Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 7

Ancient sins, again :o(
First, my apologies for not having been much involved here for a while. Due to real-life issues (full-time caring for a frail, elderly parent with rapidly-progressing dementia, among others), I haven't felt much able to do anything requiring any deep thought, and have been predominantly just gnoming around in new page patrol.

However, I'm incredibly disappointed to note that, yet again, an ancient sin way past its use-by date is being used as a "reason" to oppose a candidate. The sin was committed as a teenager, the candidate is now an adult and has done excellent work and turned over an obvious new leaf. We really must have some official cut-off point for the use of old sins as a reason to oppose.

What we have, in this case, is the exact equivalent of a teenager having borrowed friends' cars to drive without a licence. And not having had a crash, killed anyone, etc. - just the basic breach of community trust involved with driving without a licence. In real life, that teenager would have been banned from driving for a year, maximum, and had points there on the licence for three years after that. By now, even those points on the licence would have been removed. There is no way that they would be considered to be unfit ever to be trusted to be given a licence to drive. Even a no-licence teenage-driver who'd actually seriously injured someone would be likely to be given more than a three-year driving ban. And here, we are, three years on, and that's what's happening. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 08:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Even worse that that, though, is that for pointing out that this is unjust and shouldn't be used, is that it's now suggested that instead of being concerned about the wrongness of this, I am (and others are) simply part of some IRC-based cabal to push this candidate through. "Oppose re IRC" being the relevant edit summary. I find that quite shocking, actually. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 3:26 pm, Today (UTC+7)

(restored - sorry  about  that) BTW, NPP  is a good place to  be at  the moment - all  hands on  deck! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hehe! us wrinklies, eh?! I've been neglecting NPP for the past few days, for the first bit of creative writing (and a new GA!) that I've done for ages.


 * I've respectfully requested the editor concerned (see above) to strike their comment. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 09:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another dramafest. It looks as if this RfA is a magnet for voters' smoke and mirrors. No  wonder we're not  getting  many  candidates.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And oh-so-easy to avoid, if we had a "no sins more than a year old" deadline, or something! High time it was done. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd wholly disagree with that. As a completely strawman argument, are you saying that any of our long term abuse peeps could stop, wait a year, then run? It depends on the severity and the incident - any deadlines are should be taken on a case by case basis  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I over-simplified things! Would depend also on levels of openness, regret, apology, and severity. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 16:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as we have RfA in the format that we currently do, people should be able to oppose for whatever reason they deem fit - the rest of the community will react if it's a stupid reason (as they are here, he's got 90 odd votes, even though it's got 5 days to go). I don't think telling people they can't vote in a certain way is the right way forward.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If by voting  in a certain  way  means   citing  rules we do  not  have, and using  lies, deceit, and disengeuous conjecture, then, I  think it's essential  that  their votes  be exposed as fraudulent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

RfA voting
Please see recent comments at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(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:
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Yes. But again, I feel   it  needs putting  in  writing.
 * 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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  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 Wikipedia 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!  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(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. 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   X 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)

Coordinator note:Recent comment by M move to the bottom  of the page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Minimum qualifications
I agree with minimum qualifications for candidacy, and for the most part there aren't very many uncommented opposes. I don't agree we need a userright for the RfA !vote; that pretty much is equivalent to having the ArbCom do it. I have no comment on any other !voting requirements. I agree with removing personal attacks, but incivility gets tricky if they include a legitimate reason to support/oppose mixed with their civility. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input (I've moved your post in answer to  a very  old thread to here for it  to  be easier to  find and be regarded as more recent.)  It's true that  uncommented 'oppose' !votes are fairly rare -  those that  are, are usually  from  the same editors. I  don't  think there have been any  suggestions here to  make voting  a user right per se, there do  however appear to  be compelling  reasons to  introduce a minimum number of edits and a minimum  period of registration for users to  be able to  vote. Some  other Wikipeias operate such  conditions. Research  has shown that  a fairly  significant  number of votes are from  very  new users -  some who  appear to  have registered with  the sole purposed of voting  on  one RfA, while a disturbing number  have been identified as sockpuppets, while many  others have been later blocked for various reasons. Comprehensive details on  voting  patterns can be found at WP:RFA2011/VOTING, where you  may  also  wish  to  express your thoughts on  voting  in  more detail on  its talk page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 13 November 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. &mdash; Oli OR 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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   [Talk]  23:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go a step further and say undereducated pile-on opposes are an issue. In my last RfA, everyone latched onto one of two incidents (one me baiting a troll in order to get him to run through his IPs, the second me blowing my top due to a situation that had real-world ramifications for an editor) that took place within the two months prior to my run. That's the main reason I can't read it anymore without seeing red - everyone focused on a small aspect rather than the overall picture. The problem is, everyone has some issue in their past if they wanna run for RfA, and if they don't, I wouldn't be two-faced if they got opposed for not taking a chance. It's hypocrisy, pure and simple (to say nothing of Malleus Fatorum opposing for incivility and then taking that opportunity to rail on Young Earth Creationists, but I digress).
 * ...I'm sorry if it seems like I'm ranting; I'm just quite bitter because I feel I got shafted by everyone involved in the RfA process. I'm not going to say whether or not it worked or failed (as I am in no state of mind to bring that up when mentioning my second RfA torques me off), but I would say that, at least in the RfA of today, due diligence and civility are out the window in favor of extreme-short-term history (I understand short-term, but realistically two months isn't that long a time) and snarking on the candidate's fur color and whose shirts he wears. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Coordination note: Above post copied to  WT:RFA2011/VOTING. Please continue the discussion  there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The poisonous atmosphere (again) - courage and topic bans required
(Coordination note: This thread has been copied to  WT:RFA2011/VOTING. Please continue the discussion  there.)

As far as I can see, there really is only one way to deal with the "poisonous atmosphere" at RfA, and that's to decide on an acceptable standard of behaviour with respect to civility at RfA - and in my view this should be a higher standard of behaviour than, for example, users' talk pages - and to stand firm and enforce it. This means people having the guts to say when something is badly wrong with a voter's behaviour on a regular basis, follow it through, and, where appropriate, have a (for example) three-month topic ban (RfA) imposed. There is currently no effective deterrent for bad behaviour, and whenever there is no effective deterrent for any unwanted behaviour, you're going to get the unwanted behaviour. It's how humans work.

And, yes, you're going to get a few people whingeing about "Civility Police" - louts, yobs and vandals threatened with the possibility of ASBO's are always going to mouth off about the presence of police. All Wikipedia's various forms of vandals mouth off about it when they're taken to task - nothing new there. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 06:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Corollary: and, if they come back to RfA after a topic ban and cross that borderline again, their vote is struck (discounted), topic-ban again, with an extra month tacked on for good measure. Three such bans and it becomes a permanent topic ban. Something along those lines would rapidly clean up the atmosphere. Moral: if you want to be allowed to play at RfA, you have to stay scrupulously civil. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 06:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

'nother one: I'm sure many of us are aware of persistent offenders - pro-active move would be a collection of all relevant diffs pointing to a pattern of uncivil behaviour over there, (like Kudpung's list in the current case) for the known offenders, and have them ready to present for an immediate vote-strike and topic ban when they do it again. If persistent offenders are aware that evidence is likely to be being collected about them, then if they want their next (and future) !vote(s) to be counted, they will have to behave from now on. This could start on the cure for this problem immediately. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Question: Would it be feasible to bring a case to ArbCom (not on a named individual, but on the over-all subject of cleaning up RfA), with sufficient evidence (if needed!) to get them to rule that from now on the problem of solution to incivility at RfA will be rigorously enforced in this way? If so, better for someone / group of people with higher 'standing' and more street-cred than I have, to do it. If we can get a structure in place which has the instant weight of AE behind it, it would also prevent "fan clubs" from removing topic bans. This might then (conceivably) have the knock-on effect of raising our civility standards right across the wiki; if someone has, for example, an AE-weight topic ban for incivility at RfA, they would have an incentive to be more civil everywhere. Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Standards vs. promotions
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned before, but I'll go ahead anyways. I was thinking about how RfA has changed over the time I've been part of the project and I came up with somewhat of a conclusion, for lack of a better term. RfA standards have risen a lot of the years; six years ago, 1000 or so edits would have been a pass, then a few months + ~3000 edits passed in 2007, and nowadays, standards in terms of both tenure and edits are much higher. At the same time, promotions have been down over the time. That brings me to my "conclusion": the drop in successful RfAs is only a function of the required standards, and tinkering with the process would have no effect&mdash;RfA has been, is, and will be a slimepit. More precisely, the reason as to why it's difficult to create new admins is because the standards have risen in such a way that the user base is unable to catch up. In 2005, there were less editors, the project was younger, so few users would have made tens of thousands of edits. The "magic" figure of 3000 (or 4000 or 5000) by 2007 was easily attainable. By now, the tenure requirement would probably average over a year, and the number of edits would be past the 10,000 range. Much less editors can reach those numbers! So, while it's possible that more of the user base would at such levels in a few years, it is more likely, in my opinion, based on previous history, that RfA standards would increase and editors would still be behind those standards. The solution? If more admins are sought, the standard must be lowered to such a level that is more attainable.  Maxim (talk)  02:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Maxim. It's nice to see a bureaucrat  visiting  these pages, and thank  you  for your thoughtful  comments. Yes, standards have indeed risen. However, this is due to  the personal  criteria applied by  those who  wish  to  !vote on  RfA, and there is probably  little the community  can do  to  change their thinking. Our research  here appears to  demonstrate that  the availability  of new and automated tools provides a false quality  metric to  the edit  counts -  and this is what  the serious !voters look  for, among  their other criteria.
 * That said, the clear reason why  editors will  not  come forward is that  they  are not  prepared to  spend  seven  days in  the snake pit. We  have scoured the Wiki and suggested to  many  users by  email  that  they  might  wish  to  be considered for adminship, and the answer is almost  always the same. Mature,  experienced, long-term  users even more so, because they  will  have accumulated enemies  through  having  warned or blocked editors for infringements, CSD'd articles, or held opposing  views on  various discussions. Those detractors will  invariably register 'oppose' !votes at  RfA. Other !voters who  regularly  participate and often  oppose candidates, appear in  fact  to  registering   a demonstration  against  adminship  in  principle.   As you  know from  your closures of RfA, it  is not  possible to  simply  discount such  !votes. My  own  RfA  was a classic example of nastiness and unfounded opposition, but  it  passed due to  an overwhelming  support from  the high  end of the community. It's no  understatement  to  say  that  admins are the most  hated user group! Being  an admin can be a thankless task, and I'm  sure those editors who  have the tools will readily  admit  that  adminship really is no  big  deal.   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most users who've had trouble in the past easily could be admins, even if they have caused trouble. All we'd need to deal with such a trouble admin is desysop and block.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many people believe it's not  easy  enough  to  desysop someone, and that's another reason  why  they  oppose. However, I  don't  think  that  was quite what  I  was referring  to, but  FWIW, I  wouldn't  !vote for anyone  who  has a  regular history  of snark, for example, and there are plenty  of admins for whom I  wouldn't  give the time of day, or who  wouldn't  stand a snowball's at  today's standards. Calling  a candidate an 'obtuse jerk' on  an RfA takes the biscuit  I'm  afraid, however incompetent the candidate may  be, and those are just  the kind of people we don't  want - either as admins, or !voters on  RfA, or anywhere else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's only due to the low number of bureaucrats. Sure, there are people who've been trolling in the past and may have a long pattern of it, and that's not what we want. However, my idea here is that we don't need all candidates to be absolutely perfect.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally, I  believe we have enouh  'crats, but  if they  feel  overburdened, they  can make a case for  more.  Nobody  is perfect, but  there is no  excuse for incivility,  bullying, POV pushing, and slipshod work -  these are real-life character traits that an admin flag  won't  change. In  earlier times when 3,000 edits and 3 months were enough  to  get  the tools, there was not  enough  contribution  to  the project  to  see what  these people are really  like. There are plenty  of admins like these, and these are the reasons why  the standards  have been raised by  !voters and nominators. They  are certainly  the reasons why I  use a clear set of criteria; notwithsanding, my  criteria are of course flexible and are not  applied to  the letter. Generally, the editors who  have published their criteria seem  to  know what  they  are doing -  except perhaps  those who  have simply  copied my  own  criteria verbatim  to  their user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Incivility, bullying, and other extremely bad behavior is not acceptable, but I think things far less than that should be tolerable.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This diff from today (its last  paragraph)  says it  all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I might sound extremely old and bitter for this, but you are very wrong Maxim, to an extent. While the criteria for a new users's request for adminship might be declined suggests a correlation between time, edits and popularity/population of Wikipedia, the problem is a lot of editors are not new to Wikipedia anymore. The chances of an editor passing a request for adminship having previously been there once (or even going through the process for the full seven days without withdrawing) is probably very, very low. Editors who have been on Wikipedia for years and continue to come back and contribute positively are the ones who aren't going back or going to RFA to begin with. These are the editors who are best known by the community for their edits and their tendencies of how they will use the adminship tools if they had them (and probably the reason they don't have them now). New administrators who never had an adminship request before that are 4-6 months old and have 5-6,000 edits are a wildcard to say the least. No one knows them enough to go to an RFA and oppose them in hoards when all they do is the maintenance and article writing (unless they accumulated that edit count over a few years time). I'm going to use my personal experience at RFA, and I only do so because I am the best example that I have for this. Back in 2005 and 2006 I had about 16,000 edits with an account registered between 6-9 months old pending which request. I've had four old adminiship requests where I was nominated by others (I'm excluding the first self-nom when I was a couple of months old and too new) and all of them were squandered horribly to the point I closed them prematurely just to avoid the further torment of having people I knew and didn't know go on there and judge me. I had websites from vandals dedicated to disparaging me and going on my current request for adminship and showing links to edits where I had an episodes of being bipolar and editing Wikipedia and making one, albeit, very stupid edit. I'm blown away in retrospect that a former administrator that I never knew on Wikipedia prior to my requests for adminiship, User:Freestylefrappe, created sockpuppets on my RFAs to do the same as the known vandals. Even worse are the established editors on the last RFA I ever had, which oppose !votes ranged from not reading enough Deepak Chopra to possibly not being experienced enough with templates, to my own friends calling me a child and saying leaving Wikipedia was immature under the circumstances of the horrible RFAs prior, then opposing me. I haven't accepted another request since that request in 2006 despite many, many offers being extended to me including a petition of numerous editors who told me they would support me if I was nominated again. All of this was before my account was a year old, and now I have been here for over six years. If I ran today, God willing, who knows what kind of crap would happen. If there was that many people who hated me in less than a year, I can only imagine how many do in six years. I recently saw an RFA of someone who used to be an administrator when I checked the page for the first time in a year, and they were still holding things against him from back in 2008 and older. It really put into perspective of how being an administrator really is "a big deal" despite efforts of users who try and downplay it, and how unforgiving the Wikipedia community really is. I, personally, might never see another RFA again. I probably couldn't handle putting myself through the scrutiny of people who weren't even registered on Wikipedia when I made a controversial edit to accurately assess whether I am capable of a delete, protect and block button. I know I can't be alone in users who feel this way. — Moe ε  12:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we've been running this project, we've discussed just  about  every  reason  why RfA is rotten, done a lot  of  analytics  of names and voting  pattens, candidates, and criteria, and come up  with  the same conclusions every  time. We've discussed dozens of serious suggestions, and some that  are just  too  fanciful or fabulous to  ever get  introduced. I'll try  to  make a bulleted summary  here:

RfA is dead because of the voters.
 * Among the voters there are some regular participants whose only  goal  appears to  be to  disrupt the system,  for two  reasons, 1) because they  just  like to  cause drama, or   2)  they intensely  dislike the notion  of adminship  in  general. These groups break down into  the following:
 * Those who are excellent  content  editors but  are just  too  damn uncivil  to  become admins
 * Those who tried for adminship  and failed
 * Those who enjoy  schadenfreude and are just  hellbent  on  wrecking  anyone's chances of passing
 * Trolls

The next categories are:
 * Those who are too new/young/immature to  even understand what  adminship  is all  about, but  they  think it's cool  to  get  involved in  meta stuff because it  gives them  a power they  can't  get  easily  on  their favourite web forum. We see this at  NPP, AfD, and the silly  debates they  start  on  the VP. They  also  mess with  ANI, and tinker with  SPI where theoretically, only people with  admin level experience should be offering  their opinions.
 * The naïve do-gooders who see potential  evil  in  every  candidate
 * Those who have an axe to  grind against  the candidate. They  are the ones who  tell  lies, use fake diffs, or take things deliberately out  of context -  all  in the hope that  the 'pile-on' voters won't  do  their own  checking  up.
 * Those who enjoy  schadenfreude, find an  insignifiant chink  in  the candidate's armour and stick  the knife in

Those are the facts, and we have enough material  here to  prove it.

The next issues are the ones of criteria, and they  contain  a lot  of irony:
 * A candidate who hasn't  been around very  long hasn't  got  enough  experience for the voters to  judge, however good their work and civility  appear to  be
 * A candidate who  has the maturity and tenure is expected to  have experience in  sem-admin  areas, where the longer they  have been around, they  will  have accumulated detractors among  users whom  they  have justifiably CSD'd, warned, or reported -  a vote is a vote, and there's nothing  the closing  'crat  can do  about  it; only  in  the closest  of end counts can or would a 'crat evaluate a consensus in  the way  we do  when we close most  other kinds of discussions.

The criteria are indeed stiffer than they were 5 years ago, but  that's a sign  of Wikipedia's learning  curve and progress. Analogy: When I got  my  driver's licence, all  I  had to  do  was drive around a city  block for ten minute with  an examiner, and answer three or four silly  questions such  as, what  do  you  do  when you  see a red traffic light, and which  way  should you  drive round a roundabout. Today's kids have to sit  a complex written  exam, and then they  only  get  a trial  licence for the first  six months, and if they  screw up, they  have to  go  take the exam again. Rules and regulations in everyday  life get  harder all  the time, because of the lawmakers' past  experience. I'm a teacher, and nowadays you're not even allowed to  look  at  kid sharply  when he misbehaves. Some teachers get exposed as pedos, so nowadays we're all  suspected as being  potential  child molesters and  have to  prove we're not  before we get  our ticket  to  teach,  and hang  on  another 2 years post  grad  work. 40 years ago, a good set of A-levels, no degree, and 2 years at  teacher training  school  was enough.

However, the irony is, the En.Wiki  doesn't   have any  criteria; the criteria are set anew for every  single RfA depending  on  who  turns out to  vote. Those who apply  (more or less)   a personal  set of criteria and vote seriously, generally  base their criteria on  the minima they  would set for themselves if they  ran  for office -  and the scope of those individual  criteria is wide. Another irony is that  among  those who  signed up  for the task  force here, some did so  because they  though  the goal  of this project  is to  lower the standard and make it  easier for them  to  become sysops,  and again  some who think it's cool  to  get  involved in  meta stuff  - and we had a classic example two  days ago  of one of them who  nearly  wrecked the project - all in good faith, of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the most disconcerting  aspect  is that  of Wikipedia's way  of  obtaining  consensus  on  anything. First, we have to convince the people out  there that  RfA needs changing  for the better, and secondly  getting  them  to  agree on  the changes. It's a long process, and even our so-called task force is now so  big they  can't  agree on anything. So it's down to  three or for regulars here who  do  all  the work, and only  to  be accused of cabalism, and being  a clan of power hungry  admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, there is only one kind of solution (other than a really long time from now) for which I would ever touch another RFA for myself, and that would be a reform of who is a !voter. The irony you speak of is exactly what needs to be directly addressed. Maybe no one has suggested it (or maybe it has many times), but a consensus of bureaucrats is more promising than a single bureaucrat having to decide this. We have over thirty active bureaucrats, which would more than suffice for an actual !vote. Thinking off the top of my head, the ideal situation for requests for adminship, is to keep it ideally the same but with more consensus and less !voting.
 * The ideal request for adminiship nomination would first and foremost, after the nominator has said their piece, address the statistics of the editor. I'm not talking about edit count and number of past requests, though those would be included. I'm talking about real statistics, which are not hard to grab. Wikipedia is nothing more than a collection of edits and logs which can be statistically broken down to determine what has happened over time. All of these things can be accounted for statistically given the right bot: The number of edits an editor has made (broken down by namespace), the number of blocks they have received, the number of non-admin closures to Xfds, the number of files uploaded, number of deleted edits (broken down as to why), number of Xfds participated in, number of sockpuppet investigations against them/participated in, any confirmed alternate accounts (legitimate or otherwise), number of WP:AN/I and related page threads they have participated in (and the number of edits to said pages), all previous adminship requests, statistics on their account like longevity, etc.
 * After all the statistics of the editor were gathered, in my personal opinion, all we need is single section below that (arbitrary breaks pending) with discussion of any questionable behaviors or concerns editors have of the nominee or a show of support for the nomination. Taking away the support/oppose/neutral sections and having a single section would make this issue of a !vote obsolete. Maybe I would be forcing a lot of responsibility on the bureaucrats, who would actually have to read the entire request for adminship and determine whether the areas of concern are enough not to promote them, but I think someone in their power needs to use it in consensus with users who have the same power they do as well. Finally, and this is the most important part, the only !vote is whether the request for adminship passed or not, by the bureaucrats. To be frank, bureaucrats have this power for a reason, and to make one bureaucrat make this decision is silly when we could easily have the input of many. I'm not saying that one bureaucrat alone is going to have/had bad judgement. I'm saying that all the bureaucrats who participate at RFA together have the same power to promote or not promote and that a more thorough look through the statistics of the editor, along with the troublesome edits/concerns of editors and whether those concerns are accounted for should be decided by bureaucrats themselves. A number like (70 support, 20 oppose, 2 neutral) shouldn't dictate who should become an administrator, legitimate concerns of or support for their editing should decide that. As it is, if there is one area of concern with a nominee, thirty editors coming on after the issue was resolved can easily just put "per editor X and my standards" and not give a second thought, and their request be denied for no good reason. With the only !vote mattering coming from bureaucrats (and the only people who can promote being bureaucrats anyways), scenarios of "I don't like them" can be avoided with a simple vote of bureaucrats.
 * Of course, this would be in a perfect world of process on Wikipedia, which will never happen. — Moe ε  02:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Very similar solutions have all been discussed on  this project  already - probably  on  the sub  page at  WP:RFA/RADICAL, but  if not  it's somewhere else here. In  a nutshell, out active 'crats are not  quite as active as we may  believe, and a recent comment  I  made was that  if RfA were comment  based without  the voting  element, with  a participation of anything  up  to  200 users, it  would take a 'crat  hours to  assee it. Nevertheless, all  the stats you  mention  are available (or can easily  be made available),  but  they  can't  assess the candidates' character and maturity,  which most  voters' comments seem  to  hinge upon. Some voters oppose through pure unresearched conjecture that  might  even be the complete oppposite to  the statistical  facts, as we have seen today  in  a current  RfA. Unfortunately,  as per my  reasoning  above, if it were to  be a close call,  there is no  way  that  we can be sure that  a 'crat would discount  such  a vote. perhaps Maxim  could offer his thoughts on  this. ‎ Kudpung Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I can always list a new "radical" solution to the page and see where it goes if anyone takes off with it. I will however refrain from using the RFA reform 2011 Wikipedia namespace and use my own user space if I make such a proposal. — Moe ε  06:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Why do  that? This project  is the best  place for it (on  the right  page)  and it  will  get  a lot  more exposure. Comments and suggestions such  as  yours are badly needed. If they  support a theory that  has already  been  posited, so  much  the better.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What exposure? Nobody much bothers to look at this page --Epipelagic (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what  you  are talking  about Epipelagic. The page has been viewed 3,546 times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal I am writing out, and I will most likely link it here and maybe on other related RFA pages for further input and discussion, and just not have it on the WikiProject page. I will allow anyone to edit it or make suggestions on how to improve it, however. — Moe ε  09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to revisit my comments, and I don't really have much to add. RfA standards and the atmosphere are part of one continuum. What I understand from Moe and Kudpung's comments is that the atmosphere is very unpleasant; what I could add to that, in broad strokes, is that the atmosphere feeds off the vague and/or unreasonable standards, and those standards feed off the atmosphere. In other words, it's a cycle of positive feedback that has resulted in very few candidates stepping up -- if any!  Maxim (talk)  16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Tool apprenticeship
(Coordination note: This thread has been copied to  WT:RFA/RADICAL. Please continue the discussion  there.)

Hi all, just posting a link to my new RfA alternative proposal Tool apprenticeship. I'd really like to get some good feedback from others who have thought a lot about RfA reform. Here's the brief summary:


 * In tool apprenticeship, a user who has an immediate practical need for a particular administrator tool or tools, such as deletion or protection, makes a request to receive that tool. Provided the user is in good standing and has a need, they receive the tool on a trial basis for a limited period (weeks to months). When this period expires, the tool is automatically revoked.
 * After or shortly before the end of their trial, the user can file a request to retain the tool permanently, based on their performance during the trial period, which will be granted if the user substantially used the tool and exercised good judgement. If the request is denied, the user will be given extensive feedback on their usage and may (if their misuse was not too egregious) have the opportunity for another trial period. Over time, a user who performs a variety of tasks may acquire many tools, giving them similar status to current administrators.

To centralize discussion, please leave comments and feedback on the proposal's talk page at Tool apprenticeship. Thank you! Dcoetzee 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

A discussion is taking  place at  Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship on  a proposal  for access to  adminship  through  apprenticeship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Bureaucrats are saying
- about policing RfA. Interesting reading  for anyone who has 10 minutes to  spare, and it  may  have some influence on  how we might address a possible proposal  for clerks. Please start any  discussion  on  at WT:RFA2011/VOTING. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting: right or wrong rationales?
IMHO, the unique oppose vote on  a recent  RfA is made with  an inadmissible rationale. Moreover, even AGFing, it could be interpreted as an attempt  to  disrupt  an RfA that  in  its last  hours was destined to  be immaculate and will  succeed anyway. Whether we have voted for or against the cadidate, this kind of voting  is yet  another example of what  must  not  be allowed. Please comment at  WT:RFA2011/VOTING. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely support you Kudpung, you are absolutely right; that is profoundly shocking behaviour and must not be allowed. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about 100% sure what oppose you're talking about; I'll bring it up there. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Some food for thought/context for discussion
Although things have been relatively quiet lately, I would think it's safe to assume that there are more than a few editors out there that'd be willing to discuss. Below are some takeaways of discussions past that are (in my eye) worthwhile topics of discussion in considering the future of the project, now that several of the suggestions/proposals thus far have had time to sink-in. I'm in no way endorsing any of the below, mind you, but rather recalling some topics of past discussion in considering some possible courses of action. Again, I'm not endorsing any of the above; they're just topics that would (to me, at least) be worthwhile discussion topics as we move forward. We've compiled a lot of good data and this, by far, has been the most extensive attempt at RFA reform. We mustn't stop now; we have many good ideas and there's been a lot of thought-provoking discussion, enough so that we ought to begin thinking about where we're going to go with this effort and what immediate or long-term solutions would be worthwhile to implement. Tyrol5  [Talk]  02:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) A worthwhile suggestion by User:Balloonman last April. Little came of it, but it was an interesting idea nonetheless.
 * 2) A thought-provoking discussion from last September regarding the mindset of reforming RFA.
 * 3) A proposal almost as old as the project itself that proposes the addition of a 'clerk' role in the RFA process. There was a lot of discussion and development of the idea, but not much past that.
 * 4) In continuing discussion, we must keep our original goals and objectives in mind. Some reading might also be conducive to a productive discussion.
 * 5) A proposal that was never really fully developed (I could dig up discussions, but there's not much substance to them) is the idea of inviting those who have endured an RFA (not just those who have failed) to comment on the process and their experiences. Whether this could be done via an optional questionnaire upon closure of an RFA or an alternative method, I'll leave to discussion.
 * 6) I'm not sure how aware the Wikimedia Foundation is about the declining rate of promotion of administrators and its connection to the RFA process, nor am I aware of their positions. If we could achieve consensus on even small changes and have some WMF-sanctioned effort at minor reform, that'd be a big step forward.
 * 7) Perhaps it's time to send out another newsletter letting project participants know that ideas are welcome and discussion is encouraged. I'm not expecting overnight change, but participation is essential. If we could get even a small fraction of the registered participants to remain active, we could have some good, non-crowded discussion about possible paths forward.
 * NOTE: I have taken the liberty  of numbering  your points above for easy  reference. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You've done some noble work in taking the trouble to review the contents of this project.   Some people suggest  that  this project  is dead. It  is not, but  much  discussion has recently taken place recently at  Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 214 in  which  it  would appear that the efforts are not  appreciated by  some,  and that  the posting of publicly  accessible voting  data would be considered a personal  attack  by  some who might  possibly  identify  themselves with  the behaviour discussed. A rough summary  of the second thread in  that  discussion  would be that  the community is not  entirely  adverse to  the use of some forms of voting  and expression  that  this project aim to stem are not  only  acceptable, but  are a normal  part of the process. That  said, without  surmising  on  any  closure on  existing  issues, there appears to be strong  support from the community for  arguments that  people are too  sensitive to  incivility  and personal  attacks, and should have a thicker skin. On  the points above:
 * Ballonman's suggestion would incur more work for the closing  bureaucrats that  they  may  not  wish  to accept. CT Cooper lists previous discussion on  a similar suggestion. The final comment  by  WFC is not  unfounded.
 * See my final  comment  on  that  thread.
 * Clerks: Admittedly, this suggestion was not taken to conclusion, admittedly. It  remains to be discussed what  the criteria for clerking  should be, and who  should do  it. It  is however very  close to  being  a possible major RfC proposal. A proposal  needs to  be drafted here,  and with  some tweaking  it  could go  live almost  immediately.
 * I feel  sure that  many  task force members have not done the necessary  reading -  at  least  those who  do  not  have extensive Wikipedia experience or who  are already  admins. Some people evidently  joined the task force in  the anticipation that  reform  would make it  easier for them  to  become admins.  Some have since been blocked, while other have retired from  the encyclopedia. Apart from  the, the goals and objectives remain  unchanged. Other users have launched independent proposals, which at least may have had more success if they had drawn on the experience of the research we have done here.
 * See the discussion at WT:RfA (now archived) that  I  have linked to  above. Those of us who  are active on  reform  have the same mental  list of editors who  may  not  be participating  at  RfA in the best interests of the process and Wikipedia, but  it  appears impossible to  address those people in  any  way  at all  without out  them  insinuating  that  they  are being  hounded or personally  attacked.
 * The Foundation has expressed interest  in  RfA reform  and feels it  is necessary. They  have insisted however, that  while they  may  be able to  offer advice or technical  help, they  are not  able to  intervene in  a local  Wikipedia  in  order to  force reform.
 * Newsletters have proven to be largely  ineffective for the reasons stated about  about  the task  force.


 * Coming back  to  the discussion  at  Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 214, the idea of obtaining  feedback from  passed and failed candidates on  their experience at RfA is excellent, and possibly  some concrete conclusions could be drawn from  it. I  recently  had an idea  (already drafted) for a survey that  could be run. However, this poses a challenge because such a survey requires WMF approval and my  recent  experience with  WMF assistance  on  another survey  I  proposed has  not  proven, as yet, three months later, to  be wholly effective.
 * We have received many email replies from  users whom  we have suggested they  may  wish  to  run for adminship. They  have all  declined and overwhelmingly  due to the climate of the RfA process. This month will  close with one successful  RfA election, and my  prognosis is that  the year  will  end with  as few as 25 - 35 new admins,  and  it  remains to  be seen how long  it  takes, due to  natural  wastage, for the backlogs to  become critical. Recent proposals (again) to  unbundle the tools have, as anticipated, failed yet  again.  Much  of the work  of admins is focused on  deletion and vandalism,  and I  hope that  if anything finally comes of the new-page patrol survey, and the proposed new patroller control  panel at  New Page Triage and the new new-user landing  page at  Article creation workflow,  this will  somewhat  reduce the burden of  the admins'  workload. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Update: All but one of the project  coords are now on  extended Wikileave. I've signed off today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Renaming or closure
It is no longer 2011, so the title of the reform is no longer accurate. We have two options: rename it to 2012 and carry on (even though we seem a bit inactive anyway), or keep the title and stop where we are, accept failure. Or we could drop this and start an entirely new RfA reform 2012. I don't know. Gather your thoughts below.  Rcsprinter  (message)  17:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Another option would be continue on with the current name since the title is still accurate because it is discussions about RFA reform that was started in 2011. GB fan 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Seem a bit inactive"? Unfortunately real life issues have gotten in the way - but I can tell you that this is still at the forefront of my mind. As GB fan points out, the name points to when the project started (which is reasonable since there are a few other attempts at this). I'm not willing or ready to accept failure yet - I've got a few things up my sleeve that I'm going to be trying to get through over the next few months and that's just me. I'm sure other members of the task force have similar intentions.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 'RFA2011' should be kept, there is no reason to  move it. That's when the project  was started,  and the project work continues. Over 400 pages link  to  the project  main  page alone. Far  from  being  inactive or a failure, a brand new and updated set  of comprehensive stats on  the RfA process is due to  be posted to  the project  very  shortly when the database results have been extrapolated and summarised, and some concrete RfC prosals will be made soon based on it. It  needs to  be understood and accepted that  all Wikipedia research  and development  projects take time (some of us have a RL),  and anyone posting  here is welcome to  become an active participant  and assist  in  speeding  it  up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I genuinely hope this thing gets off the ground. I really do like to help, but I cant let go of my real-life priorities, and has only been silently keeping an eye out on this for many months now. I had really bad experiences at my past RFAs, and I am pretty sure - just like me - there are many out there who genuinely would like to be part of Wikipedia to help out. The adminship process should welcome the applicant, who is actually here to sacrifice their time to help the project. But right now, the applicant is treated as someone who is here to take something away from Wikipedia which anyone can edit.
 * It really shouldn't be that restrictive. Make it easy to get in, and in case something goes wrong, make it easy to get out. Sadly saying, what's happening now is, in my honest opinion, fueled by politically forces (due to the project's sheer popularity). This is not right. Being an admin is cool, but the already-admins should not be so hard in taking others in. Taking others in is not doing them a favour, but doing the project a favour. Attitudes like "we have enough admins" does not make sense, and you know why. For Wikipedia, the need for volunteers will never end. Improvement and team work is never limited.
 * I used to be a hell of an active contributor, and I remember when this initiative got off, with great intentions. It is still great and only needs genuinely clean minds to get it off the ground. This plan has not failed and should not be dropped. It just need some genuine thought and dedication. I really admire the people who are keeping this going. Although I am not that active, I am always reachable via email and talkpage. Reh  man  13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Reform"
"Reform" is question-begging. (Compare "tort reform".) Could a NPOV or descriptive name be chosen? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)