Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 20 April 2011

BACK to main page

Couple of thoughts

Thought I might share some thoughts on your RfA reform idea. Overall, I like it - but there are afew points I think that merit discussion.

1. Admins being the only people who can elect/ratify/nominate candidates? Does this not make adminship more of a clique than it already is? In what way could a long term, clueful editor who is in good standing not make a nomination? I can think of half a dozen editors that are not interested in being admins, but I'd trust their judgement on suggesting one.
2. Minimum qualification should be kept low, if synthesizing - Say 5 editors were looking at edit count, 3 said 8k, 2 said 3k, I'd suggest going for the lower, not the middle, nor the majority.
3. History of Oppose and Support should not affect your right to vote, unless there is an issue with rationales.
4. Your RFA SPA makes me think of one voter and one voter only, is it necessary to specify this, especially if you focus more on rationales?
5. Perhaps there should be a system that all replies to votes should be on the talk page (with a template to match)

Just a couple of thoughts anyway Worm · (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Worm. All very valid points - I did stress that these ideas of mine may even be contradictory. These are among the very points that I hope could be discussed by a task force rather than in a traditional RfC that would be, as per usual, peppered with off-topic comments and general background noise. However, FWIW:

1. You're right of course on voting, reason I put it in there was to get comments just like yours that would rule it out as quickly as possible. I think however there should be some minimum quals for nominators and voters.
2. personally I think going for the middle would be best. That's why I fee it's essential to carefully review all those users essays very closely.
3. There are some editors who routinely vote oppose or support (I've check many voting pattern in X tools). That kinda demonstrates to me that they haven't done their own homework.
4. Yes. But again, I feel it needs putting in writing.
5. I don't thing flip-flopping between pages would make the process easier.

Would you consider working on a task force? --Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that admin only nominations would be a bad idea. Though I think that a rule that accounts with less than 1500 edits can't self nominate would be useful and gentler to newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that this was created today, so thought I might get you while it was fresh in your mind. I'd say working out what the minimum requirements are should be something for a task force to agree. I'm not keen on setting it too high, as there are some very clueful editors who would do alright. NickPenguin for example, fails most RfA criteria and it's going to be a close one. Boing, WSC and myself all moved our votes based on his clueful approach.

As for how voters vote, SPA or specific history, I think we could manage that much better through requirements for rationale, be it "sourced" or reasonable reasons. I don't think it should be a requirement to trawl through loads of edits to get an impression of character - for example, I base much of my vote on how an editor behaves on talk pages and how much time they've spent in the Misplaced Pages space, which means I'd miss bad speedy tags.

You're right about the flip flopping, but I'm more concerned about the limitting discussion. Discussion will show how the candidate handles questions, especially follow up questions. However, if it stays on the page, it gives an impression of badgering, which can cause issue.

As for a task force, I'd be more than happy to join in, I've already said as much to Dank. I'm keeping an eye on WT:RfA, and will jump on any point I'd be useful. Having said that, I'm an outside observer, having never run the gauntlet! Worm · (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The page was created today in my user space, but the content was written several days ago. --Kudpung (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me pop in here with some thoughts too.

• Minimum qualifications for candidacy - one of the most obvious things that needs to be implemented.
• Apply for a 'right to vote', in the same way as 'autopatroler', 'rollbacker', 'reviewer', etc. - Very interesting. Set (minimum) criteria to be an RfA voter is a good idea, but should this be a "simply meeting the requirements" thing or a technical user right?
• No uncommented oppose !votes: Yes.
• Things such as removal of personal attacks and incivility should be as broad as possible. I think any all admins should be strongly encouraged to remove personal attacks and uncivil comments.

Anyway, I'd like to share my thoughts on every point, but I'll refrain. The specifics would have to be decided by a task force anyway (in which I'd be happy to take part in), but overall I entirely agree with the goals of this particular proposal. Swarm 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'neutral' section. Some people do offer a lot of good advice in it for the candidate. In a very close call, perhaps the crat might consider the comments in their evaluation. If I were a crat I probably would, unless there is an existing rule against it. Kudpung (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd include some thoughts as well. There's still plenty of room for expansion, but a synopsis can be gleaned. I kind of called it the SGM's approach. Have a look and see if anything sounds reasonable you can also add comments there if you wish. My76Strat (talk) 06:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Voting qualification

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Provided it was set low, clear and automatic I would be OK with a qualification for !voting. I remember when I first checked out RFA I couldn't work out what the unwritten criteria was for voting and I left the page for months. I think I'd been editing over 12 months before I first !voted in an RFA, so a low threshold such as 200 edits would actually make it clearer more open and less cliquey. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I do quite like the suggestions from Kudpung actually, basically "2m good standing". The only problem is that it makes blocks punative... Worm · (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, WereSpielChequers, because my 1st !vote was "Support (Feel free to remove if non-admins are not allowed to vote in RFAs)." That caused this response on my talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PhantomSteve - this is a community decision not an admin one. I think a potential solution would be to make it an indirect community decision by electing a committee to appoint admins, but that masks the real issue which is that we haven't agreed the criteria that admins should be judged against. If we set the criteria then I believe a whole bunch of editors will look at it see if they meet it and come forward. We'd have to set a criteria if we elected a committee - either explicitly or implicitly by the views of those elected. So why not set a criteria and then judge candidates against it? ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like clearly defined goalposts. It's so much easier to hit a target when you're not blindfolded in advance. And having a clear standard to be judged against would rule out a lot of 'personality clash' votes or 'xe's my friend' votes. Pesky (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What we would need are some stats on voter profiles, perhaps in a sortable table like we've done for the NPPer profiles. It would go something like this:

• Number of voters on RfA over the past 12 months
• Date of each voter's first edit
• Number of edits of each voter
• Number of times the voter voted
• Number of times the voter voted 'support'
• Number of times the voter voted 'oppose'
• Number of times the voter voted 'neutral'

This may help to establish a 'right to vote'. There's not much point in speculating what that threshold would be yet. We need those stats and then discuss it further.

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Voter profiles

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC) We now have an excellent sortable table of who and how voted on RfA over the last 12 months. Play with it - there is some extraordinary information to be gleaned from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Clean start

Currently policy is that clean start candidates are strongly recommended to inform Arbcom. But on recent experience it isn't particularly workable for people to run with an Arbcom statement that their previous account was clean enough to be disregarded. So I'd be OK with Arbcom giving people the green light to run without revealing their former account, provided either that the former account was uncontentious or that the former account was was so long ago that matter is moot. That would men that on some occasions Arbcom would have to say to a potential candidate that either they wait x months or they run disclosing their prior account. In the event that someone who has made a cleanstart but their early edits disclose that they are a clean start account then Arbcom would need to say whether they would have allowed the candidate to run without mention of their clean start. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If ArbCom were to publicly announce that a particular user couldn't run without disclosing their previous account or wait X months, and then the user waited X months, there is a decent chance that that would derail their RFA right off the bat. In my experience, there would be opposes for refusing to reveal their prior account. Useight (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but as we saw in a recent RFA, not enough to derail an RFA. The only private way to inform Arbcom about a previous account that you had a clean start from is by Email. Arbcom then have an interesting set of choices including allowing the candidate to run without mentioning the former account, not allowing them to run without disclosing the former account, or as happened recently, allowing the candidate to run with an Arb statement about the nature of the previous account. They could presumably also say "keep your nose clean for x months and ask us again then". I'm not and never have been an Arb and don't know how often if ever the first two scenarios have happened (though I would hope that it could if the only reason for the Cleanstart was outing or harassment). Current policy strongly recommends that Clean start candidates talk to Arbcom, and I think that many would like that to be mandatory. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with a person running for admin with a clean start, if the clean start was to cover up an outting or harrassment or something along those lines. When a candidate uses a clean start to redeem him/herself from past mistakes, then I have a concern. A person with 12 months clean record and a person with a 12 month clean record after a clean start are not the same.---Balloonman 00:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, so how long do you think someone should wait after a clean start from a "contentious" account. Remember that we have had people exercise RTV when there was outing or harassment but they themselves had not behaved entirely uncontentiously. I would like the community to give Arbcom some guidance here so they felt empowered to say "in this case we need an extra x months good behaviour before allowing you to run without declaring your prior account, you are of course free to declare your prior account and run earlier". At the moment I suspect Arbcom are seeing this as a binary choice, allow people to run without disclosing their prior identity or not. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Minimum participants

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a temptation to simply say that chance would be a fine thing, but it is in theory better to decide rules in advance of needing them. I'm loathe to have a rule that a set number of participants are required as this could give an opposer an invidious choice. - Oppose and it passes 29 to 1 or stay stumm and it fails 29 - 0 for lack of participation. These sort of thresholds only work if you define a minimum number of supporters. So if it needs 22 supports and 70-75% support then 20 - 0, 21 - 7 and 69-31 all fail but 22-7 is a success and 22-8 and 22-9 are crat calls. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I know it's better to decide the rules before needing them, and I know it is one of my suggestions, but I'm also aware that we want to avoid instruction creep - that's why it's all only at the idea stage. There's also the possiblity that it might encourage canvassing. There was a time, a long time ago by Misplaced Pages standards, when such low turnout RfA would pass, but times have changed, and 100 votes of all kind are common place. Even 100+ support votes are no longer as extraordinary as they once were. It's certainly worth more discussion. --Kudpung (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the ideas I considered is to transclude the RfA to the main RfA page but don't set the 7 day timer until a minimum number sign up. There are nuances to this type of approach which can be further defined. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• I do not approve of RfAs being votes, as I feel this is contrary to the fact that Misplaced Pages isn't a democracy.
• I do not approve of banning self-nominations as some potential admins may receive little attention.
• I approve of lowering the approval rate if voting is kept, and if voting is abolished, then the bureaucrat will decide.
  • If a user feels that his/her RfA was closed unfairly, he/she should be able to appeal to another bureaucrat or (in some cases) a steward.
• I do not approve of applications "right to vote". While Misplaced Pages does not have complete freedom of speech, I feel that this should instead by relegated to all autoconfirmed users instead of requiring application, as then the applications would be an unnecessary load on bureaucrats and current admins.
• I do not approve of a 250-word limit which would be extremely difficult to enforce (both technically and practically) and would be a limit on potential useful feeback.
• I definitely approve of banning off-topic comments and comments based on illegitimate reasons like hatred of the user.
• Requiring both support and oppose votes from a user is very ambiguous, and I feel that it is unnecessary.
• Definitely ban non-autoconfirmed users.
• If voting is kept, I propose the following:

• • Of course, this would not be so clear cut and the content of the comments should determine the actual # of units.
• The # of support votes should be a minimum of 15, not 30. 30 is a little too much.
• No limits on questions, but Bureaucrats can discount obviously insignificant questions.

My thoughts.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, you're advocating that longer rationales should be weighted more heavily? Useight (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• So those who can express themselves concisely and clearly would have less say than people afflicted with verbal diarrhea? Hmmm -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• My76Strat would certainly like this idea. :P Not so sure how it would benefit the rest of us. Swarm 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Eeeek! Those who waffle best / shout longest are more important? Pesky (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop the trolling. Did I not say that these are subject to what the comment actually contains?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is going to go nowhere fast if we can't refrain form accusing each other of trolling every time there is a criticism. I don't think you quite understand what trolling is if you think those comments are examples of it. Please, everyone let's try to keep this civilized and not let it become another snake pit like the one we are endeavoring to fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I used the term because of "My76Strat would certainly like this idea. :P", but maybe it's wrong. I think most did not read that the weighting is subject to the comment's content.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm still missing where you specified that, link? Useight (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Right below the table.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. I was reading above the table. Thanks. Useight (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was just a joke about Strat's well known OTT wordiness. Sorry if it somehow offended you but I think "trolling" is a little exaggerated. Swarm 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how I am considered a TROLL. It is a scarlet letter which I resent. If I put an effort forth, it initiates from good intentions. I hope to participate in this task force, and it would be helpful if people who believe I am negative, would give me a second chance, or AGF or whatever might allow me to function as a colleague. Please. My76Strat (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No one was saying you were a troll Strat. — Oli Pyfan! 05:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I just want to say: thanks for the page. I really like the work you and WSC are doing. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to a lot of the votes we'll see in any RFC. No matter how plain and simple you make it, no matter how much we try to please people, we're going to be confronting an audience that ranges from neutral to partly skeptical and hostile to very skeptical and hostile. With each other, I think we do a good job of being patient, and we're under no pressure. In a community-wide RFC, we've got one shot to get it right, because of all the times we came to them in the past and were never able to get anything done. Many of us blame the wider community for that, but largely, they blame us, and as I've said, I do believe we've been a little slow on the uptake. We need to do something that says: we're sorry we didn't hear you before, we hear you now. At a minimum, we need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA. If we're lucky and we spin it right, that minimum might be the maximum we need to do, at least for the moment. User talk:Dank/RFA is a concise statement of the way I'd go about it; would anyone else like to present a different synthesis?

I completely support the idea of a task force, and I hope this is the first problem we'll tackle. But I implore you not to take a month putting 20 ideas on the table and trying to come up with something that satisfies everyone in the RFA community. We really need to listen to and satisfy others first, or else we're all wasting our time. After we make some kind of substantive change that survives an RFC, then we can see how it evolves at RFA, and then we can put 20 ideas on the table and try to maximize the benefits of the new system. First, we need what the larger community will see as a demonstration that we know we screwed up (certainly in their eyes) and that we're committed to fixing it.- Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA - that is the absolute key sentence. I think the larger community is aware that the discussion at WT:RfA has been one big screw up for the last five years. I've only been a regular contributor to that talk page for 15 months and just about every aspect of RfA has been served up and swept back under the carpet at least five times. All the main suggestions have already been made and there is enough to work from. The most important thing is to do it in a task force, before an edict comes from on high with a solution none of us wants. What happened at BLPPROD was a typical demonstration of how our decision making process is broken, and the final outcome did not actually appear to be all that satisfactory. When a discussion is too open, too many people just interject with 'I don't like it' but they never offer any solutions, while others join in at the last minute and aggressively demand the whole thing be debated over again; RfA is a critical issue and it needs competency to get it sorted. We have about five names on the task force list already, perhaps we can close it off at ten. Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided to give up on the "supporters go first" idea; I've pointed a lot of people to my userspace and have gotten no feedback on it, and if RFA voters aren't seeing it, then it would die a fiery death in an RFC. I have a backup suggestion that accomplishes at least the goal of protecting the candidate while they make their initial case, and doesn't require a vote or debate to get it started, although we want debate of course: some brave soul should just untransclude whenever someone begins an RFA, and (at least until people get used to the new system) post a message at WT:RFA inviting any interested supporters to help probe the candidate's record and write nom statements before the nom is re-transcluded. Is this doable? Does it meet the goal? - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So you want a two-part process in which the relationship between the first part and the second is quite similar to the relationship between WP:PR (and WP:GA and A-class reviews, perhaps) and WP:FAC... There are now editor reviews; I haven't looked at those editor review things in quite literally four years, but my impression was and is that they were and are fluff... you would need something with a bit more oomph... a WikiProject RfA, perhaps... • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection to your ideas, and people can make it into a project if they want to. I'm just suggesting that people help out when they become aware someone's going to run for RFA. Some opposers will make an argument that that might make it harder for them to evaluate the candidate in their "raw" state ... but that was always an illusion, and anyway, prohibiting people from helping people is poor social skills and completely un-Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Above, Dank said, "does it meet the goal?" That's an important question. What is the goal? Sure, we want to "fix RfA", however the community can't agree on how RfA is broken.

There are dozens of ideas on how to "fix RfA", from potential ground rules to major reworks of process. I think we need to clearly and specifically define what the ultimate goal is. On what scale are we trying to "fix RFA"? For example, WSC raises these ideas. Kudpung says the goal should be to make RfA "a less unpleasant experience, attract more editors of the right calibre, and nip time wasting candidatures in the bud." The first thing we should do is agree on a goal, as personal opinions, obviously, differ. Swarm 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All opinions are of course personal, but I think one thing has crystallised: the talk on this page and Dank's page is far more intelligent and objective that the virtual rugby club bar room at WT:RfA. I'm just wondering what's been going on at IRC. Kudpung (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help wondering what happens when someone puts a paintballer into the Rugby club bar :o) Pesky (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• One idea that jumped right out at me as something i would oppose is the elimination of self noms. I realize the intent is to stop hopeless or disruptive RFAs from proceeding, but I don't think that is the way to do it. This page has gotten long rather quickly so I may have missed some other ideas but what about just having a queue where untranscluded RFAs are placed. A crat or maybe just an admin would need to review each one to insure it is not a notnow case. If it is the user could be let down easy instead of watching oppose votes pile up. One idea I do like is not allowing users to place a neutral vote as a wedge to try and force a candidate to answer a question. I wonder if we should just consider eliminating the neutral section altogether. The much-neglected discussion section could be used for any comment that is not a support or oppose. As Neutral !votes do not affect the outcome anyway it seems like a way to neutralize users who have attempted to "weaponize" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'neutral' section. Some people do offer a lot of good advice in it for the candidate. In a very close call, perhaps the crat might consider the comments in their evaluation. If I were a crat I probably would, unless there is an existing rule against it. Kudpung (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed often some very good feedback there. If we take away the rather silly pretense that there is any such thing as a "neutral vote" and simply make it a comment/discussion section we can keep the good aspects while stopping the neutral comments intended to pressure a candidate into answering a question. I don't know how everyone else feels about that technique but I think we would be better off eliminating it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points Beeb.. Most 'neutral' votes tend to lean towards 'weak oppose' which is probably the way they are interpreted by the community. Thus the comments can, and often do, influence th way other people vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at how they do this over at Simple. No standard questions, all other questions optional, no neutral section. Just support, oppose and discussion. It's a much smaller project but the model seems to work reasonably well for them. And they have a de-adminship process, something we have repeatedly failed to accomplish here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Boing's first thoughts

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, but I'm just jotting notes down here as I think of them, and I'm deliberately doing so without having read anyone else's feedback first. Hope it's of some use...

• This could be run as a parallel optional RfA process for a trial period - Yep, I like the idea of an optional parallel trial

Candidates & nominations

• Minimum qualifications for candidacy - I definitely agree, yes, but I think there would be stiff opposition. I think the bar should be set quite low, but having no bar at all is naive and allowing hopeless cases to keep crashing and burning has to be bad for their morale.
• Nominations to be made only by admins etc - I don't like that idea at all, for a couple of reasons. There really is nothing special about being an admin that makes a person any better qualified to decide who else will make a good admin. And it would reinforce the "elite" accusations that are a major part of the problems with the admin system. I'd suggest anyone can be nominated by any editor in good standing, but the nominator must verify that the candidate satisfies the minimum qualifications. And for a self nom, a clear statement that the minimum qualifications are met is also required. Any noms that do not make such a declaration should be immediately rejected. Having such a declaration doesn't necessarily mean the candidate really does qualify, but it does mean someone has at least read the qualification requirements - most of our NOTNOWs have clearly not read a word about suitability for RfA
• Fresh start candidates: must declare, in confidence, their intention to run for RfA to an ARBCOM - agree

Qualifications for voters

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like the idea imposing any minimum requirements for eligibility to !vote, as it goes against the entire equality ethos that in general has worked so surprisingly well. Generally, limiting !voting to autoconfirmed registered users is enough, I think, but I would probably support one small tweak to that. If we had a !voting right that was automatically granted once an editor has been registered for 7 days (just like the 4 day autoconfirm one), that would stop new SPA registrations after an RfA has started.

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting conditions

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm generally in support of the spirit of that whole bit - but would just caution against making it look too much like we're trying to make Support voting easier than Oppose voting

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Crat monitoring & closing

• Crats to immediately remove any crap !votes. Generally don't like the idea, as it smells badly of censorship. I do like the idea of preventing personal attacks like "obtuse jerk" etc, but a quick look over ANI will show just how contentious the identification of personal attacks can be. Again, there are overtones of "the elite using their power to silence the masses".
• All 'pass', 'fail' decisions to be seconded by a second crat (or perhaps an uninvolved admin) - only if it's close.
• Neutral votes to be taken into consideration in close-call cases - Not sure if it would make sense to try to find some sort of quantitative way to include them (and I don't know how it might be counted), but I would expect that Neutral narrative is already taken into account by crats for close calls.

RfA Questions

• Questions from voters only, and possibly only from experienced editors - Does that mean you have to !vote *before* you can ask a question? That would not be good (we could, perhaps, mandate a Neutral vote pending the answer, but that I think that would just be a hoop for the sake of it). Only from experience editors? I like the principle, but it sounds a bit like elitism again, and I really do strongly support the "everyone can participate" ethos and I think it should be spread as widely as is practical.
• Maximum of one question per user and No follow-on questions - I'm really not sure of that, mainly because I've seen a good few cases where follow-on questions have been used to very good effect and to the candidate's advantage. For example, I have asked questions before where the candidate has missed my point and answered in a way that I don't think looks good, but I have then used a follow-on question to nudge them in the right direction - with the result being that they were actually fine on the topic I was asking about. Perhaps allow follow-on questions only if they are refinements to the original question? (Though that does open a whole new kettle of worms when it comes to judging what is and what isn't a refinement).
• No compound questions - Agreed. We should ask clear and concise single questions.
• No discussion threads in the question section except one answer from the candidate - Agreed, with an exception made for a follow-up question added as a proper new question. (eg Q7, A7, Q7a)

Task force

Immediately disqualify those who have added a comment, when it clearly says "no other comments other than your signature are needed at this stage", as that shows people who are not able to follow simple instructions. (The degree of seriousness with which one should take this comment of mine is left to the judgment of the individual )

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this Boing. It's exactly the way I had hoped people would offer their opinions. Much of what I wrote is ideas intended as a stimulus and may not actually reflect my own opinions. They are mostly taken from stuff that has been suggested at some time or another. Your last comment is the bst - you totally read my mind! Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Our voices will not be squelched... plus you don't want mindless drones. Rebellion and anarchy baby!---Balloonman 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Pesky's Thoughts

• Parallel optional RfA process for a trial period: Yes, good idea.

• More work for crats? - possibly 'more', but probably less messy for them and easier to do. Bureaucracy is, in any event, preferable to a lynch mob :o)

• Minimum qualifications for candidacy: Good idea - and / but could some leeway be built-in for an 'outstanding talent' nomination even if someone doesn't meet the min.quals?

• Nom only by Admins: don't like it! Too easy to abuse (only 'people we like' will get nominated).

• Right to Vote: yes, like that. (What a shame we can't make people do an online IQ test as part of earning the right :o) )

• No always-supporting / always-opposing voters: yup, sensible.

• No WP:SPA RfA voters: Now we're talking!

• Other voter quals: not seeing many probs there apart from possibly the block-free thing …. it might have to depend on what they were blocked for.

• Voting conditions. Mostly fine. But can you please define 'misplaced humour'? Is proper light-hearted / lightening the mood fun humour OK? Please? Pretty please? :o)

• Definitely no incivility or PA: yippee!! (And how about an immediate indef block for incivility for anyone violating the rule …… not that I'm over-reactive, or anything …..) Seriously, how about a one-month loss of voter's rights for first offence, two months for second offence, four months for third offence, eight for fourth, and so on?

• 'Crat monitoring & closing: like all that stuff, seems good.

• RfA Questions: how about no 'hidden ambush' questions of any kind? (and if you lead someone into an ambush, you don't get to vote)

Pesky (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Task Force

I'll add my name, but as I have this thing (aversion? avoidance? lol - summat like that!) about obligations and commitments (too many in real life, I'spect) my input may be sporadic -dunno how much use I'llbe, but make the best use of me as you see fit. Pesky (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

End Weak and Strong

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung is suggesting ending the use of Weak and Strong and giving the !voters just three choices, Support, Neutral and Oppose. Me I'm not sure what the point is of posting in neutral and rarely do so, nor do I think Strong is helpful (and if it did mean anything it would be open to abuse), I'd rather use the electrons to give an extra reason to support or oppose a candidate. But I do think that weak is useful, life is complex and Virtual Life even more so, I feel that three choices is insufficient to cover the range of candidates that I come across at RFA. I appreciate that prefixing my vote at RFA with weak is an invitation to the closing crat to give it less weight then normal, but some candidates I support or Oppose less strongly than others. Also I don't see any benefit to RFA in getting rid of this, and some disbenefit. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Strong is certainly not helpful. As has been mentioned it is often added to arguments that are in fact quite weak or at the least no better than any other. Although I admit I have used it myself a few times, usually if I really think a candidate would be a great admin. Weak, on the other hand, is a useful self-identifier. If someone marks their comment as weak, I expect the closing 'crat to give it half weight compared to others who did not do so, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to give someone who self identified their position as strong any extra weight. Not sure we could get rid of strong without taking weak off the table as well though. Why do we even have bolded votes at the beginning of comments? They are already organized into sections for support or opposition. Maybe we should just get rid of that tradition altogether. People could still identify their position as weak in the text of their remark if they felt it was so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The bolded text does increase readability, in my opinion. Useight (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking on the lines that doing away with the qualifying adjectives would help provide a clearer overview of the consensus that is developing, and also help the crats make up their minds in close calls. . As Beeb says, it would force voters to make their rationale ore detailed. I must admit I have used the 'strong' and 'weak' about twice in my RfA voting history, but only when the outcome is already going to be blatantantly obvious. However, we really need some crat input on this.

I personally see no objections however in continuing to use the traditional bold text as used in in all debates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall a crat citing numerous 'weak opposes' in their rationale for promoting a <70% candidate in at least one instance. 'Strong support' is unhelpful (though it does no harm), while 'strong oppose' can be taken as uncivil. I certainly think 'weak' rationales are given weight by crats in close RfAs that might go either way. Swarm 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the modifiers help convey nuanced positions; and that removing the modifiers brings RfA closer to pure voting. Whether or not that's a Good Thing is open to debate, but I doubt it would solve RfA's more pressing problems; perhaps it might be worth concentrating efforts elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

When I'm looking at close RFAs, I don't assign half-weight or double-weight depending on the adjectives used. But I do look at how many of the supports were 'weak' and how many of the opposes were 'strong' and take an extra moment to mull over the rationales used. I feel like a 'weak support' is pretty much a "meh" and a 'strong support' is an "over my dead body!", dependent on the other contents, of course. A "Strong Oppose " is particularly unhelpful. Useight (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the !voting system... personally, if we follow this path I doubt meaningful change will occur. That being said, if we must have !voting, the strong/weak does help. Imagine a hypothetical RFA closing at exactly 70% support/oppose. Looking at the adjectives, you see all the supports are "Strong" and all of the opposes are "weak." Assuming rationale reasoning, closing the RfA as a pass is a lot easier. Similarly, same closing percent, but most of the supports are "weak" and the opposes are "strong Oppose." Suddenly, that RfA looks less likely to pass. The "strong/weak" help the reviewer determine how strongly the poster feels about the rationale they present. Two people can look at the same information, have the same overall "support/oppose" but for one the rationale is important for another it isn't.---Balloonman 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bolded votes also make it much easier for bots to reliably parse your vote later, for statistical analysis. Just saying. —SW—  22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea!

(Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I particularly like the idea of minimum qualifications to apply and then qualifications to vote, also. I like it being a right like reviewers and rollbackers. Many other excellent ideas, but those two really jumped out at me. Have a really neutral, clearly defined threshold, and then an evaluation by people who have been proven not to be trolls. Montanabw 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it could work if it's given out similarly to reviewer: given to virtually everyone who wants it, but it still provides that filter. You know the community, though: always fearful of new user rights. Swarm 05:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad there is some support for this. However, I am also very conscious of the fact that it conflicts with most people's perceptions of democracy. 99.9% of any country's electorate does not need a degree in political science to vote for the party MP or representative of their choice. Ironically, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Then again, in many democracies you still have to register if you want to vote... Swarm 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

And if you're serving time for a felony, you can't vote! In fact, in some states, even for misdemeanors. And in some other states, with a felony conviction, you can lose your voting rights for life! =:-O And besides, a lot of voting, like for cabinet appointments, is indirect, via, for example, the US Senate... (lol) Montanabw 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> And most places there is some kind of minimum criterion - like age. And I don't think people who've been certified insane can vote in many places. I think having a 'mental age' (subjective, probably!) and 'recognition of sanity' badge is not a bad thing. Pesky (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: Copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA Feedback - Continuing Input and Improvement

I'm just dragging this across from the other place, so if it's bitty, that's why, but (as I have said in other places) I am basically an idle get and cba to re-word it, lol! (Getting old, maybe?)

The only way anyone could 'do the studies' (and this is an excellent idea - doing the studies) would be for someone (maybe the 'crats?) to issue an anonymous-to-non-crats questionnaire to (for example) everyone who's run the RfA gauntlet within the past three years, asking for subjective scores on a number of points. in fact, only by doing something like this, and doing it as an ongoing part of the RfA process, can we measure any future improvement. And it has to be measurable. I think an RfA-process feedback page - showing just the results - is definitely a very good idea. Maybe one of the questions on the questionnaire should be "was there any particular opposer who you felt was overly-aggressive and / or verging on (or making) personal attacks" (please name them), and if the same names keep coming up, maybe the crats should have a quiet word with people who are subjectively viewed as 'persistent offenders' - and possibly ban them from the RfA process for a while? If those who might fall into that category knew that this was a possible consequence, maybe that alone would be enough to make the whole thing a more constructive experience for everyone involved - and also for everyone reading through the pages. After all, anyone with Wiki access can read through those histories, and they may well not currently be presenting 'the face of WikiPeople' as we'd like Joe Public to see it!

And adding it to main page as a suggestion for it to be part of the whole RfA process. Pesky (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the probable seriously-bad etiquette - didn't really occur to me to ask first about putting it on the main page (probably coz I'm impatient, impulsive, stuff like that). Hope it's OK there, Kudpung? Feel free to remove it with extreme prejudice (no, that doesn't mean trout-slap, that means no more online virtual chocky biccies .....) Pesky (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ideas Pesky. They've all been broached at some time or another so you're suggestions are valid. There have even been many in-depth surveys, stats, and polls, but they all petered out to nothing - they died out even before results were published, so no conclusions or consensus were reached. This time round, we need to lean on all that previous experience without going through it all again, and fast track something into reality. One of the problems, I think, is that many of those who have got the the tools already are not, understandably terribly interested in being involved, however hard their own ordeal was. Many never took any interest in the process before they ran the gauntlet, and most don't even come back to vote on RfA, and we're left with a relatively small group of regulars who do. ironically we get accused of being a cabal (we're not), and to quote one recent comment, pushing the wheelbarrow of power. Ironically, the admins generally just get on with the tasks at hand, continue with their own content work, and only go into a huddle when one admin alone feels more consensus at admin level is needed. Even in a democracy where everyone can vote (see Swarm above), there has to be select committees working behind closed doors to the benefit (we hope) of the rabble. They then return to the house for the approval of the members of parliament or house of representatives. That 'other place' you refer to is really only a virtual pub where some of the customers who are touting for more civility are the drama mongers themselves. I spoke out about it once, and there was a knee-jerk reaction. I was asked to name names, but I was not going to go on a kamikazee trip. Nevertheless, there were obviously some red faces, and things calmed down for a while. But only a while. I think the work I published here had some effect on reducing the questions. The page has been view over 700 times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My main point was just that athe feedback questionnaire should become part of the RfA process as a standard wossname. You know, thing. :o) Once people have actually run the woolly glove (much nicer than the old gauntlet, we hope), then whether they pass or fail, they do the questionnaire, and then go on to whatever they were going to do anyway. If we can get some of the previous RfA candidates to do the questionnaire as well, then brill, but it does need to be incorporated into the process from now on, just to prevent any future backsliding in the process. What would be the point of 'fixing' it now, only to have it begin to degenerate in ten years' time, and for it to have to get so bad that everyone noticed it before it could be hauled back by its ears, kicking and screaming tweaked again to make it acceptable? Pesky (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you recognize the value of collecting feedback from the candidate. This is important, it should be done. Ironically the candidate might leave feedback which answers some things you were looking for. It has been said things go around and round. Draw on a new resource, the one who just went through. I just want to make sure to always include in that context, a debrief. This is necessary. The candidate should be told if some events were programed. It is only right to have some questions answered. Maybe even give the candidate a right to ask 1 question, that must be answered. To my own thoughts, I wish to know what was that thing called the debacle? I can not help but feel passionate about these things. That Is why I am compelled to comment when I see these discussions. And say things I have known. Thanks to the many who do read with understanding. My76Strat (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Collecting feedback is vital if you want to enable continuous improvement of the process. However, the RfA candidate is not the only person who can provide feedback. bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Excellent point, in fact. It would also be a good idea to collect feedback from the voters on how they feel they could have improved how they handled the process, whether (with hindsight) they think they said something wrongly, did something wrong, or were less than considerate and compassionate. And how they felt about other voters, too. Did it leave any of the contributors feeling stressed? Pesky (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Question

Is there any feedback from Jimbo regarding the emails he must have received? My76Strat (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Curious about this as well. Regards, MacMed_stalk 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, who knows if Jimbo's planning to take action. Part of me wonders if we should just let him do so. Swarm 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty good about stipulated guidelines. I know a lot of people would cry foul but sometimes to get a thing done leadership is necessary. I do believe if we came up with a solid proposal we could easily gain his blessing, but if our best effort is only going to produce disunity, strong leadership can bridge that divide. In some ways consensus itself should be reconsidered. If after some period of time a stalemate still exist, the leadership, should review the discussion and develop the plan with best intentions. And we should do our best to implement the directives. But that is just me. My76Strat (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

the nature of Adminship itself affects the RfA process

It's meant to be 'no big deal'. But while removal of Admin privileges is a 'big deal', then Adminship will be seen to be a 'big deal' too. I know this has been said many times by some really insightful people - and they are dead right. (Pasting from the bar, below, lol!)

I really do think that a recall or suspension of an admin should be 'no big deal'. If you think about it, issues out there in real life can affect each and every one of us. RL issues spill over into WikiLand, Wiki-Issues spill over into real life. Sometimes an admin, just like any of us lesser souls, can go through a patch where they are less than tolerant, less than understanding, less than civil, too inclined to zap things / people (possibly in error). It happens, and it would be naive to say that WikiLand was immune to that kind of spill-over effect. So ... how about when we notice that an admin has become / is becoming less than fully centred and absolutely reasonable, they have a 'holiday' from admin work (not punitive, just a break, and never meant to be any big deal), and their modes of interaction in discussions such as these, ANI, RfC, and all the rest, are assessed until it's clear that they have got over whatever was causing them to be a bit too trigger-happy, at which point their adminship was given back. We all make mistakes, we all go through bad patches, we all get irritated from time to time at the slightest little thing - such as 'what someone's interests are', 'how someone argues their point'. It's obvious. So how about the idea of a 'compassionate leave break' - no big deal. Pesky (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If we tried pushing this process change on existing admins, I feel that the pushback might be rather strong. However, if it were part of the (presumably optional) New-RfA-Process then I think it would see a lot more support. (Also, it might reassure those who feel that making RfA less painful would let in some lower-quality candidates). bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do think that we need a more community-based admin recall process (and I haven't changed my mind since getting my own mop). I would probably support something along these lines, even applying to existing admins -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(Although having said that, I don't think admin recall, or temporary break etc, should be part of this current process - that can be for another time) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Goals

Lots of good discussion here so far. One thing I found especially worth highlighting is Swarm's comment above: "What is the goal?" The reform page starts with a list of suggested changes, which is great, but it seems to me that we need to clearly set out the goals of the reform before we spend too much time figuring out how to meet those goals. Once we decide on the goals of the reform, that ought to go on top of the page, above the suggested changes. From there I imagine we'd want to focus on a small number of goals that are both important and realistic. From reading previous discussions, the three goals would seem to be:

1. Encourage more long-term editors to consider adminship, either through the current RfA process, an improved RfA process, or some alternative process yet to be decided upon;
2. Prevent newcomers (of the 11 edits variety) from getting pounded in a quick, pile-on, NOTNOW-closed RfA;
3. Find some way of saying "not yet" to long-term editors whom the community is nonetheless not ready to grant the tools without driving them to retirement.

Of those, I think #2 seems (to me) to be by far the easiest to fix; just don't let obvious NOTNOW candidates transclude their RfAs, and if they do, undo it and explain why on their talk page. I've done this a few times, I know other editors have as well. #1 and #3 are probably a lot harder to fix, but arguably more important.

What other goals should we be focusing on? 28bytes (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Split the Admin package into at least two tiers. Have opt-in and opt-out parts of it. Have mentoring through it, apprenticeships, whatever you'd like to call them. Have goal oriented structured learning towards re-applying when someone fails. The major goal - make the whole thing much, much kinder. Pesky (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbundling of admin tasks, and also the question of desysoping are not intended to be the object of this particular exercise - if we try to focus on too many things all at once we'll get nowhere, and that's why previous attempts have failed. Pedro once devoted massive energy to a huge survey that simply petered out. As User:WereSpielChequers once said: ...if anything, fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems. The task force must set the goals, but they should be focussed. I think we need to aim for changes around the present system as outlined here. We will have enough to do, because if and when we get consensus for the changes, many pages of policy and guidelines will have to be rewritten, and that alone will be a headache - it's unbelievable how long people will squabble over a sentence just because they don't like someone else's prose (all problems we had with the BLPPROD). I emphasise again however, that my ideas ideas for reform are only my suggestions to get the ball rolling - simply because a start has to be made somewhere. I'm also conscious that other groups may have, or already be having other ideas that we are not aware of. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall have some thinks on this. If various different groups are focussing on various different aspects, once each group has got some good workable ideas together, it may be possible to integrate all of them at some point, without overburdening any particular group or distracting any group's attention from their own chosen area of focus. Pesky (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes: Yes, those are indeed the goals of this particular exercise: to attract more experienced and/or long term users to both the voting process, and the idea of becoming admins. The details of those goals include dispensing with the drama, encouraging more objective voting, and relieving the humiliation by making sure that every transcluded candidacy has a fair chance of survival, or at least getting into the 80-70% grey zone. This might also lower the rate of repeat attempts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. We want more long term good editors to become admins and we do not want to lose editors. RfA is currently too daunting for some editors and will cause a significant percentage to stop editing when unsuccessful. NOTNOWs are an issue but not as important, but they are handled quite well at the moment - a small fix there will save the community time. Worm · (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I throw in a comment here, as an "experienced" editor who has never had any intention of seeking to become an admin. Why should I? I'm here to have fun, essentially, by doing what I want to do, building articles, and engaging in (wherever possible) friendly discussion on subjects that I'm interested in, often with the aim of building a consensus - but having the freedom to become irascible occasionally. If I were to become an admin, through whatever route, much of the appeal of being here would immediately evaporate - I'd be under pressure to do what people ask me to do rather than what I want to do, and it would inevitably take time away from the things I enjoy doing. Or, that's the way it seems to me. I suspect I may fall into the category of editors who people would like to encourage to become admins - but, unless I'm missing something, it seems like it is a role I should continue to steer well clear of. Am I right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no pressure on good long-term editors to become admins. In fact some of our highest scoring and most civil users do not want to be admins. It's great however, when they bring their knowledge and experience to discussions such as these. (There is still room for more on the task force). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> To be quite honest, I don't see myself ever wanting to become an Admin either, no matter how good the process gets. It's not really my kind of thing - if I feel like doing some housekeeping I'm more likely to go typo-hunting. Each to their own - it takes all sorts :o) Pesky (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbundling of admin tasks, and also the question of desysoping are not intended to be the object of this particular exercise - if we try to focus on too many things all at once we'll get nowhere, and that's why previous attempts have failed.
Absolutely. We can't get distracted by trying to fix all the problems that contribute to negativity at RfA. Swarm 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

...if anything, fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems.

— WereSpielChequers, RfA discussions 29 January 2011

Added by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey ideas

Errant has come up with some really good stuff over here in starting to formulate some survey / feedback questions. Recommend y'all go take a look :o) Pesky (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, feedback and additions more than welcome; hopefully this survey/study could integrate with the reform work here - either drawing on it or informing it. w/e. --Errant 08:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea if this is already available (or from where), but the stats on duration/edits of 'not now' candidates might already be aggregated somewhere, as well as for successful ones; this might show where the community has unconsciously (wisdom of crowds) already group-thought what the minimums should be (and likely changed over the years, although only the most recent two years would likely be helpful); I'm sure there's overlap, but might indicate the minimums. If it's not already available from the foundation/bureaucrats, it could be compiled, though tedious. It might also be interesting to see how it's evolved over the years. Survey results would likely be comparable. Dru of Id (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Voter profiles

We're having a table made up based on the following parameters, plus possible extrapolation of any percentages we need:

• Voters on RfA over the past 12 months
• Date of each voter's first Misplaced Pages edit
• Number of Misplaced Pages edits of each voter
• Number of times the voter voted
• Number of times the voter voted 'support'
• Number of times the voter voted 'oppose'
• Number of times the voter voted 'neutral'
• Voter has admin rights or higher. Y/N

However, it will take five days. If the community thinks it's too long to wait, we can try to find another programmer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable to wait five days. If that's how long it takes to get it done properly, why hurry it along? Being hasty about stuff is one sure way of getting it wrong in the end! Pesky (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

These things take time. Five days isn't unreasonable. Worm · (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• See User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles. —SW—  23:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Moved to: Misplaced Pages:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Trust the bureaucrats

What's currently proposed seems to be much the same as the current process with a few tweaks. It would still be a vote and so would still be a political process. Perhaps you should consider a more radical reform. For example, why not just let the bureaucrats just decide the matter themselves? This would be similar to the way that other rights are granted - see Requests for permissions. For example, I recently put myself down on a list for filemover privilege, making a brief case why it would be useful. Someone checked this over and then dealt with the matter immediately without discussion, drama or voting. Other privileges that I've picked up were assigned in a similar no-fuss way. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what we are trying to work towards here is more than just a few tweaks, and they might be more easier to get accepted than a radical change of system. My personal view is if there were more voter discipline, objectivity, and maturity, and a great deal less drama mongering, it might achieve the goals. Nevertheless, a request for permissions style process has not been ruled out. It's probably what Jimbo had in mind to be run as a parallel trial process. I'm not sure the community would accept it. I don't personally like the idea of it, but it does certainly have advantages over the existing trial by fire. I could be convinced. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the community would be happy to accept almost anything rather than the current one! And it would be good to do some comparative surveys between the original and the trial(s). Pesky (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptance by the community" has always seemed to encumber efforts to rework RFA. I don't think that should be a major concern at this stage. At this point, we should be willing to try something, and if it doesn't work, try something different. But, above all, we need to try something. It's the very essence of WP:BOLD. We've got to be bold and step up and try something soon, after all, the word "trial" is derived from "try". Tyrol5 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The usual point brought up in opposition to something like this is that the bureaucrats weren't selected with consideration that they would have the ability to unilaterally make admins. The same argument is brought up when the question of giving 'crats desysopping abilities arises. However, adding abilities is not without precedent -- admins can now make rollbackers, something not doable at the time of my RFA. Useight (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> Any 'job title' can evolve. That's how life works! Pesky (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The useless reform process, discussed in the sections above and below this one, just condemn us to more of the same. The whole "admin bundle" must be unbundled. This is the issue that is being so resolutely ignored by the current round of administrator mandarins who hold the balance of power. The notion of "administrator" on Misplaced Pages is failing dismally. There are of course, superb administrators; MaterialScientist comes to mind as an exemplary all round contributor. There are other administrators who contribute little or nothing of value to Misplaced Pages content-wise, but offer much value mediating processes among content editors, such as LessHeard vanU. These pure administrator types should also have valued seats on Misplaced Pages. But then alas, we have our bully administrators... the dirty underbelly of Misplaced Pages. It is easy to list some of them, but that won't help. This is why the current notion of "administrator" must be ditched. I very much go along with the notion of "trust the bureaucrats". We need an elected group of people who review important decisions that are made around Misplaced Pages. If we cannot elect them in a sensible way, then we just deserve what we get. But there is no way content editor should be held hostage to some of our bully "administrators". For the sake of decency, unbundle these so called administrative responsibilities, just as they have already been unbundled in other areas. There is no reason why the right to block IP vandals shouldn't be given to clearly stable established users. Create a special type of user, perhaps still called an "administrator" and perhaps still elected by the current RfA process, who had the power to block established content editors. That is a most special power, and should be given only to users who established content editors can respect. Too many users currently have that power who should not have it. And the actions of those who do have that power should always be be oversighted by bureaucrats – our focus then shifts to how we elect sane bureaucrats... --Epipelagic (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a most special power, and should be given only to users who established content editors can respect. The solution here is very very very simple; go vote in RFA. That way only people you respect become admins. *shrug*. --Errant 21:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The solution here is not in any way "very very very simple". You must know very well that the current bundling of admin privileges throws too much dust over the underlying issues. I take it that your *shrug* is meant to indicate your contemptuous dismissal of these concerns. A big part of the problem is administrators who are contemptuous of these concerns. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of that viewpoint, this project isn't even going to address the role of administrators. The task of this RfA reform effort is large enough; there's no way we can take on adminship reform as well. In other words, we're trying to move a boulder; we can't take on the mountain that is adminship. In fact, many of us believe that RfA reform can't be done without Foundation implementation. There's no way adminship is going to be unbundled by a mere Wikiproject. Swarm 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Epi, I'm sorry, it shouldn't have come across that way. I'm suggesting an immediate partial solution to the problem you feel exists; if you're representing content editors (which is the impression I get) then round them up, get them interested, and get them voting for admins they feel would be good. The *shrug* was simply to say; be pro-active. --Errant 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA clerks

A stand-alone page has now been created. Please continue the discussion there. Task force members please put the page on your watchlists.

Moving

I think it's time to give Kudpung his house back and move to the project namespace. What do you think? — Oli Pyfan! 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We have some pretty clear-cut and good ideas. I second the opinion that it's time to move to project space. Tyrol5 13:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For the project space name, might I suggest Misplaced Pages:2011 RfA reform or Misplaced Pages:Revision of RfA? Tyrol5 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we want to get the green light from Jimbo before we advance into the project space, right? Swarm 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) I was thinking of that. That'd be a good next step before proceeding. Tyrol5 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Jimbo's talk page, asking him to look here.— Oli Pyfan! 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst his support would be nice, I don't think there is any requirement to get permission to move to project space :P It doesn't make it any more official..

Moving

I don't really need anyone's permission to move this out of my user space and it won't make it more official when I do. Everything needs to be started somewhere, though, and I'm happy in the joint effort with Dank and WSC to have been able to help provide that start. One reason I would like it out of my user space now, is because I neither want to regarded by our supporters as the leader, nor branded by our detractors as the ringleader, and pushing that damned barrow of admin power. Another reason is that the board software and/or policy does not allow shortcuts to be made to user space. I'll make the move to a WP:X project space when I get back to my office with its 24/7 broadband on 5 April, and when everyone else has gotten over seasonal delerium. By then, or thereabouts, we should also have the table of RfA voter profiles. in the meantime, do please keep the suggestions coming for a WP:X page name to move to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Trial proposals

I've got a pile of notes & was hoping (unless anyone gets to it before me) to write a draft at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Clerks for the clerking proposal. Does anyone have any good ideas for a trial we could propose & implement for the scheme? I think we largely have the scope of a clerks task nailed down, it is just the implementation details. --Errant 10:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea and I like the choice of project banner. I think that's probably the formula I'll adopt for the move of this user page. There should be, I firmly believe, a concentrated effort to develop these individual features of RfA reform by the same task force - otherwise, as per usual, it will just peter out due to side tracking, innuendo, trolling, and other non constructive contributions. You could start (just a suggestion) by copying the thread about Clerks over to it's tp - I've juggled a couple of comments around on this page to keep them in the right threads. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There's still some details that need consideration before we move forward with RfA clerking. I've copied the above thread and raised new comments on the talk page. Swarm 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Organising our discussions

When I get back to my office and a reasonable connection tomorrow, I'm going to be moving all this out of my user space to project space of some kind. I'm also suggesting that we follow Errant's example (clerking) and make identical daughter pages for each of the major points for discussion:

• Candidates & nominations
• Qualifications for voters
• Voting conditions
• 'Crat monitoring & closing
• RfA Questions

I think we have a big enough task force now (people can still join of course) to be able to make our first steps towards getting a package of proposals to make to a broader community. The first step will be to examine all the ideas and suggestions that have been proposed here and on the other user's essays, previous RfC, and WT:RfA, taking into account any rough consensus that seems to have been reached there, and either throw them out, or agree to keep them and come up with the best suggestions for their criteria and wording.

I also think it would be a good idea to transclude the list of task force participants to each of those pages in editable form. (I'll be happy to make the separate pages, but I don't know how to do this transclusion.) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

In order to transclude, you'd have to create a separate page for task force participants, containing only that list. From there, you'd just have to transclude like you would an RFA. To edit, though, they'd have to go through the main list. I'm not sure if there's another way to do this. Tyrol5 15:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're struggling Kudpung, you could always have a read of my adoption school lessons here or here... Worm · (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've created a subpage. Therefore, the list can be transcluded to other pages with {{User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Task force}}. While there's no such thing as an 'editable transclusion', I've added a link above the list so people can add themselves easily.

Also, the shortcut {{rfa tf}} can be used. Swarm 19:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. It's very important to maintain momentum though - do you have any specific ideas on how to grease the gears and keep them turning? I have a bit more spare time nowadays, so just shout if you need a few hours of unskilled labour... bobrayner (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. What we need is a mailing list or something where we can keep all the members of the task force up to date in case they are not watching their watchlists. My comments above about 'editable' transcluded pages came from the fact that an RfA can be edited either from the RfA main page, or from the individual RfA page, in the same way that a GA review can be edited either from the article talk page or from thr GA revies sub page. It's only important if we get new talk page members or if some get blocked. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That happens because the RfA (or GA Review) has a title, and I'm assuming you're clicking the edit section button. When you click edit, you're actually just editing the transcluded page, and when you hit save I'm pretty sure you'll find you stay at the transcluded page, not at the page with the transclusion. Swarm's solution of the link should do the same job. Worm · (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, when the whole page is transcluded, you see the links for each section of the page. Since those don't appear when there is no section header, an 'edit' link must be added manually. Swarm 12:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?

I've just been lookig at Beeb's Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?. Do we need to rehash this topic? Are there any RfC lessons to be learned from it?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

May get more support this time around - seems the opposes (or at least some of them) were opposing for the wrong reason. I would support it. It just seems to make sense. Pesky (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Opposing for the wrong reason? I'm a little unsure how you can oppose for a "wrong" reason. Worm · (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bear with me - current meds mean I am occasionally having real trouble finding the right words /phrases to (errrrrm... hunting for word again!) 'wossname' the stuff that's actually in my head! I think it was something along the lines of getting sidetracked by something that was a bit of a tangent to the actual nitty-gritty of the thing, but I honestly can't be entirely sure at this point! Pesky (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The role of an administrator

This clerking proposal is an excellent, realistic first step into RFA reform, and I look forward to seeing how it will work to help solve some of the problems at RFA. I do think that there is one other issue, however, that is still pertinent in the RFA process, and that's the evolved role of an administator. In the early days of Misplaced Pages, the tools were handed out to plenty of trustworthy users and were used for purely managerial aspects of the project. Since then, during the past several years, the role of administrator seemed to have evolved from a "janitorial" role to a controversial decision-making role, a role previously left to ArbCom and Mr. Wales himself. I think that separating these two roles again (similar to the two-tiered adminship proposal) would be beneficial to the role of administrator and the process of RFA itself. I don't know the specific inner workings of such a proposal should it become a possibility, nor am I certain that this is the right way to go, I'm just reiterating it here so it doesn't get overlooked. Thoughts? Tyrol5 16:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Many people have an issue with the role of an administrator, many people don't. It's largely a cultural issue, and changing culture takes time. I think the culture change has to be out of scope for this process, along with community de-adminship. If we allow the taskforce to start working on the larger picture, it will get lost into the noise of the different opinions. Worm · (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Like I said above, I don't know if this is the right route (this just happens to be my personal opinion), and I do agree with the fact that it would take time and the productivity of the task force would be lost in the commotion of heated debate. I just didn't want the issue to be overlooked, because whether you like it or not, it's there. Tyrol5 17:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a discussion that traditionally generates more heat than light. I think as a topic it is standalone as big of one as "RFA Reform"; whilst the ideas are somewhat in scope I'd suggest perhaps putting that sort of discussion on the back burner. If the reform process gets clear momentum behind it and starts to bring in some changes then it gives it/us some credibility - and then it might be possible to introduce general ideas about the role of admins. Just my 2p --Errant 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I will more than willingly comply with your recommendation, as such an effort would, as stated above (and considered by myself), more than likely encumber the efforts of the task force in reshaping RFA. As I said in the first post of this thread, I do agree that our efforts should focus primarily on finding realistic solutions to reform RFA for now. Thanks for the input, Tyrol5 20:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

voter profiles page

Well look at that. It turns out it isn't RFA regulars that do most of the opposing. The top ten most active users at RFA over the last 12 months posted 563 more supports than opposes. And out of the whole field the user who opposed the most still supported slightly more often than they opposed. Interesting. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's going to come up with a lot more interesting results by the time we've been able to make a deeper analysis of it. For one thing it clearly shows that some people come out of the woodwork to oppose with a vengeance, while others appear to be members of a fan club, and still others might appear to be not really competent to vote at all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me understand a couple of those outcomes! That was just me being brain-fried yet again .... Pesky (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think you see any errors, let me know and I'll double check. I'm pretty sure the table is reasonably accurate, but there certainly could be errors. I'm positive that there are a few omissions (users who have voted in RfA's in the last year but don't appear in the table), but they should be very few and far between (probably 4 or 5, out of roughly 1500). —SW—  14:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fascinating data. A couple of big surprises in there, to me at least. It will be interesting to see how the data is interpreted. 28bytes (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize I was so inactive, I lurk a lot, though. I guess I go over when it's someone I know (usually because I am a TPS of their talk page), and if the tide is heading in the direction I favor, I don't bother to dogpile unless I have strong feelings. I don't think I have ever felt the need to vote "oppose" on a RfA because the blatently unqualified are usually dogpiled right along with the innocents who would deserve the mop. And I don't want to get into it with the people that are modestly qualified but not exactly my buddies. Hmmm. Montanabw 17:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kudpung, nice work on this iniative. I was a little bit alarmed by the suggestion that voters who largely vote "support" might be excluded from the process, however. Like Montanabw, I don't bother to pile on with an "oppose" vote when the candidate is obviously not qualified. I mostly visit RfA to support the nomination of editors I am familiar with who do seem qualified. If this makes me a "fan club" participant, and therefore not wanted in the process, so be it. But that's my approach, and looking at the voter profile page, I see more than a few clueful wikipedians who seem to fall into the same category. The Interior (Talk) 16:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This 'initiative' is only one of many suggestions for possible reform and we're a long way off discussing it's merits on the !voter talk page yet. At present, it's just a table and no in-depth analysis has been made at this stage. Clearly there are some results that stand out for closer scrutiny, and I think the table's objective is to discover generally how serious and mature the voting is. I think a lot of voters vote (for or against) editors they know or whom they have come across. It appears at first glance however, that some do vote with a vengeance, and others are fan club members. More analysis can be gleaned by looking at the RfAs they actually voted on. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that your voting falls into either category or that your participation is not desired. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Note: Please continue the discussion there. Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profilesKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The nature of RFA

I think this is a point that causes a lot of bad noise at RFA. Candidates expect RFA to be a review of their previous efforts and nothing more. They often don't seem to realize that there is a secondary process occurring at the same time, namely that how they behave during their RFA is also an important determining factor. I am not saying this is wrong, in fact I think it is as it should be, but perhaps we should try to make it more clear to the candidate. Admins deal with hostility and criticism from the moment they begin using their tools. How they react to being criticized at RFA is often used as an indicator of how they will react to the inevitable, and often totally unfair, criticism of their admin actions. Admins are expected to be able to keep their cool. We don't always manage it, I've certainly had some fine moments where I said or did something I regretted later, but generally if you become openly hostile or throw a fit during your RFA the community is going to react by denying you the bit. I don't want to encourage gaming RFA, but I think we should make it more clear that it's not just your previous edits and talk comments, you are being tested right then and there to see how you respond.Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I'm not sure how much it'll help. A lot of the time when candidates are uncivil, they are simply too angry to think about what they should say. — Oli Pyfan! 10:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea too; I'm not personally in favour of destruct-testing candidates during RfA, as I don;t think it gives an entirely true picture. Most people (no, I haven't done any studies or have any sources, lol!) are likely to be far more emotionally involved with their own RfA than they would be in any 'standard Admin-action hostility', so I think we get a really exaggerated and out-of-kilter picture of what someone's likely to do when wielding the mop, based on their stress levels and pai9n-responses during the RfA. But if they were clearly told that destruct-testing was part of the process, it might make it easier for them not to dive headlong into the traps. Pesky (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I am currently in the middle of yet another reason I shall probably never run for admin. Tendentious editors with big egos drive me through the wall. Why would anyone in their right mind seek out more of the same on purpose? (grin) But to the point, trying to deal with these people presents a good question: How WOULD I behave with tools? WOULD the ways I have tried to deal with very obnoxious people without tools be held against me? I happen to have a lot of respect for User:Lar, but my god he takes it in the shorts over his admin actions, which I have found in most cases to be apt, spot-on, unbiased, appropriate, and fair. I'd like to think I'd emulate his style, blunt, to the point, firm about the rules, no favorites even with friends. (Heck, I used to be a substitute teacher, I once gave a kid detention before the tardy bell!) But even though I've never been blocked or faced any sort of WP sanctions, and have won all three of the ANIs someone filed on me, the fact that having had them filed at all makes me think I'd be doomed to have my past and present actions reviewed at an RfA! (grin) Montanabw 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is out to get you will cheat and lie through their back teeth on your RfA. Other editors will not bother to check up and will willingly add unresearched pile-ons. Other voters probably have a chip on their shoulder in RL and are possibly obnoxious characters there too. They come to WP to get it off their chest with impunity while hiding behind the anonymity that Internet forums offer. A short review of their editing history seems to bear this theory out. The voter profile table has shown some very interesting results - especially concerning those who have an axe to grind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone who is out to get you will cheat and lie through their back teeth ....." everywhere they see you! Some bar-stewards are just like that. And the RL issues spilling over into WikiLand just happens, and probably always will. Most people (again, no sources .....) aren't capable of totally compartmentalising their life and reactions. But the real problem, which Kudpung has put very nicely, is the 'pile-on-voters' who just pile on without even doing the research for themselves. It's that ole lynch mob mentality .... how could we stop that from happening? There must be some way to challenge those who've not actually done thorough research for themselves and just run with the nasty-pack? Pesky (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If THAT can be figured out, can we also apply it to American politics? Much needed there! LOL! Montanabw 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This goes back to the minimum voter criteria proposal not too long ago. If you could somehow eliminate uneducated pile-on voting, then RFA can be fixed. I think that's one of the paramount reasons suitable editors do not seek administrative tools. I think it's mostly because many editors (inexperienced and otherwise) do not have the level of maturity necessary to fairly evaluate a candidate based solely upon his/her merits and demerits. RFA has turned into a sort of free-for-all, like a running of the bulls during which some amount of editors (the bulls), though not all, will chase after the candidate, seeking any possible reason to oppose (even if it's an uneducated "per above"). I realize the bulls analogy is a poor one at best, given that RFA is not a recreational activity, but I think my point still holds true regardless. Tyrol5 23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA model should be scrapped

(This thread has been copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there)

So far everybody is talking about RfA reform as a modification of the current RfA model... IMO, RfA is so broken that any model built around it is doomed for failure. We need to completely scrap the model and come up with something new---a completely new way of getting the bit.---Balloonman 00:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea..you have any ideas?Tofutwitch11 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly be interested in such a measure, but we need to be realistic. It will take a considerable amount of time to completely rewrite RFA (which I would support), but it just might be necessary. I think that for now, we should stick to realistic measures and experimentation/trial until we can come up with a process that eliminates the current RFA model. Tyrol5 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We do need to get this past the community. There is some doubt that they will accept he clerks proposal. I doubt at this time they would accept a complete overhaul. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And I think it would take a lot more time "rewriting" the old model and don't think much will be accomplished if we did. Just look at the above discussion and that's just people spouting their opinions on the current status quo.---Balloonman 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe any options are off the table in this conversation, if you have a proposal to fundamentally redo the entire process by all means present it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have mentioned that if we could get even one of the suggested reform items past the community, this may open the road for more, and I wholly support that. That said, this project certainly does not exclude the possibiliy of coming up with an entirely new system. We could open a new sub page for discussing that, but it would be a very long and tedious route. There may be cabals, perhaps even at WMF, discussing such measures already. JW's silence may seem to suggest that, but he may well have very good reasons not to comment here, though it would be great if he would chime in. What we as a task force need to decide is whether we offer these reforms to the community singly, over a considered period of time, or as a bundled package. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some ideas it would make sense to bundle together, but in general I think they should be presented to the community singly. As Kudpung, and many others, have said, getting one reform idea past the community may open the road for more. If this is the case, it should be much easier to get the ideas past the community singly than if we were to group them all together. — Oli Pyfan! 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pros & cons: A bundled reform would entail interminable discussion by the broader community on all the individual points, probably in a traditional unstructured debate. Staggering the proposals would meet the suggestion that one reform would open the road to more, and would not pile on a lot of individual proposals for the broader community to consider at the same time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

What a nightmare... are we here to fix RfA or to put bandaids on it? Issuing changes piecemeal does not "fix" the problem, but will introduce pieces in a disconcordant manner without any assurance that the issues needing to be fixed will be fixed. And like I said, IMO any reform that builds upon the current model will just perpetuate the problem. If we are going to make a proposal, I say we go full bore, present an IDEAL. Even if that ideal isn't accepted today, we get it out there. Personally, I am dubious that any meaningful change will come about, but I'd rather present a new ideal that we can be proud of than haphazard suggestions that don't really do anything.---Balloonman 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tofu, there have been several suggestions in the past. 1 - Breaking the individual tools out ala rollback. 2 - Alternative methods of giving the bit ala coaching with tools. 3 - probational periods with the bit 4 - making it into a true vote with secret ballots. 5 - making it into more of an RfC type scenario where people endorse individual statements making it the 'crat more responsible for interpretting consensus. There are numerous alternatives, the question is can we come up with a viable alternative.---Balloonman 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned some possible pros and cons already. Rolling out these suggested changes to the existing basic system as a bundle would in fact amount to a major reform. Neverthless, we are not ruling out suggestions for a completely different concept, such as, for example, secret ballot, although I suspect that such ideas are already being discussed in another place. If we do go along that track as well, let's make it a discussion on a separate sub page. Nevertheless, for the moment, I think we would have a lot to gain by discussing the changes that have been listed here as possibles, and reaching some consensus on them. Hence the straw poll below (with space for discussion below it), which may produce working priorities for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. I'm all for discussing new ideas, completely radical or minor tweaks. However, before you suggest ripping down RfA for a new system, I would expect a clear direction and reason for the new system. For example, my personal opinion is that the current system does elect the right people, but the broken-ness is around the way failed candidates are left to feel. That point of view can be (and has been) analysed and specific solutions have been put forward. The larger picture "what is an administrator", "unbundling the tools" or "how do we get rid of administrators" should be out of scope for this reform, or the good work will get lost in the noise, they can be dealt with seperately.

Having said that, some fixes you've brought up can and should be entertained. Perhaps an WP:RfA reform 2011/Ideas lab page, where sections for different methods (even the perennial ones) could be discussed, improved or vetoed through discussion. Worm · (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to expand on my comments in the !vote below. I agree with Worm that the task force can find room to discuss the more radical ideas, and a new page to do so is a good idea. In terms of the core aims I think the next steps are clear; we need to elucidate the ideas we have discussed so far into a proper list of proposals (maybe, WP:RfA reform 2011/proposals). That way we have a clear idea of what to work on next. --Errant 09:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

We have that already on the main page, and as we progress, sub pages for them are being created. You may have noticed that I've already copied some threads over to the respective pages. If there are any aspects of reform of the current system that we have missed, just add them neatly to the sections on the main page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that WMF is considering an alternative or replacement to the current RfA process, for there is no chance of this task force implementing one. None whatsoever. Sorry, but that's the truth. What we can do, realistically, is try to implement changes that will improve the existing process. I'm more than happy to discuss alternative methods, but a serious initiative to scrap RfA by way of community approval would be, I fear, a waste of time. Swarm 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, which is why I'd rather come up with an IDEA of what we as a community would like. Get an actual consensus to change it will not happen, but if we have an idea of where we want to go, it might get implemented by fiat.---Balloonman 19:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And if the powers that be are watching this, we might be able to discourage plans that the community would reject AND might address some of the issues that they might overlook.---Balloonman 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My personal views are:

• We could at least try to get clerking approved for starters.
• This task force would never get an entirely radically new form of selection process past the community.
• The powers that be are probably not watching, and if they are they are, they have their reasons for not chiming in. It would be nice to know though. I don't like wasting my time or anyone else's.
• Radical change may come at any time suddenly by edict from higher authority.
• We don't want to discourage ourselves from discussing any of our points for reform, but we can reach a consensus to not waste time on any that any that may not be absolutely viable.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(This thread has been copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll (straighforward !voting, with comments in the discussion section below it) on presenting reforms

Project organisation: This straw poll is designed to test how the participants of this RfA reform project feel the reforms that will be proposed to the community should eventually be presented. Please put comments in the discussion section below.

You want the reforms presented as a bundled proposition. (The discussion section is below)

1. Let's be radical. Gradual reform hasn't worked in the past.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You want the reforms presented separately over a considered period of time. (The discussion section is below)

1. If we present the reforms as a bundle, it is unlikely to gain consensus. The larger the change, the harder it will be to push through. If the proposals can stand alone (eg Clerks), then they should. Worm · (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Historically it is not easy to get reforms pass en-mass, so this --Errant 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
3. It won't be easy to introduce proposals for reforming RFA to the community, and it will take a substantial amount of time (e.g. months), but this is the best way. Tyrol5 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

   This should be the smoothest way to implement reforms, unfortunately. Swarm 19:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

4. I think that we need to work one step at a time --Guerillero | My Talk 02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Let's wade the waters before taking a big dive. —James • 7:21pm • 09:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
6. Good idea; let 'them' try eating the elephant one bite at a time, till they get used to the idea ..... Pesky (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
7. I think one change at a time, such as with clerks, is probably best. Evolution rather than revolution might be more likely to get consensus. However, some changes might have to be bundled to work, and in those cases bundling is appropriate. CT Cooper · talk 09:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
8. I think it is best to initiate the clerk idea and leave the rest for later.mauchoeagle 14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
9. Getting one good proposal that's limited in scope and widely agreed upon among the task force members will give us the best shot for realistic improvement, and if it's accepted by the community, will build momentum for additional improvements. 28bytes (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
10. People hate anything that is quick on Misplaced Pages. This is maximised when it comes to administrators. Being Humans in a "power" position, admins want to feel like their position is exclusive only open to the best of the best. We need to slowly change the beliefs and views of adminship, then begin the reforms. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
11. In small chunks, but the order needs to be carefully crafted. If the first one passes, I can see that as making it more difficult for later changes "...but we just changed something!", so this needs to be taken into consideration. Useight (talk) 23:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

You want some proposals to be presented separately, and others to be bundled. (In addition to your signature, please state very briefly which ones. (The discussion section is below)

1. We shouldn't set timetables. Ideas should be presented when they are ready. The "clerk" idea is almost ready right now, and as a smaller change it has a chance of actually getting through and proving that change is in fact possible at RFA. If other proposals come together at or near the same time they can be presented as a bundle. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
2. While I generally think separate proposals will be easiest to implement, there's no reason that some proposals can't be bundled. Swarm 00:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Ditto Swarm Pesky (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Agree with Beeblebrox and Swarm. If a proposal is ready to go, there is no reason why it should wait to be officially proposed. If some aspects are similar, again, there is no reason why they shouldn't be bundled. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You think the task force should also discuss possible radically different systems (In addition to your signature, please state very briefly which ones. (The discussion section is below)

1. Presenting ideas piecemeal would be applying bandaids to the situation. It will be building upon a structure that is busted and a fight every step of the way, it's time to raze the foundation and start over.---Balloonman 06:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I would rather radical ideas were discussed, though they may not be appropriate to take to proposal. No examples as yet. Worm · (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Well, they should be considered. The options discussed so far are largely perennial suggestions that do not get far with the community --Errant 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
4. If not adopted, they should at least be discussed. The current problems and broken-ness at RFA may very well need to be solved with a radically different system. Tyrol5 15:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Adminship is given automatically after 2 years and 10,000 edits by the Mediawiki-system (just like "autoconfirmed"). Removal of individual adminship-flags by 50% majority-vote. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 17:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
6. I'm all for radical ideas, bring em on. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
7. I think the best process for admonship will necessarily be at least significantly different, if not radically. My76Strat (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
8. Well said Balloonman, well said :) —James • 7:23pm • 09:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
9. rollback, reviewer and autopatroller are not big deals because there is an agreed criteria and admins can appoint or remove according to that criteria. If we could agree a criteria for Adminship and crats could add or remove admin flags per that criteria then adminship would not be a big deal. Though I'd prefer a crat chat to a single crat's decision. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
10. Yes, yes; well said. Sometimes it's time to bulldoze the slums and build something better. Drag Ironholds over here to get in on this. Seriously. Pesky (talk) 09:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
11. Worthy of consideration, probably best done alongside more subtle proposals, which can supersede or be integrated with them if a more radical change gets consensus. Ideas worthy of a look at again include jury run RfAs, bureaucrat chat only RfAs, or an elected body to deal with them. CT Cooper · talk 09:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Any changes to modify the process to become an Admin must be made in conjunction with clearly delineated means to remove the bit

1. One of the major obstacles to implementing change is that removing the bit has become a major challenge/obstacle. IMO it should be easier to get the bit AND to have it taken away. (and then re-earned.)---Balloonman 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
2. Desysopping and/or length of tenure are not strictly within the remit of this project. It would be a separate project needing to be started. However, it's been a perennial issue and there was never any progress. As an aside note, I don't believe anyone who is hell bent on becoming an admin is particularly worried about his/her future length of tenure, and I don't believe it's much in the back of the minds of the !voters either. A rough scan of the table, and comparisons with the actual RfAs throughout 2010 appear to show that a large number of !voters might not be particularly familiar with such issues. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
3. It's essential. This must be part of the discussion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Yep. See my remarks elsewhere on this page. • Ling.Nut (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
5. Yes, and see below. (teamwork but not necessarily in the same box) Pesky (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
6. It is important to show that admins are in that position due to consent from the community, and their flag is not important enough for a large process to remove it. And that it can be removed by the community just as easily as it is given. This comparison is important and that's why it needs to be shown on the same page. Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
7. If it is made easier to become an admin, it should be easier to be removed. In fact, it should probably be easier to be removed anyway. But, back to my first point, if the objective is to make it easier to become an admin, then desysopping will probably have to be looked at first. Useight (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

RFA and desysopping need to be kept as separate threads

1. I've seen discussions of a string of worthwhile reforms diverted into discussions about changing the way we remove the bit. Any reform of RFA needs to avoid such distraction, and those who do so should be politely encouraged to address the reasons why deadminship proposals tend to fail. Rather than prevent other worthwhile reforms because they are unable to get consensus for something that many consider a retrograde step. ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
2. I think they need to be kept separate, but worked on within sight of each other to make sure that things work coherently. Pesky (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
3. Certainly worthy of discussion, but there is a risk another desysop proposal could derail the entire project. I think we could have serious reform, and then change de-adminship in response, or leave it with ArbCom or a sub-committee. CT Cooper · talk 10:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
4. Per all the above. I've advocated keeping it seperate elsewhere on the page, but WSC's comments below explaining why sum it better than I could. Worm · (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
5. To sound like mallus and Giano, any proposal with desysopping included will be vetoed by the bulk of the corps de admin. --Guerillero | My Talk 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

(Discussion and summary of the above poll (don't forget to sign your comments)

Do we have a list of actual proposals to go forward with? (or that we have discussed so far). I am always uncomfortable with !votes like this because it usually suggests things are stagnant and the !vote is just for something to do :D I happened to like the idea of Clerks, so I siezed on that and built it out a bit. I suggest the best idea from here on out is for people to find an idea they really like/support, then go develop it up with task force support/input. If it reaches a point where the task force considers it ready for community appraisal then we can go from there. Waiting to package everything as a "brand new RFA" won't get far --Errant 08:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with ErrantX. One of the sole reasons that proposals/task forces proposing reforms like this have failed in the past is because development rarely goes beyond discussion/brainstorming. It's time to be bold and really develop the proposals, or else we'll end up like the other reform projects. The problem will only get worse, and now's the time to do something about it before it becomes a critical issue to the functioning of Misplaced Pages as a whole (for some, it already is). It's now the stage in the project where we need to focus, concentrate our efforts, and get the ball rolling for a better process to select those who are given the use of the administrative tools. I myself am in the process of brainstorming proposals off-wiki and expect to have them posted somewhere soon. Tyrol5 15:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all this. The straw poll is just to get the organising of this project into perspective. We now have plenty of things to discuss, some of them already have their sub pages so that we don't clutter one page with mixed discussions, and we have some coordinators. Except for Balloonman's valid suggestion of looking for some radically different approaches, we can now start in earnest at the items on the suggestions list. What we need to define on this project are which of those items have been perennially abandoned as non viable, or which ones just petered out because people just got fed up of all talk and no action. All these suggestions have been made on WT:RfA at some time or another, but WT:RfA is just a chat room with 2,000 users popping in and out irregularly and not sticking to the topics. IMO, it shouldn't take long to either rule them out as non starters, or begin fully developing them. It would be a shame if this project gets bogged down like the BLPPROD did, and the current one for new page creations (which I have given up on) - there appears to be clear consensus there, but it looks (to me) as if they are now calling for consensus on the consensus because they believe a participation of 200 isn't enough! And that's a project that began with a clearly defined single objective. BLPPROD started off with 400, and 12 were left to finish the job. There will be enough problems when we propose our findings to the community. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for repeating what has already been said, but I believe a straw poll on how to roll out potential solutions is premature until an agreement is reached on what the goals are for reform. Without a focused problem statement, listing the specific problems being addressed, it's hard to determine if the best approach to rolling out a solution involves a complete overhaul, or if a step-by-step approach would work. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute that the best course of action at this time is to gather as many legitimate ideas as we can in order to fix RFA, although it might not be a bad idea for us to collectively agree as to what ways we want to roll out proposals to the community community for consideration (i.e. the clerks proposal). Tyrol5 01:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The straw poll is designed entirely for purposes of internal organisation of this project, and in which order we concentrate our discussions on the various suggested items of reform. This might help us to decide later whether we finally agree to offer them singly or as a bundled proposal, depending on the success of reaching a task force consensus on the order of priorities. As an example, the discussion on 'clerks' seems to be heading for consensus, and could be offered very soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how your response relates to my comment, as I was discussing what needs to come before gathering ideas to fix RFA, which is to agree upon what needs to be fixed. Depending on the scope of the problem that everyone agrees to focus on at the moment, it might be suitable to figure out a step-by-step solution, or it might be suitable to lay out a more comprehensive solution as one package. Until the goals are decided, it's difficult to say which is better. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Based on the premise that we are mainly considering an overhaul of the present system, the goal is that reform. The sub-goals are the individual items that would be presented either as a complete package, or as a staggered series of smaller reforms. All the items that should be considered are clearly listed on the project page. There is no stopping us completely ruling any of them out. It's part of the consensus gathering that the task force can be doing among themselves in order to advance the project. feel free to vote on the straw poll - that's what it's for. Suggestions for a completely different admin selection method are not ruled out, but it has been mentioned that it very likely that such methods are being considered in other places, such as WMF. For the moment, one of our suggestions, that of clerking, seems to be making good headway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the mop is integral to this discussion

WSC asks why proposal seem to fail. They fail because people do not want to make it easier to gain the mop if it they are giving the mop to somebody who will inherent it for life with virtually no chance of removing it. As long as it is impossible to take the mop away from somebody, then giving the mop to somebody is a big deal. As long as the mop is a life time priviledge, adminship is a big deal. Instead, the whole process should be simplified, it should be a lot easier to get the mop, AND it should be a lot easier to remove the mop when necessary. There is no reason that an editor should ever see an oppose such as "Good editor, solid work, but I don't trust them with the mop." If the candidate is a good editor and a solid worker, make it easier to get the mop. If they then abuse the priviledge/mess up, make it easier to take it away. Becoming an admin shouldn't be significantly more difficult than gaining rollbacker status! BUT if it is for life and difficult to remove, then that changes the playing field. Quality candidates will be opposed because it is better to prevention then outweighs convenience. Oh yeah, and please take my voting record into account when you read this comment... I tend to oppose about half the time I !vote and yet I firmly believe that it should be easier to become an admin! Put the means in there to remove the bit painlessly and without the current stigma, and people might be willing to discuss meaningful change at RfA.---Balloonman 20:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally think desysopping should be an allowed punishment in addition to blocking when it comes to things like incivility. While blocking shouldn't be punitive I nevertheless think it is under these conditions.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't use the word "punishment". That's not what it is about; as long as people think in those terms, nothing's gonna change. It's not a "punishment" to desysop someone, just like isn't a "trophy" or "reward" to become one. It's simply a measure taken, and it should be easy to take that measure. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

We already have Arbcom as an effective method of removing problematic admins, approximately 1% of active admins per annum get desysopped or resign but without automatic right to restoration of the tools. Arbcom is elected by the community and judging by the last elections there isn't a significant minority of the community who actually want a harsher Arbcom. If there was a significant minority, say 25% who wanted even more desysoppings than we already get, then how could any of the Incumbents have got over 75%? Remember if there was majority support for change we'd have seen the election of a new harsher Arbcom. Changing the policy so that you can desysop unspecified swathes of "bad admins" would require a consensus - which is much greater than the majority needed to replace Arbcom with a more desysop happy crowd. I'm not convinced that you'll get that consensus even if someone came up with a proposal which disclosed which subset of admins you actually consider "bad", and I rather suspect that any proposal which gave a broader definition of "bad admin" than Arbcom currently works to would get less support. Remember those who would support desysopping those who were willing to block vested contributors and those who want to desysop admins who unblock vested contributors have opposite intent, ϢereSpielChequers 23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Says an admin... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a thread on my talk page a couple of hours ago that may contribute here. Says an admin... ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First, 1% aint that much... that's nothing. Second, you are looking at this in the wrong terms. Desysopping and resysopping shouldn't require arbcom. It shouldn't be that big of a deal. We need to separate the notion that desysopping is a "punishment" and something to be resisted with fervor.---Balloonman 04:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

While I fully agree with you that the process to desysop is worth improving, I do think it is better for a separate proposal, perhaps at a later date. My larger concern is that if the two concepts, RfA reform and Desysop reform are integrated, the likelihood of success for either endeavor is reduced. I am keen on approaching these matters from the highest probability for success. Therefore I agree with the list of things this proposal is said to not be. My76Strat (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1% may not be much, but we are dealing with 1% per annum which is a much bigger deal, especially if you are only desysopping for doing things wrong. Desysopping for a prolonged period of inactivity would get rid of far more admins, but as I understand it this proposal is about disposing of an unspecified number of "bad admins" who are not considered bad currently but would be under an unspecified criteria. As for the argument that it shouldn't involve Arbcom, that is the current system and I don't see people queueing up to say that Arbcom gets it wrong either in terms of those they desysop or those they decline to desysop. If people don't want Arbcom to do this I'd like to see a case made as to why they don't like a system which works and has widespread support. As for replacing Arbcom with an RFA based system, perhaps it would be worth discussing this after RFA is fixed, though I'd still like to see the supporters make a case as to why they think desyopping shouldn't require Arbcom. But as I understand it CDA is currently a proposal to replace a functional system with one that is known to be broken, hence the reason for people who support CDA to fix RFA first. As for the argument that "desysopping shouldn't require Arbcom because it shouldn't be that big a deal" Arbcom is a committee elected by the community, desyopping by the whole community would be a much bigger deal than desysopping by Arbcom, if you want to replace Arbcom with a process that would make desysopping less of a big deal then get Arbcom to create five person subcommittee for handling desysop requests. ϢereSpielChequers 11:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

1% per annum is still a small number... if we could get new admins up by 10 or 20%, then who cares if that 1% doubles or even triples! Lowering the bar SHOULD result in a higher percentage of desysoppings, but the number of new admins should far exceed that increase. I would favor a process which allows for more of a revolving door. People can move in and out of adminship much easier than they can currently. The current desysop process does require global cabal, but how much nicer would it be if we could create a system wherein people were willing to give it up when the community speaks? Consider this, right now if an admin is blocked, do they still have the ability to unblock themselves? Yes. How often do they? VERY rarely, even when a mistake occurs, most admins will follow procedure and not unblock themselves. If an admin messes up, then they should be willing to step away from the tools for a week, a month, 3 months. In my vision, they should then be able to get it back fairly easily (assuming no extreme abuse of priviledges.) Make it easier to give and remove.---Balloonman 21:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Restating some things

I wanted to restate a few things said elsewhere which should be commented on here. In one example I asked how viable it would be to transclude an RfA but not set the timer until 100 participants sign up as jurors. This implies that perhaps all RfA should be from the same size jury. Additionally I suggested that these participants should not actually vote until around day 5, leaving the first 5 days for questions and comments. Are there any valid points to glean from these considerations? My76Strat (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There is clearly an imbalance in the number of participants from RfA to RfA. This is one of the reasons that RfA is often criticised as being a popularity contest, and where it is also possible for an RfA to succeed with very low participation in all !voting sections. The suggestion above for having a minimum to effect a quorum has been touched upon previously, and I think it's a valid point, but as a radical change that would give the green light for an RfA to go ahead, but not as one that might improve RfA participants' behaviour, do we want to discuss it right here and now? That said, I think a 'I will !vote on this RfA' call is not a bad idea, and would be a possible solution for preventing the NOTNOW, but it would prolong the process while the 'jurors' are being gathered.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree and only want to see a collective best effort. I did state some of this in line with the openness to "radical suggestions". While your concerns are truly valid, they can perhaps provide some answers unto themselves. If a quorum of 100 was established, it could also sign up and seat participants even before an RfA was transcluded. Under such a consideration the 100 members could be ready even before the next candidate. And yes, these are all radical considerations, but they may have some useful purpose. My76Strat (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got several concerns about this, RFA has many problems and I don't see any merit in a radical change that doesn't address any of the problems at RFA but does add some major new ones.

1. Why do you think we need 100 participants for an RFA? Mine was one of those that achieved that, but many don't. I can see an argument that a successful RFA needs at least a dozen support !votes - the number that a jury has to have here in the UK. But why should more be required to appoint an admin than to convict a murderer?
2. What are you suggesting should happen to the many admins appointed by less than 100 !votes? Remember these are often the uncontentious RFAs.
3. Not !voting for the first five days but just having questions and comments would drag out the whole process from 7 to 12 days and snow fails from hours to over 5 days. What benefit would that give us to outweigh the obvious harm?
4. Having to sign up to participate and then return several days later to do so is a lot of extra bureaucracy for no discernible benefit. It would also reduce the number of participants, probably making 100 participant RFAs a rarity.
5. The community is dwindling, setting a participation threshold that we don't always currently reach means designing a system that will fail if current trends continue.
6. If RFA had a problem with lack of participation I could see an argument to change the rules to require a minimum number of supports, but minimum participation is a different and flawed idea. Saying that an RFA with only 11 supports had insufficient participation would be a workable rule. Saying that you need 100 participants would mean that an RFA with 60 supports 25 neutrals and 15 opposes would be a success, but an RFA with 96 supports, 2 neutrals and 3 opposes would fail if two of those opposes struck and withdrew from the RFA. A minimum number of supports would add one extra failure mode, but minimum participation creates two extra failure modes and puts opposers in the awkward position that an abstention might cause an RFA to fail whilst an oppose would make it succeed.

ϢereSpielChequers 08:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What WSC said. Tweakage that adds extra layers of rules and restrictions is vehemently unwanted tweakage. In fact, all tweakage is vehemently unwanted. The page says somewhere that desysop should not be discussed, but folks, desysop is the problem, not RfA. RfA is indeed a brutal and evil process, but evil RfAs are solely and only a symptom of glacial, painful desysop. The reason adminship IS a big deal is because desysop IS a big deal. No more. No less. Done.• Ling.Nut (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WSC's comments above, and Strat's suggestion was at least a reasonable idea, even if it is not viable. I think our desyoping system is adequate for the moment, but I'll admit that I don't know everything that goes on around here. If anything, there should be sterner measures to give some admins a hefty slap on the wrist sometimes, but while radical reform of RfA is not totally ausgeschlossen, desysoping is not on the agenda of this particular project. I've said before, that I don't believe it's one of the reasons why potential candidates won't come forward, nor is it much in the mind of the !voters themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there actually a need to get into this? I can't say I remember any RfA that suffered from lack of participation. Most RfAs will attract more than 80 participants even with candidates who have kept a low profile. This year, the successful RfA with the lowest participation level by far was Feezo's with 54 voters. Hardly a shortage of participation. Swarm 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

WSC all of your considerations are prudent. When I say 100 participants, I mean for that to be an example. It is very likely after the most thoughtful consideration, some different number would likely be more appropriate. I would not be the one to object if the number were 12. The point I wish to consider, if at all valid, is if there should be a set limit to the jury like pool or not. Nothing in my suggesting anything is meant to imply anything about a current admin. If they have the flag, they deserve it! To the extent, additional burden could be imposed upon the participant who says they wish to sit in judgment, that additional burden can be mitigated, and would not rise to a thing greater than the vote, which they intend to cast! I have stated somewhere that a participant who states TLDR, could be removed from the user group with the right to participate, IMO, because to state such a thing, discounts your sincerity to participate in this kind of decision. So I wouldn't consider it an unmanageable burden for someone who signs up to vote, to follow a format which suggests they herd the request, entirely, and then voted. I would also not insist that any thing I suggest be implemented, only considered, which I am glad to see it apparently has. But they are only meant to be ideas, as we hammer out what might be an RfA reform. My76Strat (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see the stats below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

'Low' turnout passes (under 100):

2011 (out of 23 passes)

1. feezo - (47/1/6) (54)
2. Valfontis (63/1/0) (64)
3. JaGa (83/3/0) (86)
4. Peridon (64/3/1)(68)
5. Neelix (69/14/12) (95)
6. ErrantX (85/2/4) (91)
7. Rami R (2nd) (66/12/8) (86)
8. Acdixon (82/5/6) (93)
9. Ponyo (75/1/2) (78)
10. Gimme danger (77/11/6) (94)

2010 (out of 75 passes)

1. Grondemar (86/2/5) (93)
2. PresN (70/10/3) (83)
3. TheCatalyst31 (68/12/13) (93)
4. Magog the Ogre (2nd) (65/4/3) (72)
5. BigDom (2nd) (72/16/5) (93)
6. HelloAnnyong (88/1/0) (89)
7. Mandsford (59/16/4) (79)
8. Michig (80/0/2) (82)
9. Amatulic (80/2/3) (85)
10. WOSlinker (83/4/1) (89)
11. Jujutacular (78/0/1) (79)
12. Joe Decker (78/7/1) (86)
13. NativeForeigner (67/10/5) (82)
14. 7 (2nd) (92/2/4) (98)
15. Waldir (76/1/2) (79)
16. Barek (65/0/2) (67)
17. Eustress (71/1/2) (75)
18. Father Goose (58/6/1) (65)
19. J04n (2nd) (63/0/1) (64)
20. Calmer Waters (81/2/4) (87)
21. Taelus (69/5/2) (76)

Compiled by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

High turn-out 'unsuccessful': 100+ !votes

2011 failed with 100+ !votes

• GiantSnowman (76/36/10) (122)
• Ctjf83 (2nd) (55/38/12) (105)

2010 failed or withdrawn with 100+ !votes

(some may have since passed)

• Richwales (58/44/9) (111)
• Ling.Nut (113/63/7) (183)
• The Thing That Should Not Be (2nd) (123/59/21) (203)
• Alansohn‎ (2nd) (39/56/11) (106)
• MZMcBride (4th) (56/124/21) (201)
• DeltaQuad (65/34/12) (111)
• Connormah (2nd) (88/30/11) (129)
• Herostratus (2nd) (78/48/21) (147)
• Blanchardb (2nd) (54/38/7) (99)
• MichaelQSchmidt (87/60/11) (158)
• Kingoomieiii (67/36/3) (106)
• Ironholds (4th) (64/38/11) (209)

Complied by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See also

• 100+ supports: Misplaced Pages:100#Requests_for_adminship#Requests for adminship (215 users, of which 24 were withdrawn or not promoted))
• 200+ supports: Misplaced Pages:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported something#Requests for adminship (8 users,of which 1 withdrawn, 1 not promoted)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We may seem a very long way from this being a problem, !votes per RFA having actually gone up in recent years. But this is a side effect of the fall in the number of candidates, RFA !votes per month have fallen rapidly, just not quite as rapidly as the number of RFAs. If we fix RFA and get a large increase in candidates then we may find that there is a shortage of RFA !voters, so setting a minimum number of supports may be worthwhile. I have no objection as long as the threshold is low and is measured in number of supports, not number of participants, I suspect the crats may feel they already have discretion to relist an underconsidered RFA, but if not I would have no objection to adding a phrase such as "crats have discretion to relist if there has been insufficient consideration of a candidate - this may apply if there are 12 or fewer Supports". This is probably a superfluous but uncontentious reform, however rules are best set before they are needed. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory counseling

One technically minor change that I believe would help is to add a mandatory counseling phase. In brief:

1. After preparing the RfA, but before transclusion, the candidate must ask an experienced editor to have a look at the candidate's contributions.
2. The experienced editor complies within a few days, gives feedback to the candidate regarding community expectations, and lists obvious issues that may come up. This includes looking at deleted contributions, so the experienced editor will probably need to be an admin
3. The experienced editor must sign off on the RfA. The idea is not that the RfA needs to be approved, only that the candidate has been made aware of obvious pitfalls, both generic to the process and specific to the candidate.

Reasoning: It is only a minor modification to the current process. It would reduce the (perceived) problem we have with candidates retiring after a failed RfA and prevent many NOTNOW applications: Looking at the RfAs from January, from a glance I know I could have predicted both outcome and main issues of five of the seven failed RfAs, including the two from candidates that have retired since then. I am certainly not alone in that, and those two editors might then not have gone forward with it, or at least they would have been more prepared for it.

This is a bit different from requiring a co-nom from an admin since it keeps the process open for all, and anyone is still free to go forward if so desired. The experienced editor should not give their own opinion, but an assessment of how they think the community (or at least the part active at RfA) will opine.

A disadvantage I see is that it, if anything, solidifies the in parts daft requirements the community has (or, again, at least the part active at RfA). I'm not sure if any steps in that direction are wise.

I do concur that a general revisement coupled with a simple path to de-admin would be preferable, but honestly I don't see that happening anytime soon. A subtle change like this might have an easier time finding consensus.

Amalthea 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I see a lot of validity in your above statements. I do believe it is equivalent in spirit to other suggestions, but more practical in many ways. Because I can imagine several scenarios where I could counsel a candidate but not feel comfortable co-nominating. I absolutely agree that a candidate should have this phase as part of the process. Considering my own RfA, I would have been glad if someone had counseled me to wait a couple or three months while I did a few practical things to minimize well anticipated CSD concerns. My76Strat (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A radical proposal that could be tried immediately

(This thread has been copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there)

Ok, this is not my first choice in solutions, but this might be a viable alternative that might work---and that we might be able to try immediately. (I would call upon Ironholds 'experimental rfa' as precedent for simply trying something new.)

Rather than fighting to change everything, turn RfA into more of an RfC environment. Right now we have people taking sides and !voting and then others coming along and !voting "Per so and so." Instead of having two categories for "Support" and "Oppose", let people make statements and get those statements endorsed like they do in typical RfC's. The Nom would be the initial statement, but this way people can endorse other statements as well. I make a statement critical of a candidates handling of CSD's, others can endorse my position. WCS, however, likes the candidates handling of AFD's, the same people who endorsed my statement might also endorse WCS's position. This would require that the 'crats really read the RfA and get a true sense of what the consensus is---and evaluate the wind.

By making it more of a traditional RfC, you might get people to moderate their tone in writing their comment. If I write my rationale in such a manner that it is a personal attack, then nobody is going to endorse it. If I write my rationale with a "Support/oppose" then not as many people will endorse it---they might agree with me that CSD is a critical issue and that the candidate needs to work on it, but they might not agree that the issue is strong enough to support/oppose over.

Again, this is an idea that a brave soul could try immediately. (note, I am not advising somebody to try it as it might have negative reactions, but pointing out that if somebody wanted to try something different, this could be done.)---Balloonman 02:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of darn god insight to consider in your above comments. My76Strat (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(This thread has been copied to Misplaced Pages talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A necessary distinction

(edit conflict)Is it clearly known if we desire to reform the current RfA, or perhaps create an additional process which also leads to adminship. If it were possible, I would hope to see the task force become the wikiproject RfA having developed an approved alternative route that ultimately the candidate can choose. If it happens that people stop transcluding under the current method in favor of what we could practically create, that would testify that it is "horribly broken". And of course the inverse. At best or worst, we would have two possible routes. I would opt for the project developed method to be more formal, and more defined. The current RfA works well for some, especially if they perform well in a popularity contest. Perhaps the project could be more structured. Ultimately, if it is known that there is to be only one path to adminship, it pits one against the other and probably reduces some potential. IMO My76Strat (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please consider this for a minute

Every time I say this, I get ignored or the discussion gets off-topic:

The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants.

By participants, I do not mean the candidate (although sometimes that might be an issue), but the actual voters. There will be rude people, and there will be annoying people, and there will be people voting per rationales that you think are stupid and I think make perfect sense, and what the hell else. That's life.

roux noted several month ago that we cannot change users' behavior without any incentive for them to change. Well, we obviously aren't going to be mass-banning people from voting in RfAs, so we need to be focusing on how to eliminate the things that prompt bad and/or annoying behavior.

Some thoughts:

• No "badgering", broadly construed, please. Basically, unless someone seems genuinely "wrong" (e.g., new user posting a support comment in the oppose section, or a factually inaccurate comment), no user should be allowed to question another's vote. Why? Because a) bureaucrats have enough brain cells to discount "silly" votes; b) RfA is about opinions, and as long as they don't hurt others (that's discussed next), they're allowed. We're not a democracy and we don't have a constitution, but if RfA is truly a discussion (well, more of a vote + semi-discussion), all users are allowed to express their own opinions, regardless of how unpopular or "wrong" they may appear to be—except when they are rude, attacking, etc.:
• We all need to take more time to put some thought into our votes. I see often new users creating RfAs for themselves. There's always that one nice user that opposes but explains kindly what an admin does, what's expected by the community, our standards, etc. Well, I never see that for more "established" users' RfAs. Instead, everyone writes short, concise, and rather affronting rationales in opposes. An extreme case might be, "Strongest possible oppose should never become an admin because ... ." This is absolutely the wrong way to go about voting at RfA, but so is "Oppose The unacceptable CSD taggings listed above make me think is not the appropriate candidate for adminship at this time."
• Obviously, as I said, we need some sort of incentive to prevent such unthoughtful and uncaring comments. Well, here's the other issue: people need to stop taking RfA so personally—both the candidate and the voters. Voters, 99% of you have never even seen or talked to the user in real life (and 50% of you haven't ever interacted with the candidate onwiki, but that's irrelevant here). Stop acting like his or her bad CSD taggings are a slap in your face, because they're not. Just because the candidate needs to review the CSD policy does not mean you can talk to him or her as if you're better than him/her. Candidate, it's a website on which you are anonymous. Ugh, seriously, I know it's disgusting to see people insult you en masse, but they don't know who you are. Improve on what they're criticizing and prove dem haterz wrong. Don't quit, what the hell does that do?

What kind of "reform" are we grabbing for? The only reform that is needed is for rude voters. Although there is no incentive for people to comment nicer, what we should be reforming is voters' attitudes and tones by leaving them gentle talk page reminders of how to make comments offend others less (it is almost always unintentionally offensive) and then just growing a thicker skin and ignoring the nonsense altogether.

I'd really like "no badgering" to become a sort of rule or requirement at RfA, because all it does is cause drama, but I'd like to see how many agree with my sentiment, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea fletch. I will need to think further about this before giving a longer reply --Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• If someone says "Oppose - candidate hasn't even created one article", and the candidate has in fact created a dozen articles, I'm going to badger. Because if I don't, there will be a bunch of "Oppose per lack of content creation"s from people who took the statement at face value and didn't bother to do the research themselves. 28bytes (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I just clarified that above. Obviously, pointing out factually inaccurate statements is acceptable. However, I don't think that badgering about opinions (e.g., "not enough content work for me") or even rationale-less opposes, is helpful to the RfA atmosphere. It often encourages hostility between supporters and opposers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll definitely agree that badgering about opinions is generally unproductive. 28bytes (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is actually why I think it is imperative that we discuss alternative means to desysop people in conjunction with RfA Reform. As long as people see RfA as being a one way street, then people are going to be a little more vociferous in their opposes. Since there isn't a viable means to remove the bit from bad admins, it becomes more imperative to prevent questionable admins from passing. If there was a viable means to remove the bit, then promoting flawed candidates becomes less problematic. In the current system, if a person is running for admin and there are any concerns about the candidate, then the only time to speak up is during the RfA. Opposes have to be as strong and persuasive as possible. If, however, there was a viable means to remove the bit, then it becomes easier to support flawed candidates knowing that mistakes can be fixed later on. You'll see more people assuming good faith on the part of the candidate and giving them a benefit of the doubt. And if we do it right, we can make it so that having the bit removed is not the be all and end all in the community.---Balloonman 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This task force is already aware that RfA needs urgent reform. Four years of informal discussion at WT:RfA (which has now all but dried up, BTW) by 2,000 commentators has also come very firmly to the conclusion that something needs to be done, but has got nowhere with it. This project is the first serious attempt to address the issues, especially those pointed out to us again by Fetchomms. Research, including sortable tables on voter profiles and the questions they ask, seems to assert yet again that the problems are clearly due to the way people participate. We need to move on from here and continue the discussions towards those solutions that we have now started on the several sub pages that make up the family of this project. In the meantime I have created a page for suggestions for radical reform, and am copying to it any relevant threads that concern it. What we need now is more active participation from those who have signed on for the task force, which should preferably include people who have a working knowledge of Misplaced Pages procedures and policy, and are prepared to devote some time to the items to be addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, this is not the first serious attempt at reform. There was another precursor attempt about 2 or 3 years ago that lasted for months where a number of users tried to come up with a viable alternative. In the end, it resulted in several people leaving the project because they realized the futility of making change. Which is why I am not as concerned about coming up with an idea that will garner enough consensus as I am with coming up with a truly viable alternative(s) that people can live with. I do not believe we will get a consensus to change, but do believe we need to put something on the table with an idea of where we'd like to go.---Balloonman 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, I agree that a desysop solution is necessary (and I'm currently unsure of how it should be structured; any current system—recall, RfA reconfirmation—is quite easily abused if we make it mandatory; this is aside the point for now, though); however, just because voters should "prevent question admins from passing" does not mean they must do so in a manner that degrades the candidate. It is perfectly possible to oppose a candidate politely, taking time and care not to hurt their feelings (although, as I said above, sometimes sucking it up is needed). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• How is "Oppose. The unacceptable CSD taggings listed above make me think is not the appropriate candidate for adminship at this time" degrading?? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Both "unacceptable" and "not the appropriate candidate" are a bit demeaning, IMO. There are better ways to say it: mistakes in CSD tagging; spend a little more time with CSD/NPP and come back soon; look forward to a support from me once the CSD mistaggings are resolved; etc. But I would not like my work (honest mistakes, probably) to be labeled as "unacceptable" or to think that my candidacy is "inappropriate". What would be appropriate? ... etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is an endemic propensity at Misplaced Pages for editors to go out of their way to look for possible bad faith in comments Wikipedians make. This is in itself bad faith. It's intrinsic in any form of written dialogue that does not convey the nuances conveyed by intonation in the spoken word. That said, the discussion on voting behaviour is here, and a table (which can take up to 20 seconds to load) is here. From that table, it is possible to extrapolate who, when, how, why, and where, the individual RfA participants voted - and hence who the drama mongers, the pile-on voters, and the 'fan' voters are. The discussion is not lacking in suggestions, which is is coupled with the suggestions for RfA clerking, also on a dedicated page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's key that we don't assume bad faith by thinking that anyone writing a comment that appears rude is doing so on purpose (however, in certain cases, it is quite clear they are purposely being rude, such as the "strongest possible oppose" example I gave above); it almost always just happens to come out less nice that one would expect, and I think just a little question at the voter's talk page ("Hey, I saw your comment at and it came off a little harsh to me; with respect to your opinion, which is valid, do you mind toning it down a little for the candidate's benefit?" etc.) might help. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no way one can pretend that blatant incivility and personal attacks are good faith. When it happens, the bad faith is done. Damage control can't revert it. It has to be discouraged before it happens, or we're still going to get fewer and fewer candidates coming forward, and more candidates leaving the project when they fail. You said it yourself: The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly; while we can work with the good-faith users and try to improve the general tone of RfA comments, the bad-faith comments should be prevented. However, as I said earlier, roux had already pointed out the issue: without any incentive, we cannot force any such change. There is no way to prevent someone from making uncivil and blatantly disrespectful comments, just like there is no way to prevent vandalism—only respond to it and discourage it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but let me just say that what "badgering" is is subjective, and it's completely called for if someone's opinion is wrong. Swarm 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a wrong opinion. It's logically impossible. An opinion does not need to be based on factual or empirical evidence. Some people opine that AIDS does not exist. While most would consider this to be a factually unsupported opinion, it is still a valid opinion—and the best way to deal with it is to ignore it, because they want to generate publicity and controversy. Badgering, I think, is anything that contests or attempts to discount an opinion, broadly construed (so really, almost every comment/response, not made by the candidate, to a vote that tries to point out how dumb they think it is). However, as I and 28bytes noted above, it should be acceptable to "badger" inaccurate statements of fact, such as "only has 2,000 total edits" when in reality, the candidate has 8,000 total edits. But I see too often people making (admittedly) silly opposes, and five or six people responding with, "This is stupid" or "This vote should be indented" or "You should stop voting at RfA if you're going to act like this". While the initial vote contributed nothing to the RfA, the followup comments did nothing to improve the environment, either, except to make it more hostile. Obviously, constructive discussion should not be prohibited, but as I've said before, crats are smart enough to ignore votes you or I consider silly. It's not the place of six other users to repeatedly point that out during the RfA and then have a big argument about the appropriateness of the votes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Focus on improvement and recognition, not inquisition

There are good discussions above about how RfA currently works, and how to improve it. I propose a complementary approach: changing the focus of RfA from "assessment of admin nominations" to "recruitment and retention of good admins". This change of focus may help reduce the level of acrimony in comments as well.

Focus this process, and the pages and guidelines about it, on identifying good admins. Measures of success could include how many admins are identified, how good they turn out to be, whether they are willing to become admins, and how much overhead and drama is produced as a side-effect.

Helping interested admin candidates become good admins, and helping current admins stay active + get better + be effective, would both be relevant to a process focused on maintaining the best admin corps. That seems more useful to me - and better grounded in our desire for a healthy editing community - than a gauntlet to be overcome by those who choose to risk it.

Any editor who has demonstrated commitment to the project, a capacity to help others work effectively together, and an understanding of problems that can hurt the project, should be able to become an admin. If there are specific issues that need to be resolved, these should be presentable in a simple format, and progress towards resolving them should be measurable.

Rather than having the conversation about a potential admin happen over a few days, make this part of the larger conversation of how we keep our community and project thriving and a pleasure to use. Editors recruited / nominated as admins should end up with some recommendations for improvement, whether or not they 'pass' their initial review; they should be able to get regular feedback on those recommendations; and they should find their next review simpler and easier.

–SJ+ 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should mix ER and RfA together? A candidate's contributions are analysed and feedback (including recommendations for improvement) is given regardless of whether the candidate succeeds or not. Is that about right? I would agree with that.— Oli Pyfan! 09:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This thread might gain more weight if it were on the Radical alternatives talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• RFA Reform
• Matters related to requests for adminship