Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

1000 admins - some stats

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/stats

Define the problems first?

Split into a subpage temporarily to keep the discussion readable. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See also the very extensive discussions here User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

RFA as RFC

In response to a comment that a lot of the proposals are starting to look like RFC, I started on a mockup of what an RFA modeled after RFC would look like here. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 07:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some RfAs do look like RfCs, but not all. Perhaps the RfC bit would be better suited to the talk page to allow for the more usual simple format where applicable. Stephen B Streater 09:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that defeats the purpose. RFC combines structured discussion with simple endorsement "voting" (I hate that word, but I'll call it that for sake of argument) of which statements apply. This would make it a lot clearer to see what the issues at work are, and a lot more readable, while being less vote-like. It would increase visibility for minor viewpoints, but it would also keep their relative strength in check. Most importantly, the RFC style helps keep temperatures down, by helping to keep discussion from progressing past debate into heated arguments and disruptive disputes, simply by keeping threaded discussions to a minimum on the RFC page itself. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? I'm somewhat inclined to post it on VPP shortly. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Just the same objections I've raised for every other proposal that's been brought forth here of late; it's a shot in the dark unless substantial work is done to evaluate where we are and where we want to be with RfA. It's just as likely to cause harm as it is to make things better. --Durin 13:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we need some evaluation here before we make sweeping change. I don't see how this can make things any worse though. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It solves my main problems with RfA (the 'support' votes rarely have much content, and can drown out a valid 'oppose' vote, and spurious opposes happen based on things like unrealistic standards). --ais523 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• It might solve your perceived problems with RfA but may not address an array of other perceived problems by other users. This is one of the reasons why careful evaluation is needed. --Durin 23:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. Careful evaluation is needed, both of the problems and the proposed solutions. However, the posts here, and elsewhere seem to indicate a general agreement that we do have problems - so allowing the current status quo to continue through inaction and infighting could be just as bad. We need to form some sort of plan here of how to evaluate both the problems and their proposed solutions, and make changes accordingly. Right now, we have a process that's turning rapidly into a mockery of our principles including WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes to instruction paragraph

Relocated to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Front matter#Changes_to_instruction_paragraph

Neutral Opposition. Stop it.

Stop weaseling! This whole neutral section is usually full of insidious negativity, and it needs to go. If you are not supporting you are opposing. The following are examples of what gets placed under Neutral. If they were placed under Oppose where they belong we would have a clearer picture of what is going on here.

• "you need broader experience"
• "doesn't have the project wide experience just yet"
• "Great contributions, just needs more experience"
• "Neutral - Sorry you just dont meet my criteria for edit summarys"
• "Just need more experience"
• "the answers to the questions above don't reveal a requirement for admin tools on this Wiki at this time"
• "neutral because edit summary use is really quite necessary, and answers aren't that strong"
• "needs a few more enwiki edits and better summary use"

Jim182 22:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point. But do you mean that the de jure neutrals that are de facto opposes should be placed in the more accurate column to begin with, while keeping the neutral section, or do you mean that we should do away with the neutral section altogether? I don't quite understand your proposal. Picaroon9288 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Sometimes, answers are vague and a greater explanation is needed. A user may not feel inclined to support a candidate, yet he may also not feel an oppose is essential. Michael 22:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What about "neutral leaning support" or "neutral leaning oppose"? A user may not feel strong enough on a topic to decisively support or oppose. Michael 22:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of people use the neutral section to avoid dog-piling a newbie candidate whom they are sure will lose, so that they don't feel bad. It's also used a lot to ask questions, or simply because they don't feel strongly enough or know enough about the candidate to give them full opposition. Also, your claim "If you are not supporting you are opposing." is false, as is its counterpart "If you are not opposing you are supporting." It's not technically a vote, so options other than a simple for or against are permitted. --tjstrf 22:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps the neutral section should be removed - anyone that wants to say something without "voting" can do so in the comments section. --Tango 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think this is important, it has the same effect either way, so just leave it as it is. If someone wants to vote neutral, it doesn't make them a weasle, it just means that they firmly believe the candidate is not ready - but would not be a threat to the project with the tools (at least, that's what I mean when I vote neutral). Themindset 00:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with most of the comments except for Themindset. I occasionally vote neutral myself. I want to be clear that my comments should not be taken by the closing bureaucrat to be either a support or an oppose. Simply adding a "comment" may not make this as clear, and a comment is more passive. By voting neutral I am saying "I explicitly do not want to my vote to determine the outcome of this vote, but I do have concerns that could sway my vote one way or another if new evidence comes to light." I do this usually because there is a single issue that is preventing me from supporting, but that I don't believe it severe enough to block. I will list my concerns about the user, but that doesn't mean that I won't go along with consensus either way. My concerns are therefore not sufficient to make a binding conclusion. I have at times waited as a neutral vote until more evidence has come to light to sway me one way or another. -- RM 13:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral choices cannot be eliminated. I sometimes vote neutral with some comments.--Jusjih 13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The Neutral comments, although often negative, are comments that someone feels they need to present, but that don't sway them sufficiently to make it into a support or oppose vote. I think we should respect that, even when they are downright negative - if they are that bad, then other people will oppose on those grounds. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 19:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's good to give constructive criticism without piling on oppose.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And an RfA is not the classic "if-you're-not-with-us-then-you're-against-us" sort of thing. One should be allowed to straddle the fence. And I agree with Dlohcierekim's comment above. --physicq210 07:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a silly proposal. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we're not allowed to comment on any current RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 08:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

<sigh> Elsewhere on this page, there is a complaint about drive by voting or not doing sufficeint research before voting. I dig around until I feel comfortable voting one way or another. I also trust the community to catch anything I might miss. Since RfA is not and never was a vote-- it is a concensus buidling/seeking process-- I believe I owe it to the 'crats and the rest of the community to give some sort of rationale. If I'm going to not support, I believe I owe it to the nom's to help them better themselves. Oppose reasons should not be a form of bullying or punishment. They should be a learning tool.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

"Encourage," "Discourage"

Hey - see this[1] Why don't we take a cue from the UN Security Council and replace "Support" and "Oppose" with "Encourage" and "Discourage" respectively? Rama's arrow 13:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, "encourage" and "discourage" implies that the candidate can become an administrator without approval regardless of the "vote" - i.e. we discourage you from becoming an administrator infers that the choice is up to the candidate, when it clearly isn't. In addition, the U.N. secret ballot was also an "informal poll", not anything binding or meaningful officially. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• The U.N. has an "informal poll" to judge consensus opinion/sentiment - exactly what RfA is supposed to be (RfAs are not "elections"). Nothing empowers the candidate to make the call in the UN or here - I didn't say we change that rule of the process. The decision is made by bureaucrats (based on community consensus). Only this process will allow anyone to say "I discourage your nomination because...." Far better than the election format. Rama's arrow 15:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically "Discouraging" is the act of a respectful colleague, unlike "Oppose" or "Object" which makes one sound like a candidate's enemy. Rama's arrow 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is opposing or objecting to the person becoming an administrator. When the formal vote comes around, ambassadors will be opposing or objecting, present reality-obscuring political correctness in an informal vote notwithstanding. —Centrx→talk • 15:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But Rama's arrow is that we are encouraging or discouraging the candidate while the b'crat makes the final decision. If there are significant numbers of substantive "discouragements", the b'crat can choose not to grant adminship privileges. I like this idea. --Richard 20:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Crats don't make decisions, they simply determine the decision that the community has made. Put another way, they don't answer "Should X be an admin?" they answer "Has the community decided X should be an admin?". --Tango 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At the least, they do have a veto in cases of serious problematic users. —Centrx→talk • 22:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not the case given their recent clear and present demonstration that they do answer just precisely that question. -Splash - tk 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As we are all volunteers, I think we should not be given quotas to meet-- we all do the best we can. Although featured articles are important, I think cleaning up marginal articles to encyclopedic standards might be better.Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 21:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If the language is the problem, then I propose "blue" and "yellow". -Splash - tk 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:1 featured article per quarter

Sorry to spam this page with something not strictly related to RfA. The above is an idea to have people sign on to create Featured articles with an informal deadline in place. Maybe of interest to those who use FAs as criteria here. Marskell 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if we paid administrators this could be a requirement. —Centrx→talk • 15:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it would still be a bad requirement. Administrators must have the goals of the encyclopedia at heart, but that does not mean they need to be churning out featured articles on a regular basis. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aargh! Whilst a worthy goal, I hope this is kept well away from RfA; WP:1FA was bad enough (I haven't seen it around recently). --ais523 15:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no--I was not personally suggesting a requirement at all. I just think of this place as an unofficial village pump. The more eyes the better and all that. For those that do informally think of it as a requirement it might be a page to watch. Marskell 15:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what FA:s and adminship has anything in common. _→AzaToth 15:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's part of a larger opinion that work in the mainspace should be held in high regard when evaluating a candidate. FA creation is an obvious example of that. Marskell 15:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea is that to get an article to FA status means having a good understanding of the MoS as well as indicating an ability to collaborate and more importantly reach consensus. All these are good experiences that are desirable in an admin. My only problem is that editors can gain these experiences without ever bring an article to FA status. Nevertheless, there is a valid connection between 1FA and being an admin. David D. (Talk) 15:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some kind of Featured Article Drive is always a good idea. It is, however, unrelated to adminship. I think people who write lots of FAs deserve a reward, but the only meaningful reward we have here is the Barnstar and some related sparklies. >Radiant< 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A non-admin's point-of-view The whole 1FA idea is quite frankly, ridiculous. While it sounds great on paper, someone could have joined 3-4 years ago, made 10000+ edits, know Wikipedia policy inside and out, and not create or significantly help make a featured article. That's just unfair. Luckily, this idea and criteria is not taken as seriously (or seriously at all). --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just want to be clear: I did not raise this as a possible RfA criterion. I just wanted people to look at the page and figured people here might be interested given the volume on this talk and that FAs have been raised previously. That's all. (And that's a non-admin's point-of view as well, for whatever that matters). Marskell 22:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The talk page for RFA isn't really the place for advertizing FA efforts. That said, I do plan to try to work more on getting more FAs under my belt, and generally support the FA cause, as I feel more editors should. Best wishes in your efforts to promote FA creation. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think the fact that this was presented at all, exposes the "Featured Article Cabal's" most glaring defect: neither the front page, nor the FA have anything to do with building a solid Encyclopedia. And certainly nothing to do with normal administrator functions such as vandal patrolling, article deletion, or backlog clearing. Page protection of FAs requires as many as one sysop. It is nice that a certain 'clique' can work together effectively, but any influence they exert beyond their FAs should be violently curtailed. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 18:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I have officially been accused of being a member of a cabal (*pumps fist*)! Marskell 18:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Rory's RFA

Could someone please properly format this RFA? The current count is (41/32/4/17). Apparently there was a section for "Tangential oppose", and I don't think changing standard formatting is going to offset or change anything. If it's an oppose, it's an oppose an should be marked under the right section. If someone could fix this, it would be most helpful. — Moe Epsilon 02:08 October 04 '06

Why would you care? I do not see any harm. Let it be. FloNight 02:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It just seemed like "This section I've crafted for people who aren't piling on because of IRC over this supposed "bitch" remark." seemed like a rather strange reason to change standard formatting. — Moe Epsilon 02:16 October 04 '06

It could be helpful to the closing 'crat. Yanksox 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It could also cause problems for the bots. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bots count votes. RfA is not (or should not be) a vote. The point is therefore moot. — Werdna talk criticism 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Surely if it's a problem for the 'crats they can fix it themselves? --Spartaz 07:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No-one's running, so up the guidelines

There's a problem with no-one bothering to run for RFA any more; presumably completely coincidentally, the process is observably poisonous in several directions and the requirements guidelines keep being pushed up and up.

Is there anything useful (or anti-useful) to fixing or tuning RFA at WP:PRO? It's supposed to be a not-a-guideline to process maintenance. - David Gerard 09:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, I guess the eight current candidates must all be mirages, then? Seriously it does appear that there are fewer candidates in recent months, but I'd like to see the real data before drawing conclusions. Also, which guidelines are you refering to? There are no RfA guidelines to get "pushed up and up". There are numerous editors who express opinions on RfAs' each has their own idea of what they are looking for in a candidate. Are you proposing that we add proces by standardizing RfA requirements and remove the element of individual judgement? I thought that was the opposite of what you were calling for in WP:PRO? Gwernol 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I see they're deliberately being phrased didactically, for example - David Gerard 11:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually lowered my "standards" to better conform with the rest of the community. I don't think it's unreasonable to be able to feel comfortable about supporting a candidate. And some who failed recently clearly weren't ready. Perhaps we need a way to develop and encourage some of the long term users who would not otherwise consider asking for the mop. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I interpret this differently. Wikipedia's growth slowed in the early part of this year after what had been several years of essentially exponential growth. I suspect that the fall off in RFAs (now several months later) is in part a symptom of this more generally slowed growth, and not necessarily a manifestation of changed standards (though that might play a role as well). I would hesitate about looking at one variable (number of RFAs) and conclude that it implies the RFA process is suddenly much worse than it was 6 months ago. Dragons flight 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think Durin has some good statistics on the issue. I do agree with David that the RFA header is rather too verbose. But other than that, if the perceived problems are (1) too few candidates and (2) too high standards, the obvious solutions would be (1) to find someone suitable and nominate him, and (2) to support people on less high standards. Hm, come to think of it... >Radiant< 15:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those are necessarily the problems. Other issues I can think of: For example, I hesitate to nominate Wikipedians for adminiship now, because I am not confident that they will want to handle the (sometimes unwritten) complexities of being one. Although being an admin can be simple, it is often not so. Many administrative actions (and even normal editorial actions) can be interpreted as ways to modulate behaviour, with the facilitator being the Wiki. This can be extremely sophisticated to handle, especially when the Wiki only presents an economy of partial information. Some Wikipedians I have talked to in person, say they do not want to deal with the consequences of being an administrator, even though they are confident they can carry the role. Additionally, after observing all the sorts of things that can occur as a consequence of using this Wiki, that has both myself, and other well meaning people constantly tiptoeing when contributing to this project. This feeling is relentless might I add, and to avoid exhaustion, it is sometimes more managable to be silent than to do the Right Thing. Concerning it is, and systemic it has become. We need a better mechanism of accountability and transparency, and we need better ways of seeking out those users who can carry administrative roles professionally to join the ranks. I might even cautiously suggest that administrators voluntarily classify themselves as being familiar with specific areas of Wikipedian policies and guidelines. These administrative communities would be effective at identifying current trends, and would provide the community with an implicit sort of leadership, without compromising the existing stratification of users. It could be as simple as setting up "WikiProject - admins who specialise with image deletions" et cetera. We have policy pages, but no cohesive and visible communities around them. It's probably more than time enough to grow them and recognize that such structures can complement that which already exists on Wikipedia. --HappyCamper 19:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's an awesome idea, HappyCamper (classifying Admins into departments or whatever). Anchoress 19:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who I know is a valuable contributor but presumably has no interest in adminship as it's currently constituted (based on conversations and statements on your pages), Anchoress, do you see yourself changing your mind if one didn't have to pass a "jack of all trades" test, as it were? Or were you just saying it's a good idea but still not for you? One of the problems (and I have no cites, just gut) with adminship is that it attracts people who think it's a merit badge and scares off people who would be willing to do the hard things it entails if it wasn't so unpleasant. ++Lar: t/c 19:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anchoress, your comment made my day! :-) :-) :-) I thought it would be quickly forgotten in the digital ether. Well, that just might motivate me to start a WikiProject somewhere when I get the energy to do so. Stay tuned... - Lar, I find that some of the most interesting admins are the ones who are admin WikiGnomes. There are a handful who have been promoted, but have hardly used (or even completely not used) the tools at all. Instead, they use the perceived authority of an administrator to mitigate edit wars and diffuse complicated situations where the more vocal or abrasive approaches would not be effective. They also spend tremendous amounts of time helping new users, especially those who are struggling with the software, but are tremendously influential in real life. These admin WikiGnomes have such an capacity for patience and listening and work nicely in those niche places on Wikipedia, but would probably not survive the current RfA promotions process. The issue is that lack of perceived activity can be interpreted as inability in the current RfA climate, when this is not necessarily the case. The difficulty is that it is difficult and time consuming to properly identify and acknowledge these very different situations. --HappyCamper 20:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So how do we recognize, groom, prepare and nominate those who would be good admins but might not consider running?Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...how important is it to think about what a "successful" Wikipedian/administrator is? How important is it for the candidate to be able express this? What about...whether they can do this in a way which adequately represents themselves, and their feelings about this project? Everyone should share notes next time if chance allows us to meet, say randomly, at next year's Wikimedia conference. Or for that matter, any of the future meetups. --HappyCamper 21:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

David, how does 14 == 0? -Splash - tk 18:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Post-RfA thoughts about past RfA Reform suggestions

Well, my first attempt at RfA has finished. I learned quite a few things (as I hoped I might).
And with that in mind, let me response to several of the suggestions on this page (including the last 2 archives), in no particular order:

• I think the support/neutral/oppose system works well - though I would list them in that order, rather than support/oppose/neutral, and add a General comments section to the bottom (if the section becomes over-long, it can always be moved to the talk page, when needed). And helpful editors can always move accidentally mis-placed votes. I think the Comments section at the top (below the questions) should be for the nom's comments, and direct responses to them.

  (Inserting a reply to this point here) What's the reasoning for switching the positions of the neutral and oppose sections? They seem fine as they are. Picaroon9288 20:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  Following the 1, 0, -1 format. Which is also used on some polls. It also rather clearly highlights that a neutral vote is "between" support and oppose. I was also re-affirming that these words would seem to be better than encourage/discourage or approve/disapprove; and that I think neutral should stay as an option. - jc37 23:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Edit counters - In my opinion, most of the other tools I have seen, have not accurately described my edits. Though I have no idea what criteria they use, I presume neither do most other wikipedia editors. The following 3 are exceptions:
  • Mathbot's tool for edit summaries seems fairly straight forward.
  • I like interiot's counting tool (I even placed a version of it on my user page). It's just a simple edit counting tool, for those who wish it, with no judgements about those edits.
  • I strongly liked: "Random diffs from last 1000 edits (with ais523's edit counter):". (though not the adjoining edit count tool, for the same reasons as above, though I think the breakdown was better than most). I think giving random diffs on the nom's talk page is a great way to "nudge" editors to do a little research on the request. Is there any way to increase to the last 2000 edits (presuming the user has that many)?

    (Inserting a reply to this point here) Yes, I can change it to the last 2000 trivially; the diff-generator is quite timeconsuming (it takes about 1 minute with 1000 edits, and will take me about 4 minutes to run when checking 2000 edits), but I'll update it as such. I've stopped counting all the edits on RfAs for probably the same reasons as you disagree with them. --ais523 12:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I support the idea that a bureaucrat should be able to suggest that an RfA stay open longer than the 7 days, in order to more clearly determine concensus, I strongly oppose leaving an RfA open for longer than 2 weeks. I think could create a hardship for the nominee. During the whole time, I felt like there were things I couldn't comment on (such as this page), since my RfA was ongoing. (Whether it is true or not, it was how I felt.) The first day I only finished up what I was working on, and pretty much nothing else, though after a few days, I decided to continue on as if the RfA wasn't there, and just avoid this talk page.
• I have to admit, I was thinking a lot about my "block proposal" on this page, when seeing what another editor called a "pileup" concerning my response to a question about blocking. I think we should probably re-visit that discussion.
• That said, I am not against the adding of "extra questions". I think they can be potentially useful.

And two general proposals:

1.) That bureaucrats may ask any commenter to further explain their vote (like dropping a note on the commenter's talk page), and that bureaucrats may remove/discount unexplained votes, at their discretion. I believe that they already have this ability, but I think it should be re-affirmed, in order to re-affirm that this leans more towards concensus, rather than democratic voting. (I am thinking of several situations/examples on CfD when I suggest this.) I think that it should be limited to bureaucrats, though, to prevent possible harrassment or abuse.

2.) I think the "friendly notice"/canvassing issue should be directly discussed. Right now, it's "murkiness" of definition doesn't seem like a "good idea" to me. I think we should default to WP:SPAM, since those guidelines are fairly clear. People can still oppose on the grounds of advertising, if they wish, since that it their perogative, but the suggestion that it's a violation of "policy", in cases where it isn't, should be discouraged.

I have one further proposal but it's going to take me a bit longer to type up, so here's this, at least, for now. - jc37 18:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

In my proposal to keep it open, I only suggested keeping it open if there was a chance of it going either way - in other words, require clear consensus or a hopeless deadlock to close an RFA. The nominee should retain the option to withdraw, so this shouldn't be an issue - if they don't like how its going, they can back off. I'd suggest that 'crats retain the ability to close a particlarly caustic RFA under WP:SNOW also. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:39, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Documenting current removal process

See [2], trying to document the current means by which adminship can be revoked. Please feel free to edit this to more accurately reflect and describe reality. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this is really necessary in the front matter, as this is the page for approving new ones, not removing old ones. That information is at WP:ADMIN#Administrator abuse. --Rory096 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried giving it a mention more discreetly. it needs to be there, because it has an effect of the decisionmaking process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll fit in the quick mention, but people do need to be aware that the ArbCom has no compunction about deadminning if really needed - David Gerard 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think increasing the awareness of this is needed here... esp. because people are using the "we can't get rid of them if they suck" rationale for opposing. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ending or due to end?

Should the timing at the top of RfAs say ending or due to end? Thing is, many RfAs finish early, and so the statement isn't true. Any comments? --Alex (Talk) 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Whatever it is, it should be consistent. I changed one such entry to "Ending" because a bot was not getting the time correct. --Durin 13:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• I like "due to end" simply because RFAs can close early, (or less commonly, late). - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 11:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This brightened my day

Wikipedi-tan using her admin bit, mucking out the wiki - David Gerard 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Wot, no Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikipe-tan?

commons:Category:Wikipe-tan is slightly disturbing. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What is RFA for?

This talk page is ... puzzling. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal", as pretty much all admin actions are reversible; the idea is that if you're not going to go batshit with the tools, there's no reason for you not to have them. (I've actually lowered my personal bar for adminship after a couple of cases where people I had severe qualms about got their admin bit and proceeded to do okay with a bit of peer pressure the collegial advice of others.) The social and technical skills required are about those of a message board moderator, and whereas there are adults you'd never want to have that job, the skills are easily acquired by e.g. a sensible teenager.

And particularly this year, the ArbCom has had no compunction in removing the admin bit from those who need it removed. Removal is a big deal, but the AC is there for the social decisions that are big deals.

So the ever-expanding lists of requirements don't make sense. The lists above appear to be marks of the ideal admin, who is a bit like the ideal editor with added technical powers (and similarly doesn't exist). And this stuff really doesn't have a lot of bearing on whether they are likely to go batshit with the admin tools. They make adminship into a much bigger deal than it should be.

I personally think most people need three months' experience to get a feel for the place. But beyond that, in an ideal world every Wikipedia editor who's been around enough to get a feel for the place would have admin powers.

Please enlighten me as to why it is good for adminship to be a big-deal artificially scarce commodity - David Gerard 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See my suggestion along a similar line on WP:BN. 3 months and say 1000 edits. And a presumption that the admin bit should be granted, unless "material" issues are identified. Plus a simple recall mechanism. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's important that:

1. The RfA-dwellers look like they're doing more than rubberstamping RfA candidates. They need to look like they're "protecting" us from unsuitable admins.
2. The trolls and idiots can always hide behind WP:CIVIL when somebody points out to them, in eloquent and factual language, that they're batshit insane.
3. We constantly have backlogs, so the current sysops can feel as if they're relied upon.
4. The RfA-dwellers feel they have some control and influence on the project
5. The RfA-dwellers don't have to write articles.
6. The current admins can feel important as they're of fewer number.

QED. — Werdna talk criticism 10:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd challenge points 3 and 6, possibly caveat them with 'The admins who continue to hang around navel gazing central after being flagged'. Other than that I think it sums it up ;) ALR 10:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The practice the Arbitration Committee has adopted of using "administrators" as administrators of mechanisms such as probation is probably part of the problem. Considerable maturity and discretion is required. These mechanism were adopted to give us some alternative to banning, but have the effect of transferring day to day responsibility to administrators. With more power comes the concern that those who exercise it are responsible. Fred Bauder 11:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator_s_ - the college of admins. Individual admins are constantly subject to peer review, so errors can be quickly spotted and dealt with (althougn the scars may not be so easy to heal). There is plenty of noise about admin abuse, but WP:AN and WP:ANI are reasonably effective, I think. A recall mechanism would help too. Adminship is not a badge - it is a set of tools. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a recall mechanism that wouldn't be a troll magnet - David Gerard 11:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess using Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration is out then. Fred Bauder 12:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

With that logic, we don't even have a promotion mechanism that wouldn't be a troll magnet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think we need to set the bar reasonably high - 5 (or 10) admins agreeing to the recall. Then we dump the person back into my new version of RfA (i.e. only material issues cause a failure). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"troll magnet" -> "wikilawyer playground" - assume any process that can conceivably be gamed will be gamed to destruction - David Gerard 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Show me any process that can't be gamed. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

There are of course none :-) But some are more prone than others. If there is to be a mechanism, it needs the Hard Decisions Committee at the far end. Therefore it needs to be something to make their lives less busy, since committees don't scale. (When the AC was created because Jimbo doesn't scale, Wikipedia was #500 on Alexa. Today it's #12. Out of all websites of any sort.) - David Gerard 13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have an up-and-running recall mechanism which is not a troll-magnet and (so far) is not gamed in any way. In my opinion it runs far more smoothly than the ArbCom. Haukur 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As discussed above on this page, it doesn't seem to mean a whole lot - David Gerard 13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• The problem with voluntary recall is that the (few) admins for whom recall would actually be necessary could simply refuse to volunteer. AOR is weakly worded and easily gamable: an admin whose standards are "if at least twenty people with at least 7000 edits each complain, the admin will voluntarily submit to ArbCom proceedings" could be said to be open to recall even if his standards are so ludicrous as to make it a practical impossibility. >Radiant< 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, and in theory a freely editable encyclopedia wouldn't work. The recall process works fine, it has a bunch of high-profile admins in it with real committments. Would it be even better if it was a bit tighter? Sure, I think so, anywhow, but even just what we have is proof that recall procedures work and are not just troll-bait. Haukur 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As I see it RFA has become a focus for those who appear to be social networkers more than content producers. Actually achieving the standard now seems to involve; lots of low risk edits, clearly lots of minors rather than anything substantive and running away from anything contentious because any conflict regardless of its management because conflict itself is am mistake. It's also becoming the classic vicious circle, as more of the social networkers get through then they're more likely to hang around rather than move onto actually working on WP.

In some ways the more effective potential admins aren't going to get through, it's clear that being an effective admin will rub some people up the wrong way (hence the issues around re-adminning), if someone hasn't done that before coming up then they haven't actually demonstrated the capability. Catch 22.

It may be that in some areas WP has now reached the critical mass where a quasi-democratic consensus approach is wholly inappropriate and should be more positively gripped to ensure effective delivery of output.

I'm sure there are reasons why all this navel gazing is useful, I'm damned if I can think what they are right now.

ALR 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Going back to David's original question, I think he's making several incorrect assumptions:

1. Admin actions are not entirely reversible. (Or, more precisely, they're reversible only in the technical sense.) Any number of recent incidents have shown that people will get very upset—and justifiably so—if an admin mistreats them, even if the actual use of the tools (the block, the protection, the deletion, etc.) is quickly undone. This goes double for blocking; being blocked is a big deal, and having everyone shoot from the hip because the blocks are "reversible" doesn't help things at all.
2. Admins not only need to avoid doing bad things with the tools per se, but also to avoid doing bad things in general (c.f. "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others."). Some people seem to do fine with the tools themselves, but are so abrasive otherwise that they don't really need to use the tools to cause conflict.
3. And, finally, we have had some cases of admins going "batshit with the tools"; the extent to which the ArbCom's solutions in those cases have been successful is open to debate, I think.

Kirill Lokshin 13:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to (2), admins are said to be held to very high standards, but the mechanism by which they are held to these standards and consequences for breaking these high standards are rather unclear, and both seem to boil down to being chided by other admins who in turn get chided by yet other admins for chiding the standard-breaker. >Radiant< 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the whole 'admin as leader' issue and whilst I see it as a valid argument in the current climate, it's one that's easy to change culturally quite easily. By reverting to a state where adminship is no big deal by reducing the ridiculous numbers of hoops that candidates have to go through then admins will be less likely to be perceived as having some form of special status.

There is the additional benefit that increasing the availability of admin facilities should encourage a more reasoned level of debate in some areas, because scurrying off to get an admin to arbitrate will be a less viable option. It might actually encourage use of the mediation and advocacy schemes that bubble along.ALR 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible causes

• First, while it is obvious that we should have some standard for admins, it is equally obvious that it is unclear what that standard should be, and there are widely different opinions on that. The lack of a clear standard encourages people on RFA to make up their own standard; since it is a large wiki, people will want to vote for candidates they do not know, and need a standard since they cannot fall back to familiarity with the candidate. The result is that some people tend to pick an arbitrary amount of months or edits (etc) and oppose everyone who falls below.
• Second, I think it's safe to say that some people have raised their standards because they perceive the unlikelyhood of admins being demoted if they turn out to be (perceivedly) unsuitable, except in extreme circumstances. As an example, RFA will strongly oppose a candidate for mild incivility, but the ArbCom does not generally do anything about incivility except warn against it. (I'm not saying either standard is correct, I'm pointing out the discrepancy). See also this comment about a perceived discrepancy between the ArbCom's standards and the RFA voters' standards.
• Third, it is obvious that factions exist on the wiki, e.g. groups of editors with contrary POVs, who have a tendency to oppose candidates from the other faction. Since every oppose-vote counters four support-votes, this is reasonably effective.
• The first could be solved by establishing a clear line for experience (e.g. 3 months, 1000 edits) and make it clear that arbitrary criteria are discouraged. The second could be solved by drawing up a consensual standard of adminship, and indiscriminately promote all that pass it, as well as demote all that fail it (this is the tricky part). The third could be solved by dropping the perceived 80% bar to something more closely resembling other consensus-based processes.
• >Radiant< 13:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • An additional point - the lack of an "official" minimum requirement for admins (e.g. x months y edits) leads to many nominations by enthousiastic but inexperienced novice users, which are (rather obviously) opposed a lot. This could easily lead people to think that RFAs in general are opposed a lot. >Radiant< 13:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that another cause is that people in general will be less likely to vote support (and purlease don't start into its not a vote). People frequently seem to oppose for the most trivial of reasons, including perceived incivility, but won't support if they see no reason not to oppose. Huge number of support votes only appear to come on widely pimped candidates.

It just occured to me that the whole issue of civility or perceived incivility is a minefield given the number of social cultures, and age differentials, within which editors exist. As a Scot I'm cynical and use sarcasm and irony a lot I also have an extremely dry (arid) sense of humour, frequently I think that my SoH and use of irony/ sarcasm is lost on a great many editors and I've had one or two apparently teenage US colonials get really upset about flippant offhand comments. tbh if I could be bothered I feel sure that I wouldn't get through RFA.ALR 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty overreacted to, too. Administrators need to be able to communicate calmly and in accordance with policy. That's All. Manytimes, an editor will be opposed based on one incident, or a couple of harshly-worded comments. Civility is to make sure we get along, not to give trolls and idiots policies to hide behind when somebody points out that their arguments are crap in a decent and factual manner. I personally believe that the only incivility that's an issue is incivility that rises to the level of a block. The word is thrown around far too much, and this needs to stop. — Werdna talk criticism 14:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've thought about a self-nom on RfA. Then I actually read the page. No way I'll put myself through that crap. Why bother? I can revert vandalism and warn vandals manually, though I guess the shiny buttons would help. And it would be nice to have the good housekeeping seal of approval. But otherwise it just isn't worth the irritation of some...uh, user (I'll be civil)...voting me down because I don't have 300 edits in Wikipedia talk or whatever.

A little while back, I put up an imaginary RfA on this talk page as a test. Sure enough, a frequent RfA voter took the bait and told me I didn't have enough edits in "process" or something. (You can read the unintentionally hilarious details on my user page.) Since the imaginary RfA was just a goof, I could smile at such silliness. But if it had been a real RfA, I probably would have gotten ticked. And who needs that?

Not to mention that some people would start pulling diffs from my user page on my comments about Signpost stories, or the Cyde quote, or something else somewhere in my thousands of edits, and then I'd really get sourpussed. So I'll just edit my articles and skip the aggravation. Casey Abell 16:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing

This thread, related to CAT:CSD was relocated to Category_talk:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion#Absolutely_amazing

those pesky rfa opposers

The names of the RfA regulars have changed quite a bit over the last six months, but the process and the reasoning behind the votes seems the same to me. Those who don't give lengthy rationales are too opaque. Those who do are being argumentative or beating up on the nom.

The complaints about how broken the system is look familiar, but it's different people saying so now. Sometimes I don't how anyone could possibly oppose/support a given candidate, depending on how I happen to be voting. I also see plenty of successful RfA's among those who are unquestionably ready. Then as now, I think the system works etter than some of us think. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 19:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution

There are many ways to fix RfA (some introduces much worse problems). If the problem is too many failed RfAs the simplest way to fix it is to change the requires consensus from 75-80% to 70-75%. The number 75% is not set in stone and many controversial fails were in 70-75% range. abakharev 04:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That would work, yes. >Radiant< 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Changing it to 70-80% would be better, otherwise you'll get complaints from people that don't want 75-80% RFAs to automatically succeed. --Tango 10:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If this were a problem, then that might be a solution. It isn't a problem, or at least, the rate of success isn't a problem, so there's no need to change it. Splash - tk 15:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The overall number of admins created isn't the entire problem. We are promoting enough, but the process by which we are doing it in overly political, and results in some users that would benefit wikipedia by having the tools not being able to get them. Take a look at the "define the problems" section above (which is currently sitting on a subpage) - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus for TawkerbotTorA

Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/TawkerbotTorA#Consensus_for_TawkerbotTorA

/me rants on annons.

Okay, this has been getting to me lately, before I begin: Wikipedia is not censored, Voting is evil. Recently i've noticed (Well its always happend) users striking out an anonymous users oppion (ie. "striking out anon !vote") -- Efectivley this is censoring and there may be some valid reason why a user would state there opinion anonymously (ie. a) They may want to remain anonymous and not get on the bad lists of those that may support the user up for RfA or vice-versa, b) They may be a some what active contributor who does not wish to have an account and/or has ran into the user who is up for RfA and would like to help build consensus and state there opinions; Are we trying to say only the oppinions of those people who wish to register have valid opinions and annons efetivley dont count?)

Now there are valid reasons for stopping some annons posting to RfA (ie. trolling) but all to often I see good users being stiken off the list; Efectivly if it is trolling then strike it out -- but if it is a good user offering valid reasons to help build a consensus then we should not strike them, I mean come on.. it's not a vote.

Anyway just my 2 cents.. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that voting is evil (no matter what Wikipedia says about it), but I wholeheartedly agree that anons should have more of a say, not just in RfAs but the entire encyclopedia. There are good anon users out there like this guy, and I'm sure that there are many others. Just because they don't have a userpage or a long talk page doesn't mean that they are not active contributors. Even if you look at their edit count and see a low number, this does not mean they have only made these many edits. I can tell you that my IP address changes all the time. So, yes, I think we should allow anons to participate in RfA, although if we see an oppose vote such as "this user is a jerk and I'm suing Wikipedia if he becomes an admin" then, of course, delete it as you would any other. But if an anon leaves a vote that says "support. good edit summary usage, and contributions to articles. Unlikely to abuse the tools" why not let it stay? - Mike (Trick or treat) 18:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible to tell if one person is voting (or !voting, or expressing an opinion, or whatever) more than once if they do so without being logged in. If someone makes two votes from different accounts which have both been reasonably active, there is a good chance of someone noticing something is up (similar editing habits, etc), but with only IP addresses to go on, no-body would even think to request a checkuser. Anons can comment on RfAs, in the comments section, but they can't vote, and their opinions shouldn't be used to gauge consensus (although others may use their comments to aid their own decision, which will count towards the consensus). --Tango 23:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, then Anons should not be able to vote on XfDs (nor should they be able to nominate anything for XfD...). I think this is very much worthy of a much larger discussion. Any suggestions where/what format? - jc37 23:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There are key differences between AfD and RfA. AfD asks the question "do you have anything to contribute regarding the topic of this article?" It is entirely possible that someone who has never edit Wikipedia before chances on this article and knows an awful lot about it: enough to swing the debate decisively perhaps. This is not a function of their knowledge of any of the editors involved, nor of the process nor of the handling of the outcomes of the debate. They could know nothing Wikipedic at all, but still be of value to the AfD.

On RfA, on the other hand, some knowledge of what it is to be an admin, what admins do, how they are made and unmade and, most importantly, of the editor in question or of useful means to evaluate them. Someone totally new to Wikipedia necessarily lacks that understanding. Anons are, in the stupendously large majority, such a class of user. (There are exceptions, but they choose to be so in possession of this knowledge in advance.) It doesn't really matter what they know about Obscure Article X; it's not going to be of assistance to the RfA (except ultra-occasionally) whereas it could very well assist the AfD. The sociological differences are sharp between the two processes. Couple this with the fact that sockpuppetry gets much harder to easily spot once anons get involved and there are grounds enough for excluding them from RfA - making someone an admin is more serious an issue than deleting or not an article. -Splash - tk 01:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that, since they cannot be accounted for, how can we allow them to join in the discussion, when so often (for better or worse) voting = "concensus". Of course they should comment, but they shouldn't count towards the final concensus, on either XfDs or RfAs. - jc37 01:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD is less voting based - the reasons given are more important. Lots of people giving the same reason doesn't count for as much as two people giving two distinct reasons (if those reasons are true and valid). I think the source of the difference is primarily the difference in number of participents - RfAs get dozens of votes, AfDs usually get 4 or 5. --Tango 11:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Lower limit of 3 months.

Given that an RFA with less that 3 months of time on Wikipedia rarely succeeds, I'm proposing the following language: "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience on the English Wikipedia" This would set into policy a lower bound that is already treated as a de-facto policy by participants in this process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 04:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The same way there is no clear restriction about the number of edits and the type of participation in the community, there should not be a time restriction for presenting oneself. Would those three months be of active editing? Or since user creation? What is considered "active"? I believe there are maybe 1 RFA removed per week from someone who has no chances of success, either by lack of edits or time. On the contrary, there may be users with two months that have spent a good amount of time fighting vandals, maybe previously as anonymous and now registered, and if they believe they need the tools, and if the community trust them, why not leave them try? Also, I believe this will invite instruction creep... in some months the line would read "Nominees for adminship must have, at the time of their nomination, 3 months of experience, over 5,000 edits, at least 25% of edits in the Wikipedia namespace, a good knowledge about fair use handling..."

Since this is voluntary, and does not damage the overall Wikipedia, I believe it should not be restricted. -- ReyBrujo 05:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If we know for a fact that a given de facto standard is being enforced almost universally by the actions of participants, why not save some time for everybody concerned? Also, I think adopting "fixed" standards over time will probably discourage the reliance on much stricter individual standards nat may not be relevant or even desirable by the community at large. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw this for now, I still think it's a good idea, but we need to take a better look at the whole process - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we go forward with reform?

As demonstrated by discussions at User:Linuxbeak/RFA_Reform, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Defining the problems, and elsewhere, I believe than one thing that we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process, and related processes.

I think that the next logical step is to try to reach some agreement on what problems exist, and which of those need to be fixed.

After that, then maybe we can start looking at how to fix the problems that we can agree need solutions, and hopefully, anywhere between a couple weeks to a couple months from now, we'll emerge from this with a process that works better than the current one.

I guess the real question here is how do we go forward with this in a way that respects community consensus, but is able to move forward at a reasonable pace? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Re going forward with reform: no, first we need at least another two years of interminable yapping, ludicrous fingering pointing, excruciating non sequiturs, and other flaming bullshit. Only then should we consider reform. Marskell 09:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

See below. — Werdna talk criticism 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think the way to go is to make a clear proposal and see if it gets support. This has been tried before and the previous proposals did not get clear support, but a well-thought-out proposal might. Read this talk page for suggestions :) >Radiant< 12:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • To be honest, what makes RfA hellish? The voters discussers! Unless you come up with a system that keeps them locked in a closet, brain washes them, or allows for fairness between both sides (hinthint) the problem won't be fixed. Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree that "we can determine consensus exists on is that there are broad problems with the Request for Adminship process". Just asserting this does not make it so. I see a few editors who consistently complain that RfA is broken, but that's not the same as consensus that its broken or how it might be broken. Show consensus has been achieved rather than simply asserting it. Gwernol 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to get bogged down in bureaucratic bullshit like that. If no consensus that RfA is broken exists, this will show on the proposals for reform. — Werdna talk criticism 14:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What "bureaucratic bullshit" do you think I suggested? I simply ask that those who want to change the current process to justify their complaint that its broken. That's not adding "bureaucratic bullshit", its simply asking that we don't change somthing unless we have evidence that it needs to change. Generally we like verifiablity on Wikipedia rather than someone's point of view. I'd also ask you to remain civil. Thanks, Gwernol 14:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

An apple is an apple in the way bureaucratic bullshit is bureaucratic bullshit. This is clearly a discussion between people who want reform. There's no use hammering in and making them prove that RfA is broken, because they all believe it is. If you'd bother to read the previous tens of pages of comments, you'd note that it presents a significant number of problems with RfA. — Werdna talk criticism 14:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have read most of the previous comments on this subject, and participated in several of the specific discussions. If you want to exclude people who don't believe RfA is broken, then yes all the participants will indeed believe that RfA is broken. Well done on excluding meaningful debate, but not so well done on actually helping Wikipedia. I'm sorry that core Wikipedia principles like WP:CONSENSUS WP:V and WP:NPOV are "bureaucratic bullshit" to you, I had thought more of you. Please stop assuming bad faith on my part and actually show what the problem is. If you can't clearly state the problem then your fix will likely be wrong. Gwernol 14:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You appear to here be requiring a standard of proof you have admitted elsewhere (WT:PRO) does not in fact exist. If you could clear up this apparent anomaly, we can advance the discussion.

But here's a starter for you: what on earth relevance does a certain number of featured articles have to whether or not a contributor is likely to go batshit with the tools? - David Gerard 14:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where Verifiability and NPOV come into this. I do believe that the discussion here is amongst those who want reform. If there is no consensus that RfA is broken, this will show up on discussions for individual proposals. — Werdna talk criticism 14:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol, This is more than a blind assertion. There's been a pretty consistant pattern of discussion that there are things wrong with the process. What is in question still, is what exactly those problems are. Given the number of users that have raised issues with this process, in the last year alone, I'd say this is a safe conclusion. If there's disagreement as to whether or not we currently have a problem, we can back up a little bit, and come to agreement on that first. However, if the process was working as it should, I seriously doubt we'd have as many people finding fault with it as we do now. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 14:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not require a vote, or straw poll to prove. If there's some contention here as to whether or not the process is broken, we can discuss that further before we move on, however, as pointed out, we can determine this just as easily as we are identifying problems, as if the process isn't broken, we won't be able to come to an agreement on any specific problems with the process.

With that said, if you insist on further debate as to the necessity of this discussion, we could do that, but the futility of such a debate should be obvious - do we really have to debate on whether or not to have a debate? - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"RfA is broken" equates approximately with "RfA does not always yield the result I think it should". Life is tough like that. Perhaps it is life that is broken. I do not agree that replacing a free, open and dynamic process with something else is likely to be an improvement, and nor do I agree that failing to promote everyone that Editor X thinks should be an admin is implicit of failure in the process. You don't always get the answer you want. I also do not suppose that the way we have RfA is necessarily optimal. But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment. People suggest hard quotas of time/edits: they are obviously wrong because if you're one edit or one day below the quota it just looks silly. People suggest obliterating the support/oppose sections. People will write support and oppose anyway. People suggest delaying !voting for a few days: it'll happen anyway, just a few days later.

People further discredit the notion of RfA-reform by branding a gradual process "bureaucratic bullshit" (they also discredit themselves), and by try to force, by violence, change on RfA of their own design without warning or discussion (see earlier in the year). If those who would reform would just try doing it nicely, being friendly rather than critical, polite rather than rude and collegial rather than condescending, then this would undoubtedly lend grease to the wheels they wish to turn. -Splash - tk 16:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You said "But I have not seen any suggestion (ever) that would actually improve on the way it runs at the moment.". Open your eyes and look up, I can see three at least. — Werdna talk criticism 00:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My main opposition to the present process is the ever-raising bar that has little or nothing to do with the powers an admin is granted. "Applicant must have been rocketed from Krypton as child. Show spaceship for nomination." It fails the giggle test - David Gerard 23:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that response. I about dropped my glass while reading that. : ) - jc37 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an improvement at least. If the main problem is the 'standards', such as they are, then solutions to people having standards have to be found. Hmmmm. -Splash - tk 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So how do we go about determining which problems are "real"? I'm not even worried about solutions quite yet, since it would be best to know what we think we are trying to fix first. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This appeals to the engineer in me quite a lot. If that can be pinpointed, in a better way than the ridiculous poll below, then we/you will be making process. -Splash - tk 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with ER

I think a rather simple solution to several of the issues would be to merge this page with WP:ER, and to require that all nominees go through an Editor review sometime within the 3 months prior to requesting adminship. The length of the review would be up to the editor being reviewed, from 5 - 14 days (to be declared at the start of the ER). RfA/RfB would remain a constant 7 days.

This would:

1. make the user more known to those who watch this page.
2. give the user more idea what might be necessary for a successful RfA
3. nudge those who watch this page to participate more in editor review (it has a lot of names which have been there for longer than 2 weeks, most of which have 0-2 comments.)
4. this also can act as a "trial run" for RfA for those who are curious, since the same editors who comment on RfAs would be commenting on the editor reviews.
5. It would help "catch" minor mistakes which can cripple an RfA out of the box.
6. Helps "weed out" WP:SNOW situations before they even become RfAs

etc etc etc.

This is a simple step that acts very proactively, and I just can't see how this would not be helpful.

I also suggest that "Editor review" (or Wikipedian editor review, perhaps) be the page name. It would give a better sense to what's being done here. WP:RFA abbreviation (and variations) should then become a dab page pointing to this page, and to arbcom. - jc37 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see: this page for a quick example of how it might look. (I de-transcluded the introductory statements, since they would have to be edited, anyway.) - jc37 17:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Comments

Very good suggestion. I can't think what might be wrong with it... :) --Alex (Talk) 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting idea, however if a user has already gone through an editor review, I don't see why we should make them do it again.

Also, the RfA process is tedious as it is, and this would add more to the confusion. We have WP:SNOW for a reason. I highly doubt that this proposal is going to stop the people who register and the first thing they do is open an RfA. I oppose this change. -  Mike | trick or treat  16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that after I posted this, look at the change in the intro. - jc37 16:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds okay, but if we're going to do this, we should shorten the actual RfA period so that potential admins aren't on the edge of their seats for weeks. -  Mike | trick or treat  16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The RfA would still be 7 days (just as it is now). The ER doesn't keep anyone "on the edge of their seats", as far as I know... However, making an additional modification above. - jc37 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Making ER compulsory for admin requests has been suggested before, and it wasn't very popular because it means people who are obviously going to get accepted almost unanimously (can you use WP:SNOW to close an RFA as succeeded? Would need to be done carefully...) would have to waste their time and other's time going through ER. --Tango 16:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How about "strongly suggest"? - jc37 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted myself (though we can put "strongly suggest" back if there is a concensus). I don't think that in an all-or-nothing situation of giving "the mop", that 5 extra days should be considered a "hardship" or "wasting everyone's time". Though I think I understand your concerns. - jc37 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to merge RfA into ER and then say ER must come before RfA because then RfA doesn't exist anymore. If you merge the two, you will simply move the problems you perceive with RfA into ER, and people will soon be complaining of how foolish all the dissenters are over there instead of over here. -Splash - tk 16:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not true at all. First of all, there are other uses for ER. And, as I noted above, this would give that concept more "traffic" from interested editors. (I know that I knew about RfA long before I knew about editor review.) I also note that even in my own RfA, there were editors who suggested that I have an editor review, apparently not knowing that I had (and still have) one listed : ) - Second, the "dissenters over there" aren't making a binding decision for anything. For ER, it's just an opinion, and no matter what the result of the ER, the user is still free to try for an RfA anytime within 3 months after doing the editor review. - jc37 16:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec) As I once explained, adminship is divided into three parts. Before, during and after nomination. Just like when an article goes first to peer review, then to good article, and finally featured candidate, the same way could be said about editors. I see an editor review independant because people can request a review anytime, any number of times, without losing chances of becoming an administrator. However, the RFA is a bit tighter, and someone who requests adminship more than once in a couple of months is likely to get his second request closed per the SNOW clause. -- ReyBrujo 16:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sertain what this has to do with the suggestion to merge the two pages. I'm not suggesting that we merge the two processes, if that's what you're thinking? - jc37 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this mess? -- ReyBrujo 17:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, that review is about "getting something" (An article to receive a certain "status"). ER is not about anything but requesting info/insight/comments. As I mentioned above, please see: this page, for an example of what I mean. - jc37 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, transclude all the current reviews, all the current RFA and the current RFB, and let's see how the page looks like. I kind of like the idea of making ER more public, but the resulting page would be just long to browse. -- ReyBrujo 18:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see. Your concern is about page length? Well consider that the majority of the names listed on WP:ER currently are well longer than 5 days. Of the 65 (?!) listed on WP:ER: if you stripped out the ones longer than 2 weeks, you are left with 26. If you strip out those longer than 1 week, you are left with 13. And consider that many of those may declare that they only want their ER to be 5 or 7 days in duration. So no, I don't think it would be "too long". Do you still? - jc37 18:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the latest opinion was that we should archive requests older than 1 month only at ER. -- ReyBrujo 19:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's partially because it's not a high traffic page, whereas this page is. I think 2 weeks would be plenty. - jc37 20:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Having people jump through one more hoop (ER, in this case) before getting the adminship bit is too big a burden I believe. And the arguments for doing that (avoiding WP:SNOW, etc) don't sound compelling enough. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(ec'ed note)And it's way more than just WP:SNOW concerns. I seriously think that potential nominees should have the opportunity to hear opinions from the same people who typically comment on RfA, in an editor review. Does anyone here need me to list out the many reasons why? And how this can help remove quite a bit of the uncertainty/tension from the whole process? - jc37 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is two proposals, I guess. 1.) merge the 2 pages. 2.) require (strongly suggest) that requesters for adminship go through ER first. You've stated that you disagree with the second, what is your thought about the first? - jc37 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging ER and RfA is not a good idea. The RfA is much more rigid and much more stressful (for good reasons!) and importing all that into ER which (I believe) is meant to see if a person is a good editor only (no superpowers here) is not a good idea, I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see that I need to clarify that I'm not suggesting a merge of the process, but of the pages. "ER" would be under a different subsection than RfA, but just transcluded on the same page. - jc37 17:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea, I don't see a consensus that RFA is broken enough to indicate a specific fix for starters. This just further bloats a process that has already suffered enough..and I don't know what good it does to judge an editor that knows they are being watched. The only effective way to judge a edit history is to go through the contribs. Why do we want to make people go through 2 processes here? Rx StrangeLove 18:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first, I think that this is a good idea, whether we consider RfA "broken" or not. And technically, we're all being watched : ) Also, There are many things on wikipedia that require more than one process (or a multi-faceted process). Not to mention, that just because you ask for an ER, doesn't necessarily mean that you plan on an RfA. I know that originally when I posted mine, I had no plans at that time for an immediate RfA. Also, note the 3 month allowable lag time. This allows an editor time between an ER and deciding about an RfA, in order to work on things that editors may have had concerns with. I see this as a positive suggestion, ways in which we can help each other become better editors. - jc37 18:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it? And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run... and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page. Rx StrangeLove 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, in reverse order:

• "and what does strongly suggest mean anyway? If people don't, will it be held against them? Who's strongly suggesting it? If it's not mandatory (which it shouldn't be), then it's just more instruction creep on the page." - Well, personally, I prefer "require". I only suggested "strongly suggest" due to comments here. Note that it's no different than the "strongly suggested" reading of WP:GRFA. - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that GRFA doesn't put an official looking "list" on the RFA page... Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"official looking list"? I don't understand the comment. - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A list of names on a (official) process page. Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

And your concern about this is what? (Please pardon me if I'm appearing dense, but I honestly don't understand, and can only guess at your implication.) - jc37 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• "And maybe we are all being watched, but not in the direct context of an RFA run..." - When you submit an ER, I would presume that you would undergo scrutiny. The moment you run, I would presume that anything you do will undergo scrutiny. You make it out as if there is something to greatly fear about editors who post on RfA, as opposed to those who post on ER? Or am I misunderstanding you? - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to fear, but anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined. They are welcome to submit at ER for comment but it's not part of the RFA process and just bloats the page more....there's 40 names on that list. Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"anyone putting their name on RFA will (should) expect their contribs to be examined." - and someone putting their name up for an ER doesn't expect that? As for "page bloat", I disagree, as noted above. I think if the editor reviews are on a higher traffic page, and are limited to 5-14 days, then not only will the reviews be plentiful and helpful, but they won't be just hanging around waiting and hoping for additional comments (becoming archived at the end of their term, just like RfA/Bs are). - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• "If there's no consensus that RFA is broken then why are we trying to fix it?" - I didn't say that there was or wasn't. What I am saying is that this proposal is a "good thing" irregardless. This proposal just has the added benefit of possibly "fixing" several things that others see as "broken" on RfA. - jc37 21:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is if there isn't a common understanding of what's broken, why would we put a bunch of stuff on the project page to "fix" what some people see as broken, shouldn't there be more agreement on what needs doing? Rx StrangeLove 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If that's what you are looking for, feel free to scour this page, and its many archives : ) - I don't think that we need to decide on what is specifically broken (if anything) in order to merge these two pages. Please take a moment to read the proposal again. What about it do you see as "bad"? - jc37 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read this page all the time and the reason given the most for RFA being broken is that people have irrelevant reasons to oppose (read:standards are too high) and this doesn't address that. I do think you need a reason to make a change like this, and not say just we know something's broken, let's do this. I think doing something for no specific reason is bad. Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point in response was that I do list reasons for the proposed change. Look specifically under "This would:" in the proposal text. Which is why I asked that you re-read the proposal. If you're not interested, I can fully accept that. But there are reasons. I'm just not claiming that this will solve the myriad other suggested problems from this page. I think it will solve some, but I think that's irrelevant to main reasons for the proposal. - jc37 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I read the things it's supposed to do, but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now. So you're wanting to suggest stongly that people jump through an extra hoop (and add up to 40 names to the RFA page) without improving the process in any substantive way. Anyway, I didn't mean to string this out like this...I'm going to sit back and see what others say. Rx StrangeLove 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"but none of those things addess the major objections people have to how RFA is run now." - I think it addresses several issues, and I think it very much improves the process, and I don't think that, once implemented, we'll have 40 names on the page. However, I respect your position to believe otherwise (and to sit out further discussion). Have a great day : ) - jc37 00:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging WP:ER with WP:RfA is like merging WP:GA and WP:FA. While going through the WP:ER/WP:GA process first is recommended, it should not be mandatory to do so. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I have no problem re-adding "strongly suggest" in place of "require" in the proposal above. - jc37 19:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is only "strongly suggested," then why are we trying to merge the two pages? Or has this discussion gone off in a tangent? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest merging the two pages, for the reasons I outlined at the top. Whether or not it's "required" or "strongly suggested" that those who wish to go through RfA should go through an ER sometime in the 3 months prior to their RfA request is what seems to be going off on a tangent. - jc37 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, actually, whether it is "required" or "strongly suggested" to go through ER before RfA is important because it determines whether the pages should be merged. If it should be required to go through ER before RfA, by all means merge it in the name of efficiency. But if it is only "strongly suggested" (aka the status quo), then merging the two processes will only serve to cause confusion. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you mean merge the pages, not the processes. Never mind. I (weakly) support it, as long as one is not required to go through ER before RfA. I would accept the "strongly suggests" part. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly : ) - jc37 20:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't like merging the two pages, however, I do like the idea of a strong encouragement to particpate in ER first, at least given the current "ADMINSHIP IS A REALLY BIG DEAL" climate here. Keep in mind though, that ER is designed to be used for other things - general editing improvement for one. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Except that lately it's not. It's pretty much being used for "How'm I doing", and by extension, "Give me feedback in relation to a chance at RfA". - jc37 01:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's like the way it's like right now. RfA and RfB are on the same page. Not everyone how has gone through RfA will want to go through RfB. However, adding ER to the RfA/RfB page can cause the combined page to be prohibitively long and unwieldy, considering the current state of ER. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see is scalability. As is, RFA already has a problem that as Wikipedia grows larger and gets more users, this RFA page is going to be HUGE (it is already very large), and might not be able to keep up with the volume of requests- people would have to shift through huge volumes of text and might not be able to evaluate candidates with the care that they should get. Doubling the number of RFAs/reviews on one page will be nasty. I'd be all up for a more prominent link to the WP:ER page, and the "strongly suggest" wording Borisblue 04:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't editors put a little link in their sig if they have a listing at ER? Then anyone can see it and access it from the the "field", folks can react in real time? More people would see it... Rx StrangeLove 04:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some editors doing that. I am not sure about how successful such approach would be, though, because you wouldn't click on it just as you wouldn't click on the green "e" of Esperanza after the first time. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not unless they wanted to make a comment on something the editor did, then after some time has passed that person could link back to their ER section on their RFA...just an idea to draw more traffic to ER entries without linking them here.. Rx StrangeLove 04:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a review, that sounds like a... hmm... how it is said in english... "complaint book"? That is, you did something and someone clicks in your link and writes "On October 9, 2006, this user implied I was not neutral." I believe the way it is is fine enough. There are some who contribute, some come, and some go. Just like Peer Review doesn't always give feedback (I posted the Goldmoon article was listed for 3 weeks and got only one review, and then Riverwind, which has been there for two weeks without a single review), I believe people should edit only when they are willing to take a time to check everything, not only add a note about something the editor did. At least, that is what I think the link in the signature means at a first glance. -- ReyBrujo 04:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

ReyBrujo is right, the link in the signature doesn't really work. Unless you see the user doing something extraordinarily good/bad, you probably wouldn't give it a second glance. Best to have a link on your user page/talk page, methinks.

And as for merging ER and RfA... not sure it would work. ER is a great tool for people who want feedback on their actions, especially new users. Perhaps branch ER into people who are actually looking for adminship, and people who just want others' thoughts? I am fairly active on both ER and RfA, and ER has a much gentler, soothing atmosphere, which is great for newbies looking to improve. RfA, on the other hand, is almost always a testicle-crushing/beauty pageant-like process. Splitting ER could possibly, possibly work. Just my 2 cents. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 09:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, just throwing stuff out there that might drive people to ER without linking them here (which is a bad idea IMHO)....Rx StrangeLove 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand, Rx. I also strongly agree with Radiant!'s comment below. — riana_dzasta _{wreak havoc-damage report} 15:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I don't like this suggestion at all. We were discussing having people to jump through less hoops before becoming an admin, this process amounts to adding more (not to mention doubling the time involved). >Radiant< 12:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)