Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Coordination


 * Coordinators

A kind of newsletter
I'm thinking of sending this (see below) out now that we're getting somewhere. The distribution list includes task force members and everyone who has contributed to the project's talk pages:
 * Looks good to me. We should keep as many people as we can informed that we're still here and just as dedicated as ever. Swarm  u 02:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. People need to know that this isn't just another one of those perennial discussions that never reach any meaningful conclusions. They need to know we are completely dedicated to improving the system. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 06:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I read it earlier and thought "Well, it seems awfully like we're chastising people and not reporting progress" but the fact is everything in there needs to be said. It makes sense to me.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you're saying, but Kudpung's toned it down a good bit so that it's not quite so harsh (although there are some people who are more than deserving of a good chastising :P ). Swarm  u /  t 20:07, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sent. May take a day or two for the message bot. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RFA2011 news
(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.)

The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to  these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere.

A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising  the project  pages, researching  statistics and keeping  them  up  to  date. You'll also see for example that  we have recently  made tables to  compare how other Wikipedias choose  their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits.

The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on  specific issues of our  admin  selection  process and to develop  RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that  all Wikipedia policy changes take a long  time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to  be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments.

The object of WP:RFA2011 is not  to make it  either  easier or harder to  become an admin -  those criteria are set by  those who  !vote at  each  RfA. By providing  a unique venue for developing ideas for  change independent  of  the general discussion  at  WT:RFA, the project has two  clearly  defined goals: The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project  pages to  suggest  and discuss ideas that are not  strictly  within  the remit  of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they  will  offer maximum exposure to  the broader community, rather than individual  projects in  user space.
 * 1) Improving the environment  that  surrounds RfA in  order to  encourage mature, experienced editors of the right  calibre to  come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their  time to  admin  tasks.
 * 2) Discouraging, in the nicest  way  possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to  guide them towards the advice pages.

We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in  order to  build consensus.

New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern.

Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any  editors are always welcome on  the project's various talk  pages. The main reasons  why  WT:RfA was never successful in  getting  anything  done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody  remembers them and where they  are hard to  find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on  the founder's talk  page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Messagebot & message
Message bot is a bit slow. It's probaby an exception - maybe the bot handler was on vacation, but it's worth bearing in mind. The message has produced some trolling which has been deleted, and a characteristic  comment  by  one user who   does exactly what  the message asks editors not  to. The message has also produced an interesting  new task force member. Things seem to be slow again  at  the moment, but  RfA is extremely  slow at  the moment, in  fact  it's the worst  it's ever been and it's almost  ground to  a standstill.,  and so  has WT:RfA. I was probably  wrong  a few weeks ago  when I  suggested that  drama mongering  on  RfA had taken a break though - there's a new kid on the block who has been warned by many editors that his question  and voting  are inappropriate. There is probably nothing to be gained by releasing an RfC for the minimum qualification at the moment - the best time to get max participation is when RfA is very active, and if possible, highly controversial. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. People can have very short memories on Wikipedia, and many will only be interested in reforming RfA if there is a visible and controversial RfA fresh in their minds. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 06:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree. Right now, we've had 4 (hopefully 5 soon) successful and 0 unsuccessful this month - hardly the best time to say that RfA is broken  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, but those figures do  prove that  RfA is boken! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Try explaining that to someone who hasn't looked at the candidates or the system. From the outside it appears that the system is working.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From the point of view that  that  the candidates who  should pass usually  do, and those that  shouldn't usually  don't, yes, it works. Even close calls are a fairly  rare occurrence. From the aspect  that its reputation  as the biggest  drama theatre on  Wikipedia is putting  potential  candidates of running  for office, it  is well  and truly  broken. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Trolling
I think it's probably  time to  reopen our discussion about  the value of keeping  Keepscases' name on  the task force list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in a day or so - at the moment, I feel an important irony that he has stated that there is a problem with RfA and is actively working towards change, whilst at the same time disrupting the process.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 01:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Worm, let this RfA play itself before moving on to this business. Best to keep the drama centralized *rolls eyes*. But I think the issue goes beyond Keepscases to the overarching issue of RfA trolling in general and the (in my mind, misplaced) belief that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" no matter how big of a horse's ass they present themselves as. Trusilver  03:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You may  both  be right, but  I've just  received another email  from someone who  wanted me to  nominate them. They  have withdrawn interest  in  running  for adminship  until this crap is resolved. This simply  corroborates yet again the fact  that  serious candidates of the right  calibre are not  prepared to  run  this gauntlet.  Those who  say  that  Keepscases adds a touch  of necessary comic relief or who  say  that  admin  candidates should be made of sterner stuff, are misguided. Anyway, it  looks as if NYB is going  to  do  something, so I  agree that  we should wait  and see. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that's bad news.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 03:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I just had someone who I thought would have been an excellent candidate turn me down when I offered to nominate him for his second try, and I honestly don't blame him. I wouldn't wish RfA on anyone, and I almost feel bad to offer to nominate, knowing what I'm about to put someone through. Trusilver  03:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With 36,000 edits under your belt, it's time you  ran yourself before you  make enemies. The longer you  work on  Wikipedia, the more likely  it  is to  attract  vindictive comments from  people who vote with  a vengeance.  It's the mistake I  almost made by    leaving  it  so  late ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops! My bad :(  I  forgot. Struck.  Sorry  for opening  old wounds. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Dante was an author before his time, I think that his vision of the 5th circle of hell in Inferno is probably a good representation of Wikipedia, where the wrathful spend eternity attacking each other. Does that NOT sound like the average RfA? It just shouldn't be that way. However, the collectivist nature of the project makes it hard to be anything but. Trusilver  04:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

WMF support
We've known how Jimbo feels personally for a long time, although he's never technically endorsed our particular project.

As you guys (probably should) know, Philippe has recently made it clear that not only is the WMF supportive of our efforts (i.e. this project), but they're actually willing to allocate working hours to support us where they can. I'm sure you'll all agree that this is hugely significant, and that we should fully utilize the support that's being offered here. So let's try to answer Philippe's question: how can the WMF help? While this doesn't mean the board will suddenly implement all of our proposals, it definitely opens new doors for us and I think we should discuss what to ask of the Foundation. So, thoughts? Swarm  21:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support of the foundation opens doors that were previously closed, obviously. I don't want this to sound like I'm advocating an end-run around policy or consensus, but having the Foundation open to assisting with real RfA reform means that a system can be enacted more readily that would have gotten bogged down (and already has... for years) in megabyte upon megabyte upon megabyte of discussion and political hand-wringing. We have the possibility now of going back to basics. Almost nine years ago, Jimbo gave the oft-quoted no big deal speech, and we have done everything in our power to stray from the spirit of that message from that day forward. To anyone who has gone back to the first year or so of admin discussions (and most of us that are here talking have, ad nauseum), have seen a happier and friendlier version of the project where adminship truly was "no big deal". Something I repeat fairly often in RfA discussions is that adminship is nothing more than a few extra buttons to help with the maintenance of the project; a few extra buttons that a chimpanzee with a few hours of training can use adequately. It is not the nuclear football. The project is not going to cease to exist in a fiery cataclysm if the wrong person becomes an admin. Look back at those early days when three or four people voting support led to admins being appointed... did the world come to an end because a lengthy, mud-slinging discussion didn't ensue? Nope, and it's not going to today either. That is why what we should ask for is the ability to implement a new trial RfA procedure. I'm not saying what the procedure is (though I have an idea), only that it should be the simplest viable system for confirming an admin. The mechanics of such a system are for a different discussion, but I think getting the Foundation on board for a trial run would be the most appropriate and efficient step. Trusilver  22:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Adminship is seen as a seal  of approval, and the statement  that adminship  'is not  a big deal' is one of the most  often misunderstood and misquoted aphorisms of Wikipedia. To  some it  is indeed a big  deal, particularly,  for example, those who  are minors with  a short  tenure and low record of participation (edit  count). - simply  said, the SNOW/NOTNOW variety. There are candidates of a more sinister nature: adults who  have sockpuppets, who  practice lies and deceit, and who  would use their tools and perceived aura of power to  their own advantage; a look  at  some (not  all) of the desysopped individuals will demonstrate the ones who  fit  into  this category. In  the main  however, most  admins are mature  people with  enough clue about  writing  articles for an encyclopedia, and knowledge of its policies and software, and above all,  who  have a trusted and  keen sense of judgement and know how to  use it  with  civility. Most  of those who are admins, I  am  sure, will  tell us that  once they  got  'promoted' and shifted some of their work  to  admin duties,   being  an admin  really  is no   big  deal, even, if it  does bring  them some rare admiration and thanks from  others for their work. Admins generally feel  humble when they  get  a kind word and it  helps confirm that  they  are  not  a bad people, and that  they  are doing  most  things right. Some admin tasks are less pleasant  and can, and do, attract  a lot  of flak -  some of it  very  nasty, all  of it  generally  undeserved, but  in  the end they  are just  doing  what  they  can: keeping  the Wikipedia clean and free of junk  and vandalism.
 * The problem is nature, who in  her wisdom  has decided that  most  life forms  have a pecking  order, hence  we have this inaptly  used word 'promotion' when it  comes to according  admin  rights, and and the congratulations that  abound when someone gets them.  That  adminship is not  a big deal is proven by the silent  majority  of the 14,000 or so regular contributors to  the project who might  be possible candidates of the right  callibre and who  are reluctant  to  expose themselves, not  to  the scrutiny, but  to  the humiliation and downright  nastiness and trolling  that  takes place on  RfA  with  impunity. Those who  do  good work, and mainly steer clear of polemic  and policy-making  will  sail  through  with  hardly  a murmur, on  their first  run, and with 100+ support, while there are others who  have worked in  contentious issues such  as blocks and deletions and will  have accumulated some detractors, and whose RfA turns into  a very bitter experience even though  they  pass.
 * There are lots of ideas for alternative systems, such as for example a secret ballot,  but  there would  still be the question of who  would  be the judges, and through  what  mechanism   the judges (arbcoms, crats, stewards, editors with  highly  trusted user rights?) would be appointed. There are also  suggestions to  give the bit  to  everyone who  has a certain  length  of tenure and number of edits. What  cannot  be kept  out  of the equation however, is a candidate's character, for which  there is  no metric.
 * The Foundation has taken criticism  recently  where it  has stepped in   and rejected strong  local  consensus for several  important  policies. Whether they  will  learn from  this is another discussion, but  they do have access to  tools  and meta data that  we don't  have, and  the WMF is staffed, in  my  most recent experience,  by  mature and competent people, and we can listen to  them  and take their advice and suggestions. It's up  to  us however, to  come up  with  solutions for reform that  will  meet with  the community's blessing.  The bottom line is that  the voters have made the process of admin selection  'a big deal'. Changing the way  the voting  is conducted is the most  important  method, IMHO,  of finding  a  fix for the problems. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the sake of clarity, the Foundation will definitively not be implementing any changes. They're willing to work with us and officially support an alternative (in the hopes that WMF support will help overcome the usual community resistance), but it's all up to the community still. So, we have to decide, are we going to refocus and start seriously looking at alternatives? We all know why we haven't done so thus far. Is this new found support from the Foundation enough to make us change course? On one hand, this may be the best position anyone's ever been in to propose an alternative to RfA. On the other hand, if Foundation support isn't enough, we'll be in the realm of everyone else who's attempted it.  Swarm   01:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew this statement  from the WMF was  coming, and that's partly  the reason  for my  long  post  above. I  welcome their response, which  could possibly  help  us in  the future with  any  technical  demands for solutions we may  reach. I  believe that no  refocus is necessary,  but  that we no  longer need to  proceed half-heartedly  in  the shadow of  whatever we do, it  may  be overruled by  the WMF, or that  an imposition  of a system  might  come from  them. This should now encourage us to  get started on  drafting  and agreeing  on  the proposal  statements for any  RfC for reforms that  we want  to  put  to  the broader community. My  personal  opinion is that  in  view of the apparent  urgency for more admins, we should seek to  significantly  improve the existing  system rather than devise some other radically  different  process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't do both - improve the existing system AND have a radical alternative, Redundancy is good could apply to more than just the number of admins, but the processes to create them. If the existing system is not working perfectly, why not have an alternative to allow a potential candidate to chose one that would match their strengths?
 * As for the foundation's involvement, I am curious to what sort of statistics they might have that we don't have access to. I think it might be a good idea to see if we can get an opinion from the foundation on whether the devs would be able to implement a technical solution to the minimum requirements, and which radical alternatives would be unacceptable.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How about agreeing to interim changes that would improve the current process while conceiving a completely different process? The second will take a long time, but at least the system won't be quite so maleficent in the meantime. Like Worm, I'd also be very interested in seeing the statistics the WMF have at their disposal. While the changes we make are ultimately decided by community consensus, it is heartening to know that the WMF are watching and agree with what we are doing. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 05:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not misinterpret  what's being  discussed here. The WMF is not  saying  that  they  have anything  up  their sleeves; they  are offering  advice and technical  help, if and when we need it. I am not  against  radical  alternatives, I'm  just  in  favour of reaching  and implementing  more urgent  solutions, which  in  my  opinion  are those that  involve doing  something to  the current  system to  improve the quality  of the voting  and cut  out  out  the drama that  is driving  potential  candidates away. What  we need to  do  now is get  those proposals worded, agree on them, and offer them to  the community  for RfC. Any  volunteers?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

That's basically what I meant. We could begin with the Clerks proposal, since that's already quite advanced. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 06:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Significant downturns
I'm just going to point this out because I wouldn't be surprised if our members don't realize this, and I think this data should be included in our next newsletter/announcement.

August 2011 saw the lowest number of unsuccessful candidacies (4) since August 2004. Last month, September, saw the lowest number of unsuccessful candidacies (1) since we began recording them (in April 2004). As of now, we're two weeks into October and there's only been one unsuccessful RfA so far. One current one is quickly approaching a successful closure, and the other current one (which incidentally happens to be mine ;P) is looking good so far (fingers crossed).
 * Good news

August 2011 saw only one promotion, a low that has only been reached one other time in RfA history (December 2010). Also, the number of candidacies in general is reaching a near all time low. August and September saw only 5 RfAs in total, apparently the lowest level since February 2003.
 * Bad news

Hopefully the former is indicative of a pattern while the latter is simply an outlier; only time will tell, though. Swarm  08:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly aware of it and the plummeting parabola of a  logarithmic projection  would show that  we're going  to  hit  negative equity  in  around 6 months. For those who  want  it in  simpler terms: We will  no  longer be covering  the natural  decline in  the number of admins. Let's not  forget  that  the metric for active admin is based on  an extremely  low level of participation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, this isn't a triviality, we're seeing all time lows (even more recently than our unsuccessful candidates page). We'll have to wait for the final October returns, but if the trends solidly continue, our outlook will have to change. When this project started, RfA was a "nasty" place but now it's quite seriously on the verge of going into a downward spiral. Let's hope October provides some relief from the slump; we're currently right on track with last year's monthly numbers so it's too early to tell. I've started a list at RfA reform 2011/Downturns for now, let me know if you can think of any other statistics to add.  Swarm   14:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It may be that this project is too little too late, and that adminship needs to start failing before anything useful happens. I'd rather keep a more positive outlook though. I'm still thinking that an RfA drive in December might be a good idea :)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea, Worm.  Swarm   14:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An RfA drive, while sounding like a good idea, doesn't solve anything. It's certainly an underwhelming finish to a year-long project. Everyone talks about the decline in active admins as though it's a big surprise, but it's really not. You don't need to do a lot of impressive math to divine that the NP backlog won't go below seven days, or that in the most active hours of the day, AIV reports can sit for an hour or more without being processed. This would never have happened just two or three years ago. I have to admit that Worm may be right, and that the only way to provoke real change is for things to get worse. I may be pessimistic, but I feel that project will need to go into a major decline before the community will generate a consensus for real RfA changes. Trusilver  15:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it solves the problem, and I certainly wouldn't have it be the end/transformation of this project. But I still think it's an idea worth trying. As an aside, it's remarkable how my creeping pessimism was dashed by Worm's optimism, and then that ray of hope was swiftly and mercilessly crushed by your pessimistic comment. xD Seriously, though, it's depressing. :( It wasn't really relevant to bring up here anyway, this is something I'm going to we should keep tabs on and if it continues, submit it to the Signpost.  Swarm   05:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah! Sorry about that :). I don't think the RfA drive is a bad idea, I think we should go for it. But I am pessimistic. I came here with the idea that RfA reform under an existing system was possible, but I'm becoming more and more sure that a more radical approach is going to be necessary; only because it's not the process that's broken, it's the people participating in the process. For every ten people participating in an RfA, you have AT LEAST ten distinct sets of RfA qualifications. I think the only way RfA can improve under the current structure is if there is a concrete set of parameters for adminship. Like if we took your admin qualifications and said "okay, this is policy". Then RfA would become much like an AfD where the sole point of discussion is "Does the candidate fulfill the qualifications." Trusilver  08:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * These are all suggestions that  have already been, but  I don't  think  they  are really  a project coordination  issue. They  are probably  best  discussed on  the relevant  sub  pages where they  will  get  more exposure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unbundling
Unbundling sometimes gets brought  up  on  this project. Just in  case anyone is arguing  for the right  to  view deleted pages, refer them  to  this:  (WP:PEREN) - both the current and former Wikimedia legal counsel are on record as opposing these  proposals due to legal concerns (see Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted. Another new proposal  for it at  the VP  was closed today  as inoperable. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RfA results chart
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a disturbing chart. Thanks for putting in together Kudpung. The chart shows definitively that WP:RfA is stagnating, and that something needs to be done about it. 25 RfAs in January last year compared with 5 in September this year? It's shocking. It is interesting to see, though, that far fewer WP:SNOW candidates are running now as well. It is also interesting to note that the number of promotions in January last year was only slightly higher than in September this year. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 06:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done. Don't know if you saw the above discussion, Pyfan, but you might also want to check this out. We're seeing quite a few drastic downturns of late. Anyway, let's see what Philippe says.  Swarm   07:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I did, but the graph somehow makes it seem even worse. It'll be interesting to see what the research team will come up with. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 07:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Research team? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * [See diff in my previous comment]  Swarm   08:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Phillipe has asked someone at the WMF to  make a logarithmic line graph  prognosis for us. I'll give her a ping  and see how she's getting  on with  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Consultation with a few experts in statistical analysis (well, social scientist PhD students who use stats analysis in their research). Unfortunately they all said the same thing: the sample size is too small to show any trend.  No mathematical formula they tried produced anything more insightful than we'd get from just superimposing a hand-drawn line over the bar graph.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Kudpung!
 * You might ask for help at the statistics project.
 * The simplest distribution for modelling count data is the Poisson distribution, and its mean and variance are equal: You should expect a lot of fluctuations. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, October has come  to  a close, an  inappropriate attempt  at  transclusion  was made this week, and only one  new nom today.  With  Rlevese  ('crat), and Cirt  (an AfD  closure specialist) having had  to  vanish  this year, and Sarek having  surprisingly  and discretely handed his bit  back again today after going  through  all  the crap earlier this year after his voluntary  re-sysop, things aren't  looking  so  good. There will  also  have been other admins who  have quietly  slipped away  or who  are no  longer so  active. our category  of  'active' sysops paints a false picture because the threshold for 'active' is ridiculously  low. There don't  appear to  many  serious backlogs (others  may  wish  to  differ), and the deletions of new articles seems to  be on  the ball. Areas where there may  be backlogs are AfD closures, MfD, and FfD. Not  many  admins appear to  want  to  tackle contentious or complex discussion summaries - I don't  either -  and files seems to  be an area where many  of us lack  the necessary knowledge  of file policies; it's certainly  not  an area I'm  familiar with. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Solutions?
I'm not sure if it  is within  the mandate of this project,  but  perhaps there is something  we can do to  combat  this dearth. Based on WereSpielChequers' August 2010 Signpost  article, I'm  considering  writing  a new one, but  I  would prefer to  have some help  with  it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to help. I think it would be a valuable opportunity to publicise the situation, and hopefully to make !voters realise that something needs to be done. It could also prompt some people who have been thinking about running for adminship to give it a shot. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 13:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I agree 100%. In fact, I was just going to raise this suggestion yesterday, but you looked way to busy to be pestered even further. I'll absolutely help with this as well.  Swarm   X 17:45, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had already  started working  on  a draft  of this in  my  snadbox when I  mentioned, and I'm  just  trying  to  format  a table that  I've imported from  MW (they don't  use the same markup), and waiting  for some  new charts. When I've got  the format tidied up I'll move it  somewhere official  and then we can further develop  it together. There's no  desperate hurry. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds great.  Swarm   X 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Frightening away the candidates
An interesting theory. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I happen to like talking on IRC because you find editors being a little more candid (and honest) than they tend to be on the project. One thing that I keep hearing over and over when it comes to RfA is something like "I wouldn't pass RfA, so why even bother?" or "It's just too stressful to deal with." I think we have already come to understand that these are the top two reasons that people don't accept RfA nominations. I look over their contributions though, and my assessment is that most of the ones that say they can't pass RfA probably would. Trusilver  15:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is an interesting summary  of an extraordinarily  detailed report  on  the findings of research into the Polish  system  of selection  for their admins. Admittedly, theirs is a much  smaller Wiki, but their conclusions are not  dissimilar to  our own. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You wouldn't happen to have a link on that, would you? Trusilver  19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-31/Recent research. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

More stats showing possible decline
It's possible that my  RfA criteria page is among  the most  visited (1,531 hits, 80 backlinks). Anyone else who has a stats page might  like to  do  the same exercise.

Advice for RfA candidates
 * April - 42
 * May - 251
 * Jun - 124
 * July - 145
 * Aug - 118
 * Sep - 140
 * Oct - 178
 * Nov -
 * Dec -

Request an RfA nomination
 * Aug - 822
 * Sep - 222
 * Oct - 263
 * Nov -
 * Dec

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Page views Jan 2010 - Oct 2011 of Guide to requests for adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I ask, what program are you using to generate the stats? I've created some in Excel... but I'm not happy with how they look.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * XL 14.0.0 on Mac 10.6.8. It's clumsy  but  does the job. I'll  send you  the template I  use if you  like. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 16:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And another painful graph.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Drop in active admins.gif
 * It's what we needed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Really?
Is anyone aware that someone went ahead and took the liberty of starting an RfC on the clerks proposal? Yawn.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 13:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wasn't too impressed with that, I must say. You've just had an email from Kudpung on the subject... I expect I'm about to get a YGM too ;)  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We do need to decide on how we want to move proposals forward. RfC, perhaps - though the proposal needs to be in a ready state before an RfC happens. I'm free most of the day tomorrow (I think), so I might be able to skype/IRC/chat here about how best to proceed.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Kudpung sent out an email literally as I created this section. I was quite surprised to see this pop up on my watchlist. We're not remotely ready to propose anything because we haven't even discussed how we want to make our proposals, much less whether our drafts are ready to be proposed in the first place. Way premature. Happy to discuss wherever, just let me know.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 13:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to  stop  this kind of thing  and make it  clear to  task force members that we work  as a team  here. If they  want  to  go  off at  half-cock  and do  this kind of thing, then please not  here. RfC proposals need wording  extremely  carefully -  half the time RfCs fail is because they  turn into  a meta discussion  about  the proposal  statement. Besides which, I  don't  personally  think  the climate is right  for these suggestions yet. If we appear to  be slow, it's because we need to  choose the right  moment  for things, and that  moment  is  not   now.
 * We need to get  an article out  to  Signpost  first, with  as much  proof as possible that  between them,  the !voters at  RfA  have wrecked the system. Look  at what we have on  a current RfA - most  of it  well  intended,  but  making  far too  much  of health  issues. IMHO, a candidate's health  is not  part of the equation. We  have an admin who  has been blind from  birth  and does a better job  than most. Providing a long  spiel about  health  is like saying "I'm  dyslexic, blind, have one leg, paraplegic, deaf, dumb and bloody  stupid, but  please take all this into  consideration  and make it  easier for to  become an admin than than for everyone else", and that just  asks  for trouble.  What  we're interested in  here is: can  you  use the damn mop with  common  sense, or can't  you? and that's basically  what  RfA  is about  for everyone, whether they  have green skin and three eyes, and can edit  the 'pedia hanging  upside down in  a tub  of cold water on  a waterproof iPhone.   --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Next steps
Worm and I  had a very  long  conversation  last  night on  possible approacahes to  RfA  reform  and and the worsening  drought  of noms. We need to  get together on  this and perhaps temporarily  change our focus, but  we need to  do  this with  as little background  noise as possible to  avoid the intermittent  trolling  on  this project. We need to  reinforce the notion  that  task  force is for experienced users, and after having  slept on  the discussion  with  Worm,  I  have come up  with a unique idea that  might  just  put  an end to  the trolling on  RfA. Some people don't like the use of off-Wiki  communications. I particularly dislike the Wiki  IRC channels and avoid them  like the plague, but  recent  Skype conferences I have had on  various projects have convinced me that  it's an excellent  way  to  get  some honest work done without  the background noise. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It's worth being clear about whether it's the choice of technology that's the problem, or the way it's used.


 * To be specific, for doing what you refer to as "honest work" on IRC, you wouldn't generally do it in one of the Wikipedia/Wikimedia IRC channels. That's the equivalent of thinking that a discussion about RFA reform will produce most productive results if held in WT:RFA - except worse, because channels like #wikipedia-en also regularly host trolls, and users who are banned on-wiki, and all sorts of other malcontents, plus people who are bored and want to discuss what they're having for dinner or their favourite meme (like... me).


 * So no, if you want a specific discussion about a specific topic on IRC, you create a separate channel for it (one command taking two seconds to type), and invite people who have something to contribute. Just as you would on Skype (where it's called a "conversation" not a "channel").


 * IRC doesn't do audio or video; but Skype does. IRC is useable by all users without needing to install anything, and is very efficient on bandwidth and client resource usage; Skype isn't. IRC allows instant access to a wide range of different Wikipedia editors with different skill sets and tool sets; Skype allows you to limit your interactions to people you've added to your contacts on Skype. They both have their pros and cons. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but the unique idea had nothing  to  do  with  communications. It's something  I  wanted to  discuss with  the coordinators over a 3-way  video -  which  by  the way performs with  excellent  results. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fine - definitely not something IRC can be used for. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Defining the problem
I've been considering how one could best use the WMF's offer of help, and I think that one useful area would be to get some research commissioned. One of the problems I've had in convincing people that we have a problem is that while I can measure how many active editors we have who have the admin bit, that includes editors who edit regularly but only use the admin tools once in a blue moon. It would be useful to know how many active admins we have and the hours of the day or week when we are thinnest on the ground. In particular the gaps at AIV are apocryphal, measuring them and the trend for the last few years would either confirm that we have a problem in ways that no reasonable person could deny, or reassure us that we had more of a safety margin than we thought. Some of our differences at RFA are rooted in genuine disagreements as to the facts of the situation, getting an independent professional researcher to settle those issues would I believe make it easier to get agreement as to how things should change.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two ways of looking  at  this:
 * What the stats would show
 * What the admins report  from their empirical  findings.

Conclusions we can draw from  empirical  study are:


 * Most vandalism edits, attack  and children's test pages come from  American time zones
 * Most new uncontroversially  inappropriate new  pages such  as spam,  copyvio, nn BLPs /autobios, come from  time zones on  the Indian  sub continent.
 * Not all admins work  at  the same time of day/night
 * Not all admins are in  the same time zone
 * Most admins are located in  American time zones
 * There are often long periods when AIV is not  being  watched (e.g. it's not  a place I  venture into)
 * Some attack pages hang around for a couple of hours before they  are deleted
 * Expired PRODs and BLPRODS get deleted within seconds of expiry -  almost  as if a bot  were on  duty
 * There is a near critical backlog  at  AfD closures (e.g.I don't  close AfDs)
 * There is a terrible backlog at  FfD (I don't  go  there either)
 * Volunteers (admins or editors) can't be forced to  take on  more work or operate in areas that  they are not familiar with  or are  not  interested in.
 * Among recent RfA (say  over the last  12 months) an increasing  number of candidates appear to  state that  they  will  not  be seeking  to  work  in  contentious areas. They probably  believe by  saying  that, they will  get  an easier 7-day  trip. problem  is, we need candidates who  have the experience and who are prepared to  take on those problem  areas.

Stats show that we fare very  badly  compared with  other Wikis. Every en.Wiki  admin  has to  cope with  far more articles and far more editors than for example the German  Wiki. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In responses to WereSpielChequers's post, I had just been breaking down the raw data based on one random day (31 October 2011) at AIV and have come to find out that the average time to process a report was 21.1 minutes. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that number horrifying. Obviously, one number is insufficient to base anything on, and I'm continuing to compile that information into useful information with a wider sampling of activity, but at least that points to a definite, measurable problem surrounding admin participation. More in another day or so. Trusilver  21:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent idea and one that could contribute to  an article we are considering  for the Signpost. However, while stats are indispensable to  illustrate situation, averages may  not  necessarily  convey the true concerns. While the arithmetic mean is often used to report central tendencies, it is not a robust statistic, meaning that it is greatly influenced by outliers. Notably, for skewed distributions, the arithmetic mean may not accord with one's notion of "middle", and robust statistics such as the median may be a better description of central tendency. Based on  my  list  above, it  would perhaps be more relevant to  demonstrate in linear form, the backlog over time, such  as when America is asleep.  That  may  more accurately  portray  a possible need for more admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Not a lot here that we didn't already know, but it's incredibly vindicating to hear it right from the mouth of a recent RfA candidate. If any of you haven't read it yet, by all means do. "My first ten "Oppose" votes were from editors with a combined 26 blocks." is something I find incredibly telling about our current system's flaws. Trusilver 19:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up TS. I've been using  the expression  'smoke and mirrors' a lot  here when discussing  voters -  what  a coincidence,  and I  see we haven't  hesitated to  block  disruptive participants in  the past.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Upcoming proposal
At User:Moe Epsilon/RFA. I can't understand why he declined to  do  it with  the support of this project, but I sincerely  wish  him  luck  with  this. It's nothing that  we haven't  suggested here already, and it's probably  one of the perens, but  it will  be interesting  to  see the community's response. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Coordination
I know we agreed that  the climate is not  right  yet  to  launch  any  proposals for change, but  since then we've suddenly  had a couple of highly  contentious RfAs that  have embodied all the elements that  have contributed to  turning  the process into  a snake pit. There's been an AN/I about one voter that  ended without  consensus (or was closed before one could be reached), and which  is now continued at  RfC/U. Looking back over much  older RfAs than I  have in  the past, I've noticed that  sanctioning  voters has not  been altogether uncommon. I also  think  that  Steve's RfA whether we have supported or opposed it, is getting  out  of hand and that  at  least  one voter has probably  said more than enough to  support their vote but  won't  let up. I think  we should make some serious moves now to  coordinate the task  force into  some action on  the voting  issues,  and do  something  to  get  some more nominations. I have come up  with  this idea but  I'm  not  going  to  make any  unilateral  decision on  it: We  send a message to  all  the good admins and users we know who  have not  voted for a while but  generally  demonstrated clean, intelligent  voting   whether they support or oppose: ''Hi. I notice you haven't  participated at  RfA  recently. The quality of voting  has deteriorated to  the point  that  potential  candidates no  longer want  to  come forward, and RfA has reached stagnation  point. Please consider keeping a lookout for  nominations at Requests for adminship on  your watchlist and supporting, opposing, or leaving  a neutral  comment   as need be. Thanks.'' We can put  the Signpost article on  hold until  the IEP  issue has blown  over, and the Badger Drink  RfC/U has concluded, and TrueSilver has come up  with  his promised stats. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

current developments
WT:RfA - I wouldn't want to see all our hard work, especially all the gathering of stats, wasted. especially where we're getting  so  close to  a couple of solutions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that  the project  page is now getting it's format changed in  what  I  think  is  not  a particularly  helpful  way. I have reverted the diff. If anyone thinks it should have been kept, feel free to  revert  again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some recent RfAs have again  clearly  demonstrated how  the system has been progressively  broken by  the behaviour of the voters. The most recent  one incurred a mass delrev and oversighting  of over 20 diffs. Whether or not the mission  of this project  is to  find an answer to  the diminishing flow of nominations (the current  spate of RfS doesn't  change the overall trend), something clearly has to be done. According to  a current  discussion  on  the Bureaucrats' noticeboard, there appears to  be some consensus that  it's not  forcibly their role to  intervene. An open RfC/U on the behaviour of one editor  is also  being  side-tracked and mocked in the same way  as many  RfAs. One independent discussion  for reform  is taking  place under a euphemism for unbundling the tools. It is a meritorious attempt to do  something, but  it does not appear to  address any  specific issues,  and may  well  simply  create more bureaucracy,  add more flags to  the maze of user rights., and be seen by  some as a short cut  to  adminship. perhaps we should be looking seriously  at  the possibility  of clerks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Been a touch busy, sorry. The oversighting was due to an editor linking offwiki to problems with a person who has a similar name. I agree that that shouldn't happen, but I don't think we should be looking at that as part of pattern. I don't think that Clerks should be used to do anything new, especially enforce civility. If a 'crat isn't willing to, then this role definitely shouldn't. The role should be based on making sure things go smoothly and run according to procedure, but shouldn't be putting their judgement on civility over and above the rest of the community.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, apologies, I've been a bit busy and haven't been keeping up with talks lately. I'll catch up as best I can, but feel free to point me to anything specific that I've missed. Regarding this, I really don't know what to do. The clerks proposal is currently written as Worm says; it implements nothing new. We could change that, but that very well may sink the entire proposal. Crats don't inherently have any more jurisdiction to "police" comments than administrators do, and I understand why they wouldn't want to take up a controversial role such as that. Recent developments have shown that any administrator who makes an attempt to enforce our fourth pillar will receive far more trouble than it's worth.  Swarm   X 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)