increased participation of the FAC folks. The result is that many candidates that would have passed previously fail now, and nothing is a more powerful deterrent than the strong likelihood of failure. I'm not sure how or if you can fix that, or even if many of the current regular voters would want you to, but I don't think an increase in nominations is the solution. Avruch ^T 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on the very interesting, and to me novel thesis that the participation of FAC folks has had a decisive impact in raising standards? It would be consistent with their impact on FAC/FAR/GAN/DYK. the skomorokh 19:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Their standards are lofty? They feel only substantial article writers would make good admins? I'm just brainstorming, but that's probably what the implication is. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When in perspective though, 1 featured (or good, as has been mentioned in various RfAs recently) article really that much to ask? I don't oppose on content grounds (I have once, in my recent memory, however that was in addition to other aspects I felt needed addressing for sysopping) but I do agree with their sentiment. I must say though, in co-incident with the low pass rate recently there have been 'bad' candidates too; we can't simply 'blame' this on the FAC crowd when all their doing is enforcing their own standards as do others who require 7-8 months participation, for example. Many of the candidacies are simply not good enough, not just because they have low article standards. We need to see more rounded candidates, not just those with high-ranking article contributions. Caulde 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with you, I was just laying down my interpretation of the original sentiment. I would prefer to see article creation/writing in admin hopefuls. However, nobody should require a set amount of FA or GAs. That is wholly unfair. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally the above would be right, but there were very few nominations, successful or unsuccessful, this month. Wizardman 19:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there are less nominations because people don't want to nominate candidates who are likely to fail, and people also don't want to be candidates who are likely to fail. The fact that passing is more difficult than it has been causes both an increased rate of failure and a decreased rate of attempts. And, in response to Caulde above, I certainly don't "blame" the FAC folks for their standards. In many respects, they are completely right about what background and qualities make the best admins. But it isn't criticism to cite the effect they have had, and continue to have, on the process. In fact, I think most if not all would be proud to acknowledge that their participation has led to many other editors adopting similar standards. Avruch ^T 20:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

People are hesitant to support requests for adminship because nothing short of ArbCom (and its four month long cases) can forcibly remove a bad admin. How about supporting Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights/Proposal? This comment addresses the issue of admin recruitment. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

FAC wonkery is only one facet of the equation. The minimum standards for passing an RfA have simply gone up as time passes. I'm sure there is someone out there eager to jump up and say "Nonono, we don't have minimum standards!" Nonsense. Just because it isn't written "You must have this many edits and that many Wikipedia space edits and this many FA contributions", when opposition is both predictable and regular for these reasons, it's a minimum standard. Is this good or bad? I can't say, I'm not really qualified. But how many of us, who have been administrators for any length of time (say a year) can look back at our successful RfA and say that same RfA would be a success under today's standards? There are probably quite a few of us who would not. As the community becomes more stringent about who they will make an admin, the number of admins is going to taper off. Just a fact of life. Shereth 19:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I disagree. The number of promotions has gone up and down in the past, but it's never been this low. Earlier in the year, we had more than 30 a month. -- how do you turn this on 20:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is cyclic. I can't begin to guess as far as exactly why this month had such a low participation in RfA and such a low promotion rate. I think perhaps it deserves a wider look; I may decide to compile some statistics. That said, it is still my observation that the community has become more demanding of RfA candidates and that this will naturally result in a reduction in new administrators. Shereth 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I unique in feeling that the minimum standards have *declined*, and that they have been replaced by arbitrary numeric standards instead? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't miss that edit summary, which led to this interesting thread. Yes, standards have seriously declined, in direct proportion to an increase in IRC participation and award-seeking Myspacey editing. If it is true that the participation of FAC folks has changed the standards, that might be because they/we saw FAC and other content review processes (more particularly, GAN and DYK) being used to try to rack up Myspace awards on the admin-coached track to RfA, backlogging processes with deficient nominations in the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed a decrease in arbitrary number !voting in the past few months, as editors are (rightfully) pounced upon when they decide based on thresholds. the skomorokh 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh cool. Can we tack on a requirement that admins must be ace mediators too? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that standards are raising higher than candidates can possibly keep up. Back at the beginning of the year, what was it - 3 months and 1000 edits? [ Look at it now - 18 months and 10,000 edits? Sweet Mary mother of Jesus husband of Joseph but not the sister of Mary Magdelene. Or whatever Butters said. Tan | 39 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The higher the standards, the more qualified the successful candidates will be. The more qualified, the less likely they will be to make bad decisions. The fewer bad decisions, the less waste of community time in fixing them. The real problem is the nature of the standards, not their height. I do have a standard that the admin must show some sign of competence as mediator. Of course, that's harder to evaluate than counting edits or FACs. DGG (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some stats

I took a look at the number of nominations vs. the number of successful nominations since September 2004. There's some interesting trends to be seen.

• September 2008 saw the lowest number of new RfA nominations (26) since March of 2005.
• This follows a precipitous drop in RfA participation over the last year. November 2007 saw a record (103); seven of the 10 following months saw drops in participation.
• Prior to April of this year, RfA participation had not fallen below 50 nominations since June of 2005.
• September 2008 also saw the lowest success rate among RfAs (23.08%) in the entire data set.
• The success rate of RfAs has been below 40% since March of 2008. Contrast this with the fact that the success rate of RfAs never fell below 40% from the beginning of modern RfAs until February 2006.

've also attached a graphical representation of the total number of RfA's versus the success rate. The data points are a 6 month running to help smooth the curve out a bit but it maintains the integrity of the trends. It is pretty evident that we are seeing a fairly rapid drop in both the rate of new nominations and the rate at which nominations pass. This would seem to indicate the problem is twofold: first, something is causing editors to become increasingly less interested in running for administrator; secondly, the rate at which our nominees are promoted has taken a nosedive. The only logical conclusion is that either the quality of our nominees have taken a massive dip, or the bar at which we set adminship has skyrocketed.

Thoughts? Shereth 20:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this useful information, especially the graph. I do think though that it's not that candidates are getting worse, but rather standards are increasing. I don't know why they are, but even though they have been (naturally), it's never been the case where less than 40% of nominations are promoted. It's unacceptable to be honest. -- how do you turn this on 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As an observer of this process (obviously, my interest is higher than normal this week), I need a history lesson: did this process start in September 2004? Was there a feeling prior to September 2004 that more people needed to become admins, but no one knew the right way to go about it?—Kww(talk) 20:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

There were still RfA's back in early '04. September is an arbitrary cutoff because that's where the archive page stops tallying the success vs. failures and I didn't want to manually tally them. I believe it was mid 2003 when the switch from the mailing-list system to a more formal RfA process began. Shereth 20:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, armed with that knowledge, two statements:

1. Something happened in the summer of 2005 that created a fundamental shift in the nomination rate. People that were here then should rack their brains to figure out what.
2. Success rate is positively correlated to nomination rate, which I find surprising. What it suggests is that when pickings are slim, people are inclined to be harsher on the candidates that do present themselves. That, unfortunately, suggests a harsh base electorate. That model would suggest that there is a decent size group of voters that basically votes no, and that group has a constant interest level. Other voters are attracted when friends and colleagues are nominated, and, while they are here, they are more inclined to vote positively on the remaining candidates than that core group is. Do you have enough data to crunch that you could prove that hypothesis right or wrong? Can you plot, for example, the number of voters/RFA? The number of voters per month that also voted in the previous two months?—Kww(talk) 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew, that'd take some doing. I could write a bot to dig out all of that info and crunch it but it will take a while - you'd have to be patient :) I'd also like to point out that it's possible that, rather than the success rate being a function of nomination rate, what if nomination rate is a function of success rate? When the majority of nominations are passing, new ones come in easier, but as the success rate drops people are less willing to be put through the grinder and then the nomination rate follows suit. Just a thought. Shereth 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly could be true. If that's true, you would find that the ratio of voters to repeat voters didn't have any relationship to success rates. If the first hypothesis was true, the success rate would have a positive correlation.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As someone who maintains the cemetery, my guess is that three processes are operating recently:

1) There is currently a low in the population of editors looking to become admins.

2) There has been one of the regular pendulum swings by the RFA regulars to be very cautious. Since RFA regulars are also likely to follow arb cases and the AN boards, it would be interesting to try to correlate the RFA record with arb cases, admin desysops, and AN board drama. Simply put, I think that RFA tightens up in the aftermath of admin controversy, and I also suspect that there is a cumulative effect in the minds of long-term regulars. In 2005, there were far fewer cautionary tales than there are now. Looking at the chart and the list of former admins, the long-term drop in successful nominations, which takes off at the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, correlates with four involuntary desysops. Perhaps this stretch is most responsible for entrenching a more cautious mindset that has held through to the present (with some wiggles)?

3) The nominations that get snowed or tagged with "not now" have dropped dramatically. If these nonviable candidates are dropped from RFA data, the curve evens out somewhat.

So, to summarize: I suspect nominations are down because there are both fewer interested candidates and fewer nonviable nominations (snows, notnow), and success rate is down because the mood at RFA has had one of its periodic swings to greater caution. J. Spencer (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Two more graphs:

• 
  Number of successful and unsuccessful nominations
• 
  Number of desysops against success rate

Note that while the number of nominations has been declining for the whole of 2008 the number of unsuccessful nominations actually remained fairly constant until quite recently (when it started to decline). I've done the other graph to see if there is a relationship between the number of desysops and the RFA success rate. There is a relationship, but it's not a very strong one (as the correlation coefficient on the graph shows). Hut 8.5 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Kww's postulated existence of a decent size group of voters that basically votes no, is contradicted by the many RfA which pass with almost no negative votes. Perhaps there are people who only vote if they want to oppose. I am not sure that isn't a viable strategy for the normal WPedian, to cut down on time at an auxiliary process: let the regulars decide unless it seems that something is really wrong. DGG (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Coming into this late, but I'm not suprised at all to see the "% success" and "willingness to submit" as negatively correlated. RfA is a public airing of all and sundry issues anyone may have had with you. For good or ill, this is an uncomfortable process. As this process becomes less likely to result in getting the mop, I would be surprised if peopled didn't respond to incentives and accept nominations at a lower rate. Some very good points are made below about huggle/rollback being a big part of the higher standards and lower need for the mop. but we can't overlook the personal aspect of things. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Less trusting, leaving project after failing RfA?

I wonder if it's coincidence that the nosedive in both the number of people running and the success rate happens in February, when Archtransit is desysopped and banned. He'd passed RfA with 100% support (and a nomination from myself). I get the feeling people are less trusting since then. WJBscribe (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, if you mentioned Archtransit to people who run for adminship now, its unlikely they'll know who you are talking about. Many of the candidates running now were only small-time contributors to the project when that whole incident happened. Caulde 13:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's true, but the current potential admin nominees may still see the potential aftermath of Archtransit, namely that RfA participants may be less trusting in current RfAs. I'm not personally sure how much of a change has actually occurred, but you don't necessarily have to be familiar with the cause itself in order to see the effects. ~ mazca ^t | c 13:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also wondering how many people do actually attempt to run for adminship a second or third time. I know of a handful of people that have retired from the project shortly after failing at RfA - is this a trend that we should be worried about? Gazimoff 11:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add a fourth mandatory question to RfA: "If this fails, will you still stick around?" This actually is a fairly serious suggestion. No offense to our RfA candidates, but if they can't handle RfA, it's unlikely that they could handle being an admin. GlassCobra 13:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, but everyone would answer "yes." iMatthew (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps some candidates simply haven't thought of the possibility of their RfA failing, especially if it's for reasons that they strongly disagree with. The question would have to be more specific, obviously. Or perhaps added to the RfA creation page...hm. Thoughts, anyone? GlassCobra 13:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe something like - "Can you please explain a time where you were criticized in any way, and how you handled it"? iMatthew (talk) 13:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand people leaving. It's an extremely stressful experience. In my case, I knew going in that there was a group of people that would sooner die than see me become an admin, and, much as I expected, they are voting against me for precisely for the reason I expected them to. I was hoping they weren't quite such a vocal group, but it doesn't really surprise me that they are. Even with my low expectations, it's been amazingly discouraging (I still tell myself that there's a possibility the next 120 editors in a row will go into the support column, but I think that's a remote possibility). For someone that didn't realize that there were people that opposed them, and find themselves opposed by a broad spectrum of editors, it has to be devastating. Even if they answer that they would stay, they may find in the end that the joy has gone out of it. The community aspect of Wikipedia is important, and being rejected by the community stings, be it a physical community or a virtual one.—Kww(talk) 14:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with iMatthew, ask people how they will react to criticism and most will only tell you the positive stuff or the negative stuff but swear that they have changed now. SoWhy 13:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should take all the blame, WJBscribe. :-) The FM-C68-SV-JzG case also put a damper on enthusiasm for adminship. The way out of this is to establish a community desysoping process. If we make it easier to remove bad admins, and increase oversight of admins by the community, I think we have more assumption of good faith at RFA, and then more people willing to stand for RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think what we should do is learn from the reasons people have left the project for reasons other than real life etc. and try to rectify their concerns. This includes admins who have left messages on their page saying the project is this and that etc. Wikipedia should always try to get better and as Pedro stated above, the number of active admins has virtually stayed the same this past yr. Whether an admins duty is too taxing, too tiresome bothersome etc. and people would like to stay away from all of that and just contribute without having the mope in their hands is an issue like more that is being discussed at the Wikipedia:RfA Review but its good something like this has come up so people can share their broad views right away on whatever it is thats on their mind. 211.30.12.197 (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jehochman about a dysysoping process. I have seen three excellent editors who have refused to be administrators because of the current politics going on. There are some administrators that bring more heat then light to articles because of thinking or maybe just acting like being an administrator is more powerful than it is supposed to be. There has been a lot of ligitamate concerns over some administrators and so far everything said is ignore or turns into major drama. This kind of thing doesn't show editors any reasons to become an administrator when there is so much drama seen with a few administrators which really effect all it seems esp. when the administrator accuses other administrators of stalking or worse. I also think that administrators should be required to do all of their discussions on wiki and not off site and then come here saying there is a consensus to do something but a lot of editors don't know the story. This back door policy and apparent secrecy decisions being made seem way to political for a lot of editors and thus they are refusing to become administrators. Anyways, this is what I have been seeing lately and I really don't blame anyone for not wanting to get into the politics of being an administrator. People are here to write an encyclopedia and not here, hopefully, for politics and favoritism. Just my opinion, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually doubt Archtransit-episode had any long-term effect on RfA. Granting of Rollback-right started in January, and I think that's a far bigger effect, combined with increasing Huggle usage. A year ago, a vandal whacker could march to RfA with 100 or more reports to AIV, and he/she would receive support !votes – because clearly having an admin rollback and a block button would make them more efficient. Now, the RfA would be closed per WP:SNOW within couple hours. Part of the reason is that they already have rollback, so there is less need for tools, and partly it's just the general inflation of edit counts. Vandal fighting admins are a dying breed... and to make things worse, if an editor is interested in adminship, pretty much the worst thing they could do is reverting vandals. A bit like socking in fact: if you stick around long enough, there is a possibility that !voters may ignore it. Fire up Huggle or Twinkle and you are shooting yourself in foot. And vandal whacking is something most of the editors here have done at some stage. It takes absolutely insane amounts of reverting or couple FAs to squeak through RfA. Few thousand reverts is probably enough to brand an editor as hugglebot. – Sadalmelik ☎ 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion a lot of people don't go up a second time due to ridiculousness such as on iMatthew's rfa. A pileon happened there because he answered a question in a controversial way, then someone disagreed. Then when he changed his opinion because apparently that was how it should be, people accused him of only saying what we want to hear. Sorry for the bias in my opinion, but that boy ain't right PXK ^T /_C 23:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: make RFA like RFC

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely agreed. It was after this and Moralis' RFA that basically no one has ever mentioned changing RFA into an AFD or RFC style since. Some things just seem good planned out, but when actually done the results are less than stellar. bibliomaniac15 21:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real problem

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion: Enforce the WMF Non-Discrimination policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users and employees". Admins aren't employees, and we're not limiting anyone's ability to edit based on age. There's nothing in the discrimination policy stating that it can't discriminate for additional privileges, such as adminship, CU, oversight, or steward. There is no policy violation here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. In fact, the WMF specifically requires that checkusers and oversighters are over 18. As most "age-discrimination" issues in terms of adminship have come from people auto-opposing under-18s, I certainly can't see that the discrimination policy applies any differently if members of the community wish to use that as a standard. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

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

Question period preceding vote, perhaps

One thing that I think would help this process would be to have a question/answer period prior to the vote-taking. Have a one-week interval where people are examining the record, asking questions about what they think are important aspects, and allowing the candidate to answer. Once that's been over, then open up the voting floodgates. One thing that is apparent to me going through this is that the comments of the early voters set the tone of the whole RFA, and if there was a chance for discussion prior to people being able to vote, those votes might be a bit more informed.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I Support that idea :P. Ironholds 15:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I think that the discussion might help a lot. iMatthew (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with the concept. Not sure the discussion needs a full week and then the voting another week; I think we could compress it all into 1 to 1.5 weeks. --barneca (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) addendum: I spammed this link up higher in the thread, but discussion seemed to have already past that thread by, and it meshes well with Kww's post. I promise this is the last time I'll link it in this discussion, and I'll do it in tiny font to avoid being too aggresive with my linkspamming: User:Barneca/The Problem With RFA --barneca (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely, with Barneca's caveats. The candidate should retain the right to withdraw at any time of course, so a bruising discussion period need not be compounded by a punitive vote. the skomorokh 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that two weeks is definitely too long. I would suggest 48 hours for this question session before going into the week-long voting period. Candidate must retain right to withdraw during question period. I also think that WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW should still be options during the question period. Useight (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Approve of that idea. How exactly would this be put into practice? Would we have to go through a whole policy change proposal, include it in the RfA review, what? Ironholds 16:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFA Review is something unofficial, we would not be required to slip this idea into it; plus the Review is possibly too far along to try to add another idea. As for getting this idea put into practice, it's going to be near impossible to get consensus (but we're off to a good start) because Wikipedia fossilized a couple years ago. Change is extraordinarily difficult. Useight (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We need not adopt a defeatist attitude: perhaps editors are so exasperated with RfA that they may be prepared to try a slightly different approach. If the Matt Brit RfA was allowed, perhaps a guinea pig candidate can be persuaded to try this method? the skomorokh 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is consensus to change, we implement. We do not need to consult the author of RfA review, crats etc..etc. I actually think this is a splendid idea. Although, the only downfall I see is just an overabundance of questions causing the head of the candidate to spin mercilessly. We've all agreed in the past that the number of questions far exceed the necessary amount. What would this encourage? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors discussing with each other rather than asking the candidate, less vote-orientated assessment, measured consideration of the candidates merits instead of the Rfa focusing overwhlemingly on issues raised in the first few opposes—to name a few. My previous comment was to suggest we did not need to wait for consensus-arrived-at-through-tortuous-month-long-discussion, but could just alter the format of an upcoming Rfa, politely asking editors to withhold from voting for two days, and going from there. Run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. the skomorokh 16:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (response to Wisdom) Yeah, and that's the issue with this proposal. It would only add more questions, which I as a candidate enjoyed answering, but the number of questions does often become excessive. With this implementation, two days of questions (plus probably some more added during the normal week-long period), would only increase the number of questions. If we only allow questions to be asked and answered, I see this as possibly a solution looking for a problem, but if we used the rarely-used Discussion section during that 48 hour period it should decrease the amount of "badgering" that occurs. Useight (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Longer discussion need not necessarily mean more questions; I would imagine with the "badgering" stigma removed, nominators and others would be free to advocate and research on the candidate's behalf. the skomorokh 16:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

←Would questions still be allowed to continue during the voting phase or cease straight away? The latter would be a bad idea.. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions definitely need to be permitted during the voting phase. Useight (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Useight. -- RyRy (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be prepared to act as a test case to see what happens. After 3 previous RfA's It's safe to say I dont follow the "I didn't pass? I quit!!" attitude, so it should work out alright. I was thinking of applying anyway, but if I can apply+help out future candidates then it's a win-win for everyone. Ironholds 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This also increases the likelihood of more nitpicky trap questions where there is only one right answer..or designed to produce the wrong one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If people would be OK with me going ahead under this format, I guess we'll find out! Some questions will always be two wrong answers; open to recall comes to mind, for example. Ironholds 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. Limiting any part of the phase to less than a week prevents users from participating, because some only log on during the weekend, for example. 48 hours before voting isn't really much of a time-frame either. That said, if such a change were made, the questions should be required to be specific to the candidate, no general "go look at another RFA for the answer" questions. No trick questions and no stupid "why are bananas yellow", time wasting questions. Admins and 'crats should be prepared to trim out the stupidity. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well just so it's clear. I support such a change to the process. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can work something out i'll be the test-case. We could try a week of questions to avoid people missing out, and if that turns out to be too long with mine but the process works we can trim it. Think of me as the local Redshirt.Ironholds 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with someone involved in the change being a test subject. It'd be better to institute the change upon an uninvolved editor to prevent any bias that could possibly arise. Additionally, would you want the omgz drama over at your RfA? It's gonna be hell to keep track of. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with any involved drama, as long as its made clear that "I dont like the new format" isn't a valid reason for oppose. My involvement with the change so far has just been "hey, i'd like to be stuck up on the firing range, but I dont think format X is the best way I should be shot". Ironholds 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) On the contrary, Cyclonenim, I don't think we should spring a new format on a candidate that wasn't 100% behind the idea. I fully support an experiment, and salute Ironholds' offer. I think a reasonable Crat would respect a slightly longer than normal RFA once, as an experiment, to see what happens, without requiring a full-blown multi-month "official" discussion at RFA Review or somewhere. Since questions and discussion would still be allowed during voting, there's no need to have 1 full week of discussion, then a longer voting time period for discussion. How about 5 days of discussion only, followed by 5 days of voting? Only 3 days longer than a normal RFA, and we'll know at the end whether it should be longer or shorter.

Also, fully 100% agree with Useight, I see the possible benefit more in everyone using the discussion section than in the asking of questions.

Frankly, if Ironholds is really up for this, that he should just create an RFA, delete the Support and Oppose and Neutral sections, make a note of the altered format in some way so people aren't confused, and as Wisdom says, raise it up the flagpole and see who salutes. --barneca (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This sounds interesting; We have tried this over at ArbCom elections before, so we can roughly see the likely outcome. Note that however, this will also mean the longer the question period before the vote, the more screen time for anyone putting controversial questions forth. (meaning the excessive/ridiculous questions problem is going to magnified a number of times). - Mailer Diablo 18:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on this right away. Give me 24 hours to contact some users who've been interested in nomming me before and some time to answer the basic three questions and format it all and i'll put it up. Ironholds 18:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I applaud you for volunteering to be the "guinea pig" for this proposal, and all the best of luck! - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to echo MD - that epitomizes WP:BOLD if anything ever could. I'd be shivering in my RfA boots to be the first to test a new process. I'm still eager to see how this goes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing I'm not clear on, how long for the questions and how long for the voting? Not everyone supports 48h/1 week and I think two weeks (1 week each) is too long. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

For my one i'm sticking with three days; long enough for anyone getting back from a weekend away, short enough that it isnt overly onerous. As you said, a week is too long, not everyone likes a 48/h period, so i've picked something that should appease both parties. Ironholds 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just threw 48 hours out there as an idea; 72 hours sounds fine to me, too. Useight (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

72 hours should more be than sufficient. Enough time to catch regular Wikipedians. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with 72 hours, is the same one that has existed everytime we've brought this discussion up in the past. 72 hours is NOT sufficeint for the users who only have access on certain days---such as weekend. I can't think of a single process on Wikipedia that isn't on a 7 day process, for this reason.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apart from AFDs, MFDs, DRV, etc etc. -- how do you turn this on 15:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the area, I support this initiative, as it's one I've thrown around a couple of times before, but doesn't seem to have caught on. Having said that, it's not without it's own drawbacks, and I completely agree with the idea of having a few test cases before making a decision one way or another.

I like the idea because it deliberately breaks the process into two phases - one where questions are asked, evidence is gathered and the pros and cons of each candidate are weighed up and analysed. This provides an ample forum for people to discuss concepts while encouraging them to check back and refresh their opinions, something that the current process does not really suit. It also neatly matches the concerns raised at the Debate and Election sections of RfA review by providing a structure more suitable for civil debate and discussion, while still allowing the community to support or oppose based on their own view of the weights of the statements. I do feel that, as in Arbcom cases, that we should consider drawing a line under the debate before moving on to the election except in exceptional circumstances (crat discresion), otherwise I am concerned that the debate will turn into a free-for-all if the vote is not heading in the direction groups of contributors feel it should. While I feel everyone should have an opportunity to air their views, I also feel that once the window has closed that should be it.

I do have a couple of concerns, though. Firstly, I think that one test is not enough - I'd hope to see a minimum of three, including one candidate who has been through the process before (such as Ironholds) and one candidate who has not previously submitted to RfA. Secondly, after going through the process myself, I know that a week can feel like an agonising eternity in itself. While I completely agree with Jennavecia that we need to allow as many people as possible the chance to participate, I also feel that we have to be fair on the candidate as well and not draw out the process too much. I would suggest a two-week period to start with, followed by a review at the end of the test cases. It may be that either the debate or the election phase could then be shortened without disenfranchising contributors or materially affecting the outcome, especially if the test RfA phases were organised to switch over the course of a weekend.

I realise that this is a bit of a mind-dump. I'm happy to work on a framework, templates etc in short timescales as I suddenly have a free weekend, so please shout if there's anything I can add that would be of use. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'll support this change. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

STRONG OPPOSE Considering that I think the question period is A) the part of the RfA process people hate the most and B) the most meaningless part, having a question/answer period would only make a bad process worse! Candidates should show their policy knowledge and application of policy via their edits, not some essay exam. I don't really want to pass people who are book smart, but lack any street smarts/expertise.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, maybe you should cool it a bit? Writing your opinion in all caps bold text doesn't make it any better than anyone elses opinion; in fact, it would probably make people think worse of you. -- how do you turn this on 15:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ER, the only part that is in bold caps is the !vote where caps/boding is perfectly acceptable.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC) PS, I have to wonder if your attempt to pose my rationale as making people "think worse of" me is really in response to this discussion. This is the only response to your attempt to divert the oppose. If you want to comment about the problem of the proposal, I'll be happy to respond, but your comment is an attempt to make it personal. The proposal only makes a bad process worse.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Bolding is, capitalizing isn't. I'm simply asking you to cool it, since capitalizing is equivelent to shouting on the internet. (And no, this has nothing to do with the "advice" on my talk). -- how do you turn this on 15:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In the body yes, but not in the !vote. Perhaps if you'd been around longer you might realize this.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't patronize me. I've not once seen anyone capitalize their vote. It's pointless, looks incredibly childish, and it looks like shouting. All perfect ways to heat up discussion completely unnecessarily. -- how do you turn this on 15:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, in the !vote, it is accepted to emphasize one's strength of argument... it happens all the time. In fact, there are RfA's currently in the work with capitalized bolded OPPOSES. As for patronizing, I apologize, but I don't appreciate your patronizing me.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic: Balloonman, thanks for your input on the idea. I've volunteered for this as a "will it work/wont it work" test, although it is a serious request for adminship. Street smarts and so on will still come up during the Q&A period; for example, if user A asks "what would you do in situation X?" and there is street evidence of the candidate, in situation X, doing something completely different, that can come up, either in the opposes or in a "I've found a difference similar to situation X. You seem to have handled it very differently to the way you said you would in your reply to user A's question. Why is this?" question. For those of you who are fans of the idea, I've finished my RfA page. Suggestions on posting: Now? when all the planets are in alignment? Wait, as Gazimoff said, for more candidates for this process variant? Ironholds 19:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish you luck... but I still don't like the of increasing the time focusing on the part of RfA that I think is the biggest waste of time. I don't think questions should be asked unless they are specific to the individual in question, but you are inviting a quiz---which is, IMO, entirely the wrong way to "fix" the process. I hope people prove me wrong.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If this turns into a set of canned questions that are the same with every candidate, it's useless, especially if it's more of the An AFD just reached a consensus that the United States is a non-notable country, and all articles pertaining to its citizens should be deleted from Wikipedia kind of thing. I just know that in my own case, I wish that I had had a chance to be asked questions and respond to some of the impressions my record made on people before I was staring at a rack of 8 "Oppose" !votes all referencing the same diff.—Kww(talk) 04:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be interesting at least. The plan, from my talk with Gazimoff, is to have three RfA's (no experiment is valid with one participant), one after another, with a 6-day gap in between each one which will be used for post-mortems. The idea is that, after the first one is over, we have 6 days to debate over what went right, what went wrong, what needs to be changed, and so on, and we implement those changes for the second one. We do the same after the second one for the third and, should the process work, it will hopefully be implemented in a more widespread fashion. To allow wikipedians who might be away in the weekend to take part in both halves the question period will start on Tuesday, switching to the voting period on Sunday morning and continuing until the end of Wednesday. At the moment we need two more candidates for the further RfA's, preferably one who has participated in the "old-style" process and one green candidate; I'm open to any volunteers, although I appreciate this is the internet equivalent of asking for people to act as targets for "this nice new firing range we've got". Ironholds 04:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, the "prototype" as it were is Now out. I guess that would make this the beta, heh. Ironholds 17:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should RFAs go into thread mode?

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

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

Heads up - edit to Template:RfA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed structure

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

Example discussion structure

Experience in admin areas

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

Reply. User2

Comment. User1

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

Controversial statement

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

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

Article work

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

Caveat. User 10

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

Reverted

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

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

A different RfA model

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

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

Okay, radical change, yes. Pros and Cons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change attitudes rather than process?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2

A discussion that probably needs better visability and more input-- Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a very interesting RfA. AdjustShift (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly is, and that's kind of a new idea (at least for most recent times). I might comment around there soon; glad you left a heads-up note about it here, Dloh. Jamie^☆S93 15:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is the place to comment on the novel process rather than the candidate, then I'd just like to point out that {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} needs updating - which could have lost some participants in the beta test. ϢereSpielChequers 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest transcluding User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report in User:SQL/RfX Report in the meantime, since it isn't updated anyway. --Amalthea^Talk 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

SQLBot info

The SQLBot info table at the top of this page with the current RfA vote totals seems rather out of date: it is more than 24 hours old and the Jac16888 RfA is not even included is the table. Is there a problem with the bot or is it always that slow? Nsk92 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironhold's experimental RfA isn't listed either. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tangobot's report seems all okay, although it's not able to read Ironholds RFA (due to the removal of the S/O/N section). Transcluded below - feel free to remove later. Pedro :  Chat  06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've sent User:SQL and e-mail, and hopefully the problem will be fixed soon. I also posted a Tangobot table at the bottom of WP:BN for now as well. Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Raggonix

Would anyone please close per WP:SNOW. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. You could have closed it yourself you know. -- how do you turn this on 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

He opposed in it. Closing it would've been a conflict of interest. And I added the unsuccessful RFA to the archives. Useight (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dlohcierekim 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

@Useight, well I was going to but edit conflicted you - both times! :-) -- how do you turn this on 23:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it happens all the time. Useight (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

New proposal - provisional adminship

Originally proposed here.

Where an RfA would normally fail, but the candidate has 60%+ [a clear/comfortable majority in] support, and where in the opinion of the closing bureaucrat the opposition is largely due to uncertainly about the candidate, rather than informed opposition, then the bureaucrat may offer the candidate "provisional promotion". If the candidate accepts provisional promotion, then during the provisional period (determined by the bureaucrat), any bureaucrat may instruct a steward to desysop if at least two bureaucrats agree the candidate has proven to be unfit. Candidate appeals are made to the community through a new RfA.

This would hopefully lead to the promotion of more administrators, while reducing the risk of errors. Jehochman ^Talk 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)