Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Elli 150 2 0 99 Open 16:53, 7 June 2024 3 days, 15 hours no report

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)

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 Elli 150 2 0 99 16:53, 7 June 2024 3 days, 15 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 01:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

This could be helpful, although I wouldn't want to see a bureaucrat being opened up to criticism for having taken a discretionary risk, either way. So, perhaps "provisional adminship" could be granted following any majority (but not consensus) support in an RfA, say for 3 months, duirng which any bureaucrat could tell a steward to desysop if at least two bureaucrats agree the candidate has been shown to be unfit. Also, participants in RfA discussions could give their support only to provisional adminship. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So all I have to do is lay low for three months, then I'm in? Why not just lower the hurdle to 60% and introduce more robust means for desysopping? Franamax (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

A few might lay low, but even that's a sign of self-discipline and forward-minded thinking. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's a natural reaction to being on probation. See my comment to PoC below. Franamax (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Gwen's got a great idea, but how about we just make all adminships provisional for three months? Probation ends automagically if there are no issues raised by crats about the use of tools. The well-supported admins will have no difficulty, and it gives the less-supported time to prove that they can use the tools responsibly and deserve the trust they're given. That way it's the same rule for everyone. By analogy, here in Ontario there's a 90-day probationary period after starting any new job; your employer may terminate at will and does not have to show cause. Same concept here; it's no hardship on good workers, and lets questionable workers know that they need to be on their toes. Thoughts?

(ec) Franamax raises an excellent point, though. But.. Archtransit aside, are there really many admins who plan that far ahead to abuse the tools? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 08:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. You should update the article about at-will employment to explain what goes on in Canada (see template {{Globalize/USA}}). I always thought that high probability of being sacked for no reason was a predominantly Amerikan thing. — CharlotteWebb 12:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

AT is a classic case, but not the best example. Any "provisional" admin would be extra careful, just like your probationary workers. Once their rights are vested though, they revert to form. In general, abusers don't plan to abuse, they just do. Franamax (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, another thought, what about making admin coaching/mentoring/school/training/fill-in-the-blank a mandatory part of becoming an admin, whether before RfA or during the (potential) probationary period? Guarantees that all admins begin with the same understanding of policy/procedure, which then adds to a robust desysop procedure if they blow it (honest mistakes aside, of course). Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Continues the problem of admin-coached gaming of the system. Good admins aren't made; they're born. You can't teach character and maturity. Those who have character and maturity will learn to use the tools correctly on their own, without coaching requirements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel--assuming a probationary period were implemented--about passing through some sort of mentoring/exam/whatever after a successful RfA, as one of the conditions for probation ending? So, one negative condition: don't be a twerp! one positive condition: pass this exam/go through mentoring/whatever. I'm mostly just noodling, I don't even know what I think about it. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid excessive rocking of the procedural boat, it might be good not to automatically impose provisional on all candidates-- but if we had a provisional status, don't you imagine it would be sufficiently useful that we might start !voting to steer all qualified admin candidates that way? I think such a change might be very useful. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While I'm a fan of coaching, I don't suggest coaching for everyone... in fact, I've rejected a fair number of coachees... I have to see a legitimate need (that isn't personality based---eg policy knowledge/experience) before I accept a coachee. To make it a requirement, would be A) clog the system significantly as there aren't enough people to do it and B) wouldn't add any real value as some coaches don't really do anything for their coachee. Yes, I support coaching, but I'm also one of it's biggest critics.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, 60 % ? And I would suggest that we simply solve problems but not sysopping anyone below 80% to begin with. Goodness, we already have enough problems breeding problems. Maybe 75%, and provisional for a year and I'd support. (POC, yes; not necessarily plan ahead to abuse, but behaved long enough to convince the community past issues had been overcome.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood--I hadn't thought of that angle. My guess would be that users who took that route would quickly start misbehaving again as soon as the sysop bit is added--they no longer have anything to worry about, as it's much harder to desysop than to get it in the first place. I think; am I off base here? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's the issue. I think we've have a lot less problems if we *raised* the bar, not lowered it. Set provisions on anyone between 75 and 85%, no sysops below 75, or just stop sysopping at all below 85%. We don't need more admins; we need more good admins. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder. It would be interesting to ask whether the problem admins are ones that got lower support percentages. Personally I wonder that there may not be a correlation, and thus lowering the bar (with some safeguards) may not see a reduction in quality. You make an assumption, it would be interesting to see whether it hold up under scrutiny.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be saying it if I didn't know of such cases :-). Of course, that doesn't preclude admins who pass with 90 to 95% also causing problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but we "know of some cases" of RfAs with 100% causing problems and we don't extrapolate. I know of some cases of an admin being Scottish and that admin being a problem - but that doesn't mean there's a correlation. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

What bar are you raising though? By strict attention to percentage, you're condoning supermajority voting - can we discard that !vote idea then? The real problem instead lies in how to weight the votes. !supports with the rationale of "sure, why not" and !opposes with the rationale of "self-noms are prima facie evidence..." are equally problematic. They shouldn't necessarily have full weight, neither should they have zero weight. The problem lies in accurately weighting the comments. To that extent, I support the intent of this proposal, and thereby contradict myself within 2 kilobytes of text. The probationary timeframe aspects bother me - but maybe I'm OK with a year. :) Franamax (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I already put in a different proposal for how to address that several threads up (that 'crats should have far more discretion in passing noms, as at FAC, where vote stacking doesn't fly). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I Oppose this. Though I understand it's well-meant. My main thought is that we need more quality of admins, not more quantity of admins. - jc37 09:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss, rather than jump in with bolded and polarising "support and oppose", eh?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss. Though I'll note that this discussion has been posted now to the WP:VP, so, I may have been under the mistaken apprehension that a poll was beginning. - jc37 09:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the admin selection process so broken that it needs to be changed? Truth be told, I'm starting to think of some unintended outcomes which might get stirred up by this and I'm always wary of ever-more complicated bureaucratic processes. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

More debundling is the way to go; find ways for non-admins to be more useful, such as rollback. Or maybe even yearly provisionals, but not as low as 60%. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• The proposal looks like a really bad idea for many reasons. First, this would take away too much power from the community and give it to the bureaucrats. The decision for final promotion is, right now, made primarily based on the consensus as expressed by the community in the RfA vote. Under this proposal, if I read it correctly, a provisional admin would automatically become a permanent one at the end of the provisional period, without a new RfA. I find that to be objectionable as a basic principle. A crat's decision that the original lack of consensus was based on "uncertainty" rather than "informed opposition" would be fairly subjective anyway, and one would not know, without a new RfA, if this uncertainty had been dissipated, if new issues had arisen or if the community really changed its mind. A decision to promote to adminship is and should be based on the expression of community's trust, not on subjective decisions of a single crat. If we do require a new confirmation RfA for provisional admins, then the entire idea of a provisional adminship becomes largely redundant. In 4-6 months after an unsuccessful RfA people usually reapply anyway and more often than not pass, if the issues had been non-major and had been addressed. Second, there is too much arbitrariness and uncertainty in this idea in terms of a crat deciding when a provisional adminship is warranted and how long a provisional period should be. With something like an RfA more clear and uniform criteria and rules are necessary, to maintain the credibility of the entire process and its fairness. Third, I think that the proposal is misguided in what it actually tries to accomplish. The current RfA system, in spite of various gripes, actually does a pretty good job in terms of the final results that it produces: by and large, people who should be approved get approved and people who should not be approved are not approved. The main complaints regarding the RfA system are because of its percieved acrimonious nature, and this proposal is not likely to change that. If anything, there will be more complaints and wrangling about who did or did not get provisional adminship and why, and, knowing that in effect the RfA bar had been lowered, many people are likely to oppose in RfA more frequently and vigorously to counteract the "grade inflation" this proposal introduces. Overall, a bad idea. Nsk92 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It doesn't "take power away from the community" - because anyone the community's majority opposed would not ever be sysopped. What it does is reduce the power of a minority, who are always fearful of taking a calculated risk, blocking the will of the rest of the community.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, it does, by effectively lowering the bar too much (whereas in my opinion the bar actually needs to be raised a bit). To say that only those who did not get a majority (or, say, 60%) in an RfA fall into a non-discretionary zone who will not be offered adminship (permanent or provisional), certainly diminishes the role of community's vote. An RfA where 40% of the votes were opposes is not exactly a ringing expression of community's trust. This is especially true since, psychologically, it is always harder to cast an oppose vote anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the 60% number should be dropped. It may not sound so bad from a certain point of view until you remember 50% represents "the least possible consensus". 50% is a complete hung-jury, with the community providing no information one way or the other. 60% is pretty minimal support. And since we don't decide RFAs based on percentages anyway, it's sort of a dead end anyway.

The other concern I would have is that this could "lower the bar" to the point where large amounts of oppose votes would be granted very little weight. That's not the role I would see for provisional admins. Provisional adminship to me is ideal in a situation where we would says "Come back later-- everything looks good so far, but we just don't have enough information yet". Provisional adminship is NOT a good idea when we have someone who's both strongly supported and strongly opposed. The proposal recognizes this, but I think its implementation might be troublesome.

The other concern I'm hearing, which I share, is that the current proposal gives / requires too much discretion on the part of the 'crats. Consensus is hard enough to assess-- how would they go about assessing opposition "largely due to uncertainly about the candidate, rather than informed opposition".

But for all the concerns, I think there's a great kernel of an idea here, and basic idea is a good one. Right now, the RFA process has to approximate precognition-- foreseeing future admin performance based only on past editor performance. Being able to, in some cases, decide adminship based on actual use of the admin tools seems like a great idea.

So, here's what I'd propose. Drop the 60% and leave things at "consensus". Drop leaving it up to the 'crats to assess the "nature" of the opposition, and instead let the community speak for itself. Let editors weigh-in by either saying "Oppose", "Support", or "Support provisional adminship". If there's a consensus for full adminship, just go with that. But if there's consensus of provisional adminship, we could offer that to a candidate. This way, we don't "lower the bar" by tinkering with percentages, and we don't ask the 'crats to do more than in RFAs than what they already do-- assess community consensus.

Proposing this in general below: --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As a data point, Commons recently did something somewhat like this. See the candidacy of SterkeBak which had some controversy around a flurry of late opposes, some by users with little or no community standing. The 'crats talked about what to do here Commons:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion, with community input as well Commons talk:Administrators/Requests and votes/SterkeBak/Bureaucrats discussion and the decision taken was to promote provisionally, with a 60 day period in which any three 'crats could call for a rerun of the RfA. ++Lar: t/c 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Basic Framework for Provisional Adminship

So, what it seems like I'm hearing, and what I'm feeling, is that there is some merit to this line of thought, but maybe some problems with this particular implementation. For the purposes of discussion, I might suggest the more vague "basic points":

• 1. If an RFA would pass normally, adminship will be granted as per usual.
• 2. Alternatively, if there exists some level of community support for 'provisional adminship', then provisional adminship will be granted.
• 3. If there isn't sufficient community support for either, no adminship will be granted.
• 4. Provisional Adminship can be revoked through some as yet unspecified process if the provisional admin isn't working out.
• 5. Provisional Adminship can be upgraded to full adminship through some as yet unspecified process if the provisional admin is working out.

How does that sound, as a basic framework? --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are hearing this wrong. As I said above, the entire proposal is a really bad idea. Nsk92 (talk) 10:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have maybe made a new section-- I wasn't summarizing you personally, I was kinda trying to distill the entire section of commentary down into a single clause. The idea has some support but plenty of concerns too. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You've just added two processes to what was my original simple idea. We need to start trusting crats not inventing processes.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If your idea will fly with others, I'll support it-- I think it would be an improvement over the present RFA process. I only made this version of the proposal because it seemed like people were getting mired down in the more-controversial specifics, such as percentage levels and 'Crat having to assess the "nature of opposition". But i bet when we boil your idea down to its essentials, the fundamentals of your proposal are going to meet with wide support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suspect I'm going to end up agreeing with Franamax on this one; I doubt this will be the best way to "fix" RfA. Just lower the bar from 3:1 to 2:1, and make it easier to desysop people who, in hindsight, shouldn't have been promoted, whether they passed at 2.01:1 or 100:1. However, because I'm just guessing here, and in an attempt to break the inertial logjam around here, I'm all in favor of trying a provisional adminship a couple of times, seeing what happens, and make a decision after we have something, anything, to base our opinions on. Come on people, don't be afraid to try something new. It would be dumb to have a discussion on whether to make this the way to do things from now on, because people will never, never, never agree to such a big change with no particular reason to think it would be an improvement. I wouldn't agree to such a change either. But it would also be dumb to not be willing to give things a try, so we can stop guessing whether something has some merit or not. --barneca (talk) 12:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean above where Franamax says: "Why not just lower the hurdle to 60% and introduce more robust means for desysopping?" I totally agree-- the project would be better served if adminship were easier to bestow and easier to remove. But such changes are very hard to get started-- the project's inertia to resist change can be quite substantial. (and it is an important issue, so we certainly don't want to be hasty).

Adminship as "No big deal" and as "Easy come, easy go" is a double-sided coin. Provisional Adminship is a way to try to make it easier to bestow adminship. For the other side of the coin, see Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal. Since provisional adminship is a 100% positive-- giving us admins we wouldn't ordinarily have and not jeopardizing the bits of any existing admins, it will probably be easiest to implement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If we had a real means of desyspopping, then I would support lowering the bar to 75%, not 60%, and applying provisional to anyone between 75 and 85%. The bar is already too low with 'crats passing people in the 75% range, and I'll fight 60% no matter what. There is no reason to sysop someone who doesn't have the trust of 40% of the community, even if provisional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

pXk's idea for provisional adminship

• 1. If an RFA would pass normally, (75%) adminship will be granted as per usual.
• 2. If at least 60% but less than 75% are in support, a provision run off vote will occur lasting a pre-determined amount of time (let's say 5 days)
• 3. If there isn't at least 60% in the provisional vote, the RfA is considered failed. If there is, the provisional period of 6 months begins.
• 4. Provisional Adminship can be revoked through some as yet unspecified process if the provisional admin isn't working out.
• 5. Provisional Adminship can be upgraded to full adminship through some as yet unspecified process if the provisional admin is working out or be considered a full admin once the period is over.. PXK ^T /_C 15:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No. That's process running wild.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this would work nicely. I might suspect that in practice this would devolve into people just stating upfront which of the three categories they are in-- full support, provisional support, or total oppose. You could do an "instant runoff", or you could go ahead and wait an additional five days for people to consider provisional by itself-- either way's good with me. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Simplify..

1. >X% adminship will be granted as per usual, with 90 day probation for all
2. Crats can desysop during probation per original suggestion, with community review to follow desysopping (similar to 'please review my block' on AN/ANI)
3. We need a better process for recalling full admins as necessary.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 17:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Percentages

What's with all these percentages all of a sudden? Do we really want to move away from consensus based decisions and turn RfA completely into a vote? I'm not so sure that taking away bureaucrat discretion is a good thing at all, which is what we'd be doing with the proposals so far. We need some ability to move away from set percentages given the controversial RfA's that sometimes come up, along with the RfA's where there's probable socking and other serious concerns. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality of admins vs RfA results (statistical analysis)

This question may have been asked before, and I don't want to do research if someone has done it already. But one of the assumptions in the above debate is that "lowering the RfA bar" = "dropping quality" or admitting more problem admins. Is this true? I don't know - but it would be good to look at some hard data. I'd like answers to the following questions:

1. If we look at certified problem admins (those forcibly desysopped, resigning "under a cloud", or recalled) - are their original RfA scores "lower" than average?
2. If we look at admins who are certified as quality (say those subsequently elected by the community to positions of trust: arbcom or bureaucrat) - are their original RfA scores "higher" than average?

In short, is there a correlation between quality and RfA score. The two above tests will be crude, but are the best I can devise.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a sample size problem; admins are almost never desysopped, so you can't get a valid sample there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem agreed. But it might be better than asserting the correlation without any evidence. An analysis, as poor as it might be, might at least get people to consider the merits of the correlation. And actually, over the years a fair number of admins have been desysopped.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

But the proposition is not that there is a correlation between bad admins and passing RfA with a low percentage. The proposition is that we already have enough admins who passed with good percentages making bad decisions that we shouldn't add to the problem by lowering the bar even further and passing candidates that we already know don't have the support of 20% (or more) of the community. Add to that the natural tendency when you see a dangerous candidate in the low 80s; editors may say nothing because they know the 'crats are going to pass them anyway, and they don't want that kind of person, with access to the tools, mad at them for saying what needed to be said. That's the real problem in this continual lowering of the threshhold; it makes people afraid to oppose, particularly when you know there are likely to be issues with controversial candidates. Rather than risking passing the bad ones, we should accept that not everyone can be an admin, and focus on ways to make the process better at screening. I had two situations this week that were better handled by a non-admin than the admins who jumped in to muck up the situation. Maturity can't be taught. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got some fair points there. However, I suppose it is whether we are speaking of the number of bad admins, or the proportion. Doubtless, if we promote more people, we promote more bad people. But, do we promote a higher % of bad people - and if we are able to reverse the sysopping in these cases, might our quality control be as high if not higher? I genuinely don't know. How good is RfA at quality control. Over the years I've strongly opposed some candidates who have turned out to be good admins, and I've supported some who have later shown a total lack of clue. Am I "mostly right"? Maybe, but it would be interesting to reflect on this. I guess the problem is effective quality control - RfA can be a popularity contest at times, and can make judgements on silly things. It mainly, I suspect, gets it right in the end - but can we improve on it? The elitist in me says "yea, but you needs a new electorate" - that won't fly though. Oh, I agree maturity can't be taught - but as long as adminship is given as a reward for racking up edits, making friends and keeping you head out of unpopular areas, then boy-scouts is what you'll get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully concur that a real means of desysopping is more important to RfA reform than any other proposal; no RfA isn't good at quality control, it's good at vote stacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't actually see a great use for a means of desysopping (great in theory - outbalanced by its potential for drama, partisan feuding and downright trolling in practice). The means we have works for the few people we desysop, and whilst there's certainly a general consensus that there are a few bad admins who don't get desysopped but should - I strongly suspect that's where the consensus ends. We've all got a different hit list in mind.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this page and sorted it by percentage. There are only two users listed as having passed RFA at less than 85% who are not still admins (Guanaco, Eyrian—others appear to be false positives but have actually changed names, sometimes repeatedly).

Yes, there are several current admins whom I consider egregiously bad (you know who you are) but none of their RFAs were in the lower half of this table percentage-wise (more toward 96-97%).

However, I know the data is incomplete as I can think of others not listed (such as Freestylefrappe, who was nominated by MONGO, who was nominated by Karmafist—no comment...), but it's a good start. I suggest adding a new column to indicate whether each user is still an admin (or indicate why they aren't).

— CharlotteWebb 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those under 85% are a strange group. Some are now amongst the most respected of the community. I see only a couple of loose canons (that is looser than average). I suspect many of these got opposition for partisan reasons. Not sure what conclusion to draw, except I don't think low RfA result does correlate with "more problematic". Looking at the 100%s I see more problems. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the chart is almost 18 months old... thus, is missing many of the cases that I think Sandy is referencing. While the RfA process may have had problems back then, it's really become problematic lately.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe some more up to date data needs to be created? -- how do you turn this on 17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Majorly/RfA/Stats contains the same data and is up to date. WJBscribe (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The old data isn't very useful. A glance at the new data shows that a provisional range below 85% is reasonable (and one of them is my nom, I'm sure she wouldn't mind). And again, the proposition is not that there is a correlation with low support and bad admins; it's that we shouldn't knowingly lower the bar even further (it's already too low), adding to the current problem. If we could do a provisional year for candidates in the range 75 to 85%, in conjunction with a better means of desysyopping, I'd support, but as things currently stand, we are already letting through too many candidates who don't have community trust. This has decreased adminship to the point that it's a club many good editors have no interest in joining, hence, won't even consider standing for RfA. Adminship is a big deal as long as we can't undo just as we can undo an FA. Why go through that 500-question torture to join a club that has no admission standards or quality control? I think doing the two things together would lower the opposition and torture at RfA, while raising quality overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think thoughtful, responsible editors tend to stir things up a bit and this shows up in RfAs as a strong fringe of opposition, some well meant but perhaps mistaken, some emotional and bitter, PoV driven. I wouldn't be startled if this kind of editor tended to become a thoughtful, responsible admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The past year has definitely seen the rise of a group of editors who you can guarantee will oppose for specious reasons and doom the RfAs of qualified candidates. Were this one or two individuals acting randomly, it really would not matter, but now that you essentially have a small group of constant, guaranteed opposition the process is badly jammed up. Just compare this to either this or this. That is absurd. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're only on pace for 210 new admins this year. Useight (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Something that I found interesting is that a successful candidate currently requires 70-80+ supports. Last year, a successful candidate typically had 35-50+ supporters! I expected to see the trend being low in 2006, but when I looked at 2006, it was 70-90+ supports! So, it isn't just the numbers.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a shufti at this jaw-dropping RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

And he still has the mop, and thus belies most of the contemporary opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's ~ 7 passing candidates right now, so does last month's drop really matter anymore? It was just a slow month, not a harmonic tremor.--KojiDude ^(C) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Even allowing for a slow month, that still gets us nowhere near the rate seen in the last couple of years. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So are we having a sub-admin crisis, or sub-backlog crisis? - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Question on proposed new format

Sorry if this has been covered, I'm having difficulty catching up on all the reams of conversation that lead to this experiment. I was just wondering what would happen to all of the requests that are generally closed quickly on the grounds of WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Under the new system would enthusiastic new users with little to no chance of success have to go through five days and dozens of questions? Would early out of procedure closes be tolerated on the basis of discussion rather than voting? Guest9999 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think those cases can be picked out pretty easily from answers to questions. Many snowed RfA's have poor answers to questions. I propose that requests to close per SNOW and NOTNOW be made in the discussion section before voting commences. People can then vote for NOTNOW closure but not to support/oppose the candidate. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Cyclonim is correct. There should not be any change: Whether people can vote or can discuss and vote later, RfAs will still be closable sooner than usual, either because of withdrawal or because of SNOW or NOTNOW. After all, people just vote for NOT NOW because they review the candidate and find there is no reason that he/she could ever pass that RfA. That can still be said in discussion... After all, WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW closes are just WP:IAR - and you can ignore rules with any system just the same ;-) SoWhy 18:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When did this become a vote?

I thought Adminship was based on consensus, not an up-or-down vote. And now we're talking about percentages of votes? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

People have been talking about percentages of votes ever since I've been here, coming up on two years ago. Voting to measure the degree of consensus during a discussion is compatible with consensus building; voting with no discussion isn't. The fact that there are people who vote and then never return to see the rest of the discussion, and possibly modify/expand upon their view, is a problem, but the fact that there is voting going on is not. IMHO. --barneca (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It became a vote when people started taking it too seriously, and opposing/supporting just for the hell of it. You could call it a flaw in the system, but it's really just the closest we can get to something that works (at this point at least).--KojiDude ^(C) 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It comes down to percentages (a vote), but the closing crat has a bit of leeway (about 5% either way?), depending on how all the discussion went. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

100% agreed with Barneca. Garden. 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It has always been a vote. It only became a !vote when candidates started being promoted despite not being >75% support. Have a look at old RFBs for an idea of this (answer #1 especially - they all use numbers and percentages). -- how do you turn this on 20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trial adminship - timed

OK, one last attempt to salvage something that might meet some of the objectives WITHOUT allowing anyone to get an end run around RfA or the current standards.

Where an RfA would normally fail, but the candidate has a comfortable majority in support, and much of the opposition is due to uncertainly about the candidate, or many opposers indicte a willingness for a trial, the closing bureaucrat may offer the candidate "trial adminship". Trial adminship shall last eight weeks, at the end of which the candidate shall automatically be desysopped. After the trial is over, or at any time during it (advised minimum being six weeks in) the candidate may apply for full status through a second RfA, at which current RfA standards rules shall apply.

Advantages 1) The community and not the crat now gets the last word. 2) The community can look to the trial results to help determine suitability. 3) "Trial admins" have a strong incentive to learn to do it properly (and should be offered mentors). 4) To remain an admin, you still have to meet the current RfA standards - no lowering the bar. 5) People who we might think will /probably/ be good (but might not) can have an opportunity prove themselves - with no long term harm if it turns out bad. 6) No new process is required here. 7) Crats just need to leave a note somewhere for the stewards with the scheduled date for trial end. ((7) We can leave in a provision that a trial period can be prematurely terminated if any two crats certify that the candidate is clearly proving unfit. - this maybe isn't vital))

Thoughts?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That makes the bureaucrats the judge of a user's conduct (with #7); I can't speak for all my fellow 'crats, but I have more pressing issues at hand than to babysit everyone that passes a "temp RfA" (not to mention it's a major departure for us: currently, we gauge consensus, not the candidate; you're proposing we have a hand in the latter. #4 also proves problematic, as there aren't any "current RfA standards" with which to hold people to. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, we can scratch #7 - it was intended as an emergency measure in case of blatant disasters NOT for babysitting (maybe saying any arbitrator would be better, they are there to judge conduct). By "current RfA standards" I just mean go through RfA as it is right now.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Point 4 (and associated). Doubling of the effort and input required by making candidates run twice. Point 5. "No long term harm". Two bad blocks and two bad deletions driving off editors is long term harm. I've no idea why you think a few bad admin calls are not going to create long term damage but you're simply wrong. Point 7 - per EVula. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Answerable. Any candidate who fails with 65% is only going to certainly run again anyway - so that's not an issue. Indeed if his second run is after when we have more evidence, then it is more likely to be definitive. And that type of harm can be done by any admin, there's no evidence it will be done by a trial admin more. Indeed since they are looking over their shoulder to their next RfA is is probably a good deal less likely that with some other "full status" new admin, who will not lose his status for that type of behaviour. Point 7 is certainly negotiable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thoughts. However "there's no evidence it will be done by a trial admin more". Yeah, I have to agree because there are no trial admins. Impressed by some of your responses, unimpressed by that argument to say the least. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You made the assumption that there would be more problem with trial admins. I simply pointed out that there's no basis for that. Not just because there are none, but because logical deduction says that they have strong motivation to behave.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me Scott, but you've made that argument a number of times on various pages. Are you actually of the opinion that a candidate who tows the line slavishly because they are being "watched over" is a good thing? Your argument is fundamentally flawed - by yourself. The last thing we need is people who will play the game (i.e. have motivation to behave) to get the bit. We need people who can demonstrate WP:CLUE from about day 16 of their editing history. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA as it stands is about the worst way of measuring clue I can envisage. I see no evidence of hoards of gamers - but I see plenty of cases when we discover incompetence too late. Trial would out incompetence far better than RfA second prophesying future behaviour based on edit summaries and who your friends are.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose and here's why: admins execute their actions (under normal conditions) with the trust and power of the community behind them. To gain that trust and power, that community has to grant it. Trial admins have no such trust and power, or it has not been demonstrated by consensus that the community is behind them. This "trial admin" proposal seems to have forgotten about the foundation of adminship: the trust of the community. —kurykh 21:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Exceptionally well stated. 100% agreement. Pedro :  Chat  21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, except can't we discuss things without jumping in with polarising bolded votes. You seem to think the "trust of the community" is binary and somehow inflexible. Trust sometimes needs to be tested - and we are talking about candidates that a clear majority of people would trust with indefinite full adminship, and other people (whilst opposing that due to some uncertainly) might happily trust with a trial run. You argument sounds good, but really doesn't stack up.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments betray a fundamental misunderstanding or lack of understanding of both RfA and adminship. First, you start out with "polarising bolded votes". Ever thought about calling it a concise position being put forward? But no, you took it as a vote in an attempt to belittle it. Second, trust is something that the community grants or withholds as a result of past actions. Actions, especially admin actions done with no coherent community trust (not individual trust, but community trust) have no power behind them, making them fundamentally shaky. Third, RfA is not and should not be majoritorian. What is "comfortable majority"? What is "clear majority"? 60%? 70%? Wikipedia operates on consensus, and a consensus of the community should be the arbiter of who gets the bit and who does not. —kurykh 21:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I operate differently. When I put forward a proposal, I am not necessarily sold on it, just willing to enter into a discussion. Point out the difficulties, let's talk about it, can we work out a better way? Can it be improved? Perhaps in the end it will be no good, and I might even agree? But when people jump in with "oppose" we are running to the barricades, and that's not how I see discussion and consensus best arrived at. I don't mean to belittle people who do it, I just find it most unhelpful. Sure wikipedia works on consensus but we could have different levels of that. We could have people saying "oppose this candidate, unless it is just for a trial" - add those opinions to the outright supports and maybe you've got consensus for a trial. You say trust is given for "past actions" - I agree. But maybe the past actions would be enough in one case to trust someone with a trial period (trust can have degrees) - and then judge whether to trust them on past admin actions. Maybe I'm wrong, but maybe not.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You state that you see no evidence of hoards of gamers - you obviously haven't visited RFA recently. Your process will create even more of them. Then you state RFA is related to who your friends are and your edit summaries. Well, guess what - as a trial admin my mates would be plentiful and my edit summaries spectacular. Scott, I admire your efforts, I like your approaches, but you are beating a dead horse and your argument is becoming less cohesive with deeper analysis. You admit you may be wrong. Well, just this once my man I'm afraid you are. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If people are too bothered to read the rationale behind the bolded first word then that's their problem, not mine. But your argument is full of hypothetical statements people might say to back your premise up, and such an argument is on anything but solid ground. With all due respect, I'm not only criticizing the proposal but the entire idea. You say trust has degrees: I'm not saying individual trust here. I'm saying community trust, and I cannot emphasize that enough. There is no "trust if trial, no trust if without" with the community; actions carried out under either banner will be assumed to be equal, but with unequal backing of the community. —kurykh 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good or bad, RfA is what it is, and it's clearly not going to change any time soon. An editor unfairly blocked by a trial admin is no more likely to be understanding than if (s)he was unfairly blocked by the real thing. Result? Another pissed off editor. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am extremely pessimistic about ever changing RfA - but that's not a reason not to try. A bad admin call is a bad admin call - the question is how we do effective quality control selection. I'd say trial adminship is MORE likely to give us better quality overall.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to be a friend of the present RfA process, quite the reverse. I do, however, see the logic in the argument presented by Kurykh above, notwithstanding my personal view on the value of what is considered to be consensus on wikipedia. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Slowly unbundle the tools, like we did with rollback IMHO. That's the answer. Trial adminship is a bureaucratic nightmare with a hundred holes in it. Scott - I admire your persistence and belief in the idea. Good work on floating the idea, and I agree we should not be defeatistst about RFA change (by which I mean the culture over the process). But let this "trial admin" idea go. It's unworkable, labour intensive, process wonkery. Please - divert your evident passion and commitment to another idea than this one - it's not going to happen. This is not due to a lack of will on the communities part but because it's, basically, not a very good idea. Sorry to be blunt. Pedro :  Chat 

Unbundling is the only sane option. Will the world come to an end if some non-admin editors are allowed to look at deleted pages? Did it come to an end when rollback was granted to non-admin editors? The way to see who can be trusted with the tools is to trust them with the tools, or at least those tools that the community sees fit to prise from the unwilling hands of the administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I might be willing to support unbundling the protect tool... —kurykh 22:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm happy to discuss your suggestion, but my initial reaction would be "bureaucratic nightmare with a hundred holes in it" ;). Maybe my idea sucks, but if we tell people to let their ideas go a few hours after they propose them, then we will certainly never change anything. This discussion is good. We all need to listen and reflect. We don't make progress when we argue for our preconceptions, we make progress when I, or you, consider an idea we initially think sucks and then say "oh, wait a minute, if we did it this way, and improved that, it might be worth a try". I think one problem with wikipedia is that for a modern project we are incredibly conservative about our institutions. Someone will resit (if not block) every change. If we keep on like this, Wikipedia will never evolve - and without evolution there is only eventual redundancy. Wikipedia can always improve - we just need to open minds.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The problem with changing is that there is no consensus on what to change, or even if change is needed at all. We do not change for the sake of change. We change to answer a pressing problem that needs fixing, and it is my opinion that the process needs no fixing at this time. Sure, there are novel ideas, but the ideas just don't seem to improve the process. —kurykh 22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The RfA process is really the least of wikipedia's problems I would suggest. Sure, it's a degenerated into a hazing, but that was always inevitable: "I had to have my head stuck down the toilet, so why shouldn't you?" I remain to be convinced that wikipedia is short of administrators anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unbundling the tools

Unbundelling the tools is worth consideration, but my initial reaction is "how do we do that without a tonne load of extra process?". Of course, there may be ways of doing that. But one observation - someone said "would it be a big deal if non-admins could read deleted edits?". The answer is unfortunately, yes it certainly would - far bigger than allowing non-admins to block people, in fact. Here is why. We get a lot of libels on wikipedia, and a lot of privacy violating information. Whilst a very very small proportion of such edits are oversighted, a fair number are simply deleted. (Attack articles, vandalism with people's phone details, BLP violations.) When a subject complains about a libellous article or that slanderous edits still exist in an edit history, OTRS people will routinely delete such edits. That's generally fine. As long as deleted edits can only be viewed by a relatively small number of fairly trusted users, then subjects will often be content that the information is no longer "public" or "published". However, if you open deleted edits to wider viewing (and we already have 1400 viewers) what will happen is a massive increase in the demand for oversight. And oversight can't easily be reversed, or challenged as a mistake, and really needs restricting.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Viewing deleted pages is a big no no as far as I'm concerned - it's the one thing that can cause us real harm if things get into the wrong hands. This is especially important when we consider that images are not oversightable at present. The way to go might be to unbundle the protect button - that's generally fairly uncontroversial (well, except for the latest Sarah Palin RfArb) and I'm sure there's plenty of people who could use it without any problems. We could perhaps move onto the delete button as well for people who work in deletion areas such as CSD and AfD (of course, they'd have to show some level of competance first!). Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking a semi-protect button would be the next step after rollback. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Protect is not a big deal and most decisions (Sarah Palin excepted, obviously) are relatively uncontroversial. Try this on a trial basis with users who are already shown to have good judgement, maybe? This also provides an excellent background for someone who decides to RfA; have they already been trusted with rollback and protect? Make it part of WP:PERM and easily revokable by admins who feel it has been used abusively (as opposed to honest mistakes). Leave it up to admin discretion, same as rollback. Perhaps also an understanding that users granted the right may only use it to semi; full-protecting a page is an instantaneous removal of the right. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple. We need a software change, but with will and some nice talking to the devs this can be done. Rollback and Account creator are already done so let's look at the rest:

• Rollback - given to all trusted users by admins on review. (in place)
• Account Creator - given to all trusted users by admins on review. (sort of in place)
• View Deleted - given to all trusted users by admins on review.
• Delete - given to all trusted users by admins on review but only with specific reference to accuarte speedy deletion tagging or WP:AFD closes with subsequent request.
• Restore - given as part of the above right.
• Semi-Protect - given to all trusted users by admins on review but only with specific reference to WP:RFPP edits and/or zero edit warring.
• Protect - not given out.
• Block - not given out.
• Mediawiki - given to all trusted users by admins on review to users who have demonstrated proficency through bot / template coding
• Admin - given via WP:RFA by bureaucrats as per current process. Adminship discussion includes the fact that admins have the abilities to grant and revoke these rights.

Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Per above Pedro, view deleted is one of the worst we can give out - it's the only one that can have real world implications. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'd say this is the wrong way about. Block/unblock should be given BEFORE undelete and viewing deleted edits. Blocking or unblocking only affects users and the project - it has no real world implications. Whereas undeleting the wrong stuff, particularly with BLPs can have massive implications to people well beyond wikipedia. The ability to access or restore deleted edits in the one thing we should guard above all. The rest I'm happy to give out incrementally (even delete buttons).--~~

I'm hesitant about giving out the block/unblock, viewing deleted edits and delete/undelete functions. I am definitely sure, however, that the protect/unprotect button can be given out to others rollback style, with sufficient oversight. —kurykh 22:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just a comment after a quick review of your suggestions, Pedro: You can not separate semi-protection from full-protection, as technically that's within the same right (protect). —αἰτίας •discussion• 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to unbundle. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To aitias - yep - I did note a software change would be needed. To Ryan - yes, but we have oversight as about 99.999% of deleted stuff is crap. To all, just a suggestion that unbundling does not seem as awful as it may be. Giving trusted users "delete" to G10's would seem a good idea, no? We should not let software and technical issues influence us. The software 'can be changed. The political opinions will be harder! Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would mean we'd need to oversight every single G10 or BLP page we delete, which would require a hell of a lot of new oversighters! Also, images are currently unoversightable so that would need to be fixed. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Only trusted users could see attack pages. That's maybe 200% of the current editors with +sysop. I'm struggling to see the damage / harm or I may not be making myself clear. Trusted users seeing deleted pages would seem to be academic. Pedro :  Chat  22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem isn't the viewing aspect, it's the potential to release it to the press or other agencies, or even the person that the libel/attack is about - it's the whole reason why viewing deleted material is the only one that can make a real world difference. We have all sorts in the deleted images db - I know that one admin had to deal with child pornography, do we really want non-admins seeing stuff like that? I can just see the headlines, "Wikipedia, the free child pornography collection that anyone can look at". Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So we trust admins to look at it, but we don't trust them to let other people look at it?Pedro :  Chat  23:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but the fewer people that can see it the better. However, we do trust that admins wouldn't do something stupid with it should they slip across it in some logs. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid unbundling view-deleted is out of the question since this comment by MGodwin. --Amalthea^Talk 00:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The unbundle that I would really like to see is bot flagging given to the BAG. bibliomaniac15 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking I think all the rights mentioned by Pedro, which are not already unbundled, are (highly) sensitive. They, or at least some of them, can evidently cause serious harm if they are used inappropriately/incorrectly/abusively. Therefore I really believe there is a need to be approved by the community and not just by one single administrator to use them. —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with this thought, as well - I don't think a single administrator should be responsible for handing out these kinds of tools. Rollback is pretty innocuous, but deletion is another matter. Shereth 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(2xEC) I appreciate the intention behind this notion, but the systematic unbundling of all these tools seems liable to create a system that is even more excessively bureaucratic and prone to problems than the current setup to me. The creation of a tiered system has the potential to engender a sense of "rank" among Wikipedians, and this should be avoided at all costs. In any event, deciding which admin "powers" to dole out in such a fashion and deciding which ones are more "sensitive" than others is also subject to considerable debate and the ultimate decision is likely to be arbitrary. At least, with the "powers" packaged, it is a simple question of "do we trust this user with the ability to make controversial decisions" rather than trying to wade through the problem of deciding precisely which controversial abilities they are suited to. Shereth 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Illogical captain. Open your windows, smell the fresh air, smell the coffee. And then when you've recovered your senses tell me in all honesty that there isn't already a sense of "rank" among wikipedians. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah! I don't mean to imply that there isn't already a sense of rank (there most certainly is). My concern is that this will only enforce an already existing misconception and add new "ranks" for editors to have their eye on. Shereth 23:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that a fair point, although I haven't seen many boasting about their rollbacker rights. It's difficult though, to think of a less impressive chat-up line than "Would you like to come back to my my place and look through wikipedia's deleted pages?" :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Just wait till I show you my huge, long block log ... oh baby! Shereth 23:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only one I like the sound of there is the ability to edit the interface. The rest don't sound at all appealing. -- how do you turn this on 23:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

User pages with stacks of colourful little user boxes (in sundry styles) linking to the rights log entry for each trusted tool. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why this before/after business? The tools can be handed out in any order. Of course, different levels of trust (though that term is very vague) may be required for different abilities, but requiring possession of the deletion tool before the blocking one or vice versa is simply silly. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion these tools are all equally sentitive, and the way I see it is when I trust someone enough with the block button, I'd trust them with the delete button and the protection button and all the rest, hence I don't see a need to unbundle. Shereth 23:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. The only admin tools that I'd agree with are those that can be replicated - that is, rollback can be replicated through various scripts. Other "rights" such as IP excemption and account creation aren't, in my view, a part of the mainstream idea of what admin tools are (when was the last RFA you saw that said they'd work on account creations?), and IP excemption is simply something that admins have because they're "trustworthy", and has been split off and a good use has been made out of it. I cannot see why any non-admin would have any need for things like delete/block/protect (which are the 3 main tools most admins use). -- how do you turn this on 23:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me suggest a different dimension. There are clearly a number of administrators who use the block button, or its threat, incompetently, but who may be quite competent in discerning consensus in an XfD. Why should all administrators have access to tools that some of them are not competent to use? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. If you do have an issue with a certain admin, have you tried talking to them about it, or bringing it up somewhere? Or is this an imaginary scenario? -- how do you turn this on 23:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Not imaginary at all. Check my block log. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I see. -- how do you turn this on 23:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I suppose there is a certain disconnect here between those who believe trust is the qualifier for whether someone should be made an admin (get the tools) or whether competence is the qualifier. That said, I believe the number of admins who make "incompetent" decisions in one "admin area" while shining in others is relatively low; most of us who are not comfortable with something like blocking will avoid it in favor of what we are comfortable with. In the rare cases that an otherwise trustworthy admin totally bombs it with a bad block, generally the mistake is not repeated. In short, I view the un-bundling of tools (in this context at least) as a solution in search of a problem. Shereth 23:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that further unbundling is highly unlikely. I only joined in this discussion for a bit of light relief, not under any illusion that anything would be likely to be changed by it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anything productive ever done as a result of a discussion on this page? ;-) -- how do you turn this on 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. This is probably one of the most sapping, demoralising, and destructive pages on wikipedia. One that I'd suggest you unwatch, as I've just done. Let the RfAs take place in secret, as custom dictates. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's a disconnect between trust and incompetence. The community trusts an editor to be competent with the tools. Instead of a dichotomy, they complement each other. —kurykh 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

New page

As I tried to point out above I don't think unbundling the tools is generally senseless. My major concern is that a single administrator should decide whether someone is granted the relevant flag (i.e. right). Thus, what about a new page where one requests particular flags and the community is allowed to voice their opinion (analogous to WP:RFA). The discussion there is closed after a certain period of time by an administrator either granting the flag(s) if there is an consensus for doing so or not granting the flag(s) if there is no consensus for granting them. In this way the community could decide whether someone should get a particular right. Any thoughts? —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This came to my mind as I read the above. (ROFL @ Malleus as an aside.) In a discussion several weeks ago on a certain "BADSITE" that everyone loves to hate, I mentioned that a good alternative, in my mind, was to have different types of admins. Those that work on content and those that work with people. Content admins having (un)protect/(un)delete/view deleted rights; people admin, or whatever they may be called, (un)block/acct creation. In cases where tools from each type of admin are required, it forces teamwork, two sets of eyes on the issue and thus a little bit of oversight. So this proposal is a bit different, obviously, but it's got very similar points. So with all that said, I support such a change. I don't think this would enforce a sense of "ranks", rather I think it would be much like rollback. Surely editors, some of them, will be proud of their achievement in receiving the extra rights, but I don't think it would further divide the community. Quite opposite, actually, I think it would bring adminship back down to "no big deal" in a lot of ways, and allow users who could do a lot of help with one set of extra rights—but otherwise may not be able to pass RFA because of mistakes related to other rights that come with adminship—to do so. I further agree, however, that allowing admins the sole discretion to make the call on who should be granted what, as is done with rollback, is a bit too risky, thus an RFA-style process seems completely appropriate and will, in my opinion, benefit the project and our backlogs tremendously. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 02:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Then people would have to RfA twice if they wanted to be both content and people admins? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

While RfA is under reform...

Head over to Wikipedia:RfA Review and participate if you have not done so yet. The recommendation stage will close on 00:00 UTC on 15 October 2008. While I understand that some editors have already started putting forth proposals for RfA reform, my opinion is that the results compiled would give us a better picture on what reforms are more likely to work. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 01:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No thank you. That effort is an exercise in misplaced priorities that has already diverted far too much of the community's time and attention from productive activities, such as training. This website has large numbers of people who would like to become administrators, a good share of whom would become good ones with proficient mentorship and preparation. Please, if you care about getting more good administrators for the site, go to any of the following places instead. Introduce yourself to some of the people there and lend a helping hand. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls (1142 names)
  • Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls (hundreds of potentially qualified people)
  • Wikipedia:Admin coaching (64 people waiting for help)

Actually, if you really want to engage in productive activities, please go edit the encyclopedia instead. (This is not directed at Durova, but to everyone in general.) —kurykh 06:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Every site needs administrators and Wikipedia doesn't have enough of them. Creating content is important too, but if everyone followed your advice, Kurykh, and abandoned this in favor of content, then normal attrition would soon make it impossible to keep up with vandalism, CSD, and other necessary functions. Durova^Charge! 06:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC) spoken by an editor who has 152 featured content credits

I personally think that it is more productive to find some solutions for a better RfA in the long term, rather than to leave it be and then having to see through several dramas in future RfAs of these hopefuls, resulting in attrition and more resources being diverted away just to deal with these issues. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The ability to block vs. "no big deal"

(I have been working on a more lengthy proposal (with all the whys and wherefores), but since I will presume that most active on this page have seen the discussions over the last several years, I suppose I can offer this in light of the above discussions with less copy/pasting : )

As noted recently in the "view undeleted" discussion, there are tools which can be a "big deal", and which shouldn't be given out as if they are "no big deal".

That said, I think we have an environment in which most admin actions can be "undone", and in which we (hopefully) don't promote those with a lack of discernment to adminship.

(For example, we have WP:DRV for deletions, and WP:RPP for protections. Though for blocking, it's spread through the sub-pages of WP:AN, and elsewhere.)

However, probably the most controversial ability of an admin is the ability to block another user.

And most of the cries of "admin abuse" occur (accurately or inaccurately) in relation to the ability to block/unblock.

Also, there is the issue that the "block log" of a user seems to be quite a bit more of a "big deal" than a page log. Especially since these logs are typically not edited. (While noting that additional logs may be placed to help clarify.)

If there is anything that should be "unbundled" from the administrator group of user-rights, it's the block-related user-rights. (For purposes of discussion, let’s call this the "blocker" package.)

Imagine how many times that we hear: "They're great editors, but their use of tools when blocking/unblocking..."

Consider if it was possible for Arbcom to suspend the block-related abilities from an admin, while allowing the rest of their abilities to remain. Everyone, including the encyclopedia itself, would benefit.

And consider those individuals who've lost adminship in the past merely due to usage of block-related tools, but was considered to be trusted to use the other admin tools. That person might be more easily able to re-attain adminship by merely not requesting the additional block-related user-right package.

And imagine those wiki-gnomish editors who feel that adminship is just too much of a "third-rail" for their ability to edit? So another benefit is that that more Wiki-editors may come out from lurking.

This also may be of interest to those proposing "provisional" or "trial" adminship. One could request adminship without requesting the ability to block/unblock. And later, request the "blocker" user-rights.

This wouldn't require any additional bureaucracy. Simply add a line to each RfA: "I am also requesting the 'blocker' user-rights" or "I am not requesting the 'blocker' user-rights at this time". (or some such).

Oh, and as an added bonus, it also should help decrease the contention at RfA somewhat.

So anyway, those are just some of the many reasons to suggest this.

And one final thing:

Since all the people who currently have these tools went through an RfA in which those commenting presumed that they would have these tools, if these user-rights are unbundled from adminship:

All users who currently have the "administrator package" of user-rights, would immediately be given the "blocker" package.

This should also help prevent opposition from those who might be concerned that their current "abilities" would be changed in any way.

Here are the user-rights that I think should be placed in a new user-group called "blocker":

• Block a user from sending email (blockemail)
• Block other users from editing (block)
• Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt)
• Bypass automatic blocks of proxies (proxyunbannable)
• Disable global blocks locally (globalblock-whitelist)
• Can add groups:IP block exemptions
• Can remove groups:IP block exemptions

What does that leave in the adminship package? A lot. Most of which involve the ability to review/edit almost anything content-related (save oversight), and the ability to help editors to contribute (such as account creator).

I welcome your thoughts. - jc37 03:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you didn't have to double space every line. RockManQ ^(talk) 04:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that this "blocker" package would be requested through RfA, correct? RockManQ ^(talk) 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The idea is for this unbundling to cause the least amount of "change" as possible. So those who currently have the abilities should still have them, and the location where they are currently requested (albeit currently as part of a larger package) would still be the place/process to request them. - jc37 04:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is probably not a great idea. Blocks can be very controversial, and the ability to remove someone (temporarily or permanently) from the community should be decided on the basis of community trust. Protects, on the other hand (as I said above), are much more trivial in terms of controversy and ease of undo. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 06:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't change that. To gain this package, one would still have to go through RfA. - jc37 06:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Definitely!. Free the Wiki-gnomes. I suspect there are lots of people out there who would be happy to use the non-block-related admin tools to help clean up, but have no particular desire for the intensity of the current RFA process or the strife of blocking. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a problem?

Lets firstly say that I do appreciate a lot of the hard work and thought-provoking discussion that has taken place on this page. However, much of it seems to be founded on the assumption that RfA is "broken", that not enough editors are choosing to take the plunge, that the pass rate is not high enough, etc etc.

I'm not so sure that there actually is a problem at the moment though.

Looking at the current Tangotango readout, there are currently five discussions in progress that are on track to pass easily. Four of them have unanimous "Support" votes. One has over a hundred supports and not one oppose. There are two further that are easily within the "pass range" on 88% (although one of those is less than a day old). There are two discussions that appear to be on track to fail, but one of those is the controversial Ironholds one, and the other is a candidate that in my opinion, was always going to struggle to get up to the threshold.

So, we currently have five candidates that will almost certainly make it, two that will probably make it, paired against one unorthodox discussion and one discussion that will probably not end in success. Discounting the Ironholds RFA, which is not being held to our usual standards and procedures and that I feel would distort the statistics, we have 7 out of 8 looking to pass, or 87%. Is an 87% pass rate really cause for concern that the process needs radical reform or that the community is somehow being unduly harsh?

(Note, this is the current version of the RfA report that I am looking at. A new entry popped up just as I was typing this in.) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

In asking this, I'm not trying to be obtuse, but is this merely another example of the classic: "RfA is broken" vs. "RfA is not broken"? (Which even has it's own RfC : )

If it's not, would you clarify? - jc37 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to lurk on this page a fair bit, and the Ironholds RFA just got me thinking. Lots of people are pouring lots of effort into coming up with solutions to this "problem", but that all seems to be predicated on the fact that there actually is a problem. I used to think this was the case, but when I looked at the raw facts and figures, I'm no longer 100% sure that that is the case. I figure that coming back and asking the question on one of the original premises that a lot of the discussion here might generate some interesting discussion or insight from others into the whole state of affairs. As much for my own benefit as for the benefit of others =). If we can improve the process from it, then so much the better.

So, no, it's not a loaded question, and I'm genuinely curious what others think. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC).

I'd point you both to WP:RREV and ask you to read through. Although the success rate is one thing, there are a number of other reasons that people have problems with the current process. Having said that, any attempt to change the process is met with it's own strong oppposition, even in the face of evidence collected at the RfA review. Personally, I'm of a mind to walk away from the RfA process until such time as there is strong agreement that change is both needed and will be backed and implemented. At the moment, it feels like I'm a lone voice and that consensus is against me. Gazimoff 08:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been following it. My main problem is that it's been taking me longer to answer the questions than the deadline has allowed : ) - jc37 08:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion: Dispute resolution (at least involving admins) is broken. Arbcom burnouts are rampant, case delays are in excess of four months, the community is becoming heavily factionalized with lots of wikipedia-as-a-battleground behavior. Once an admin bit is bestowed, it is virtually impossible to undo that change except in the most egregious circumstances, and that leads to widespread demoralization of the community. The overall system is broken.

I'd don't think I'd call RFA 'broken', per se. By and large, it does its job, but I do think there's plenty of room for improvement. If processes were articles, I think I'd call RFA a "Good Article", but not yet a "Featured Article", if that makes sense. It works, it does the basic job it needs to do, but i think it could do things better.

Just my two cents though. It'll be interesting to see what the comment process turns up. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)