Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals

Comment from Swarm
Note: This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there.

Several good ideas on this page, but the idea I'd most like to see proposed is a set of minimum requirements for RfA candidates. This year, there have been 22 NOTNOW closures, plus multiple SNOW closures due to activity level. In the last year, the successful candidate with the lowest edit count was RHM22, who had about 3,900 edits. This is an exceptionally low edit count, and was the only successful RfA with less than 4,000 edits. While it's good that we can close RfAs early, frankly, it's ridiculous that absolutely anyone can run in the first place. It would save time, effort and stress if there was an edit count level that candidates have to meet before they are allowed to run. It would also filter out trolls.  Swarm  X 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We have a whacking great  big  warning template on  the edit notice of the transclusion  page but  we still  get  clots who  just  don't  read it . Thre solutions that  could be proposed to  the commuynity  right  now. The scripts are easy  to  instal in the site software and Twinkle. Note that  the German  Wikipedia requires: ''One should should demonstrate at least one year of experience as a writer and collaborators in various fields of the project. Candidates with less experience have no chance of being elected to adminship.

Candidates that do not have a significant four-digit number of edits are mostly rejected. The proportions of the edits in different namespaces is often critically examined.'':

Suggestions:


 * 1) A checkbox on that transcslusion page that  reads something  like this:

Before transcluding this page, please be sure to have read all  the instructions and advice pages.
 * [checkbox] I'am aware that my  RfA can and will  be reverted or closed early  if it  is obvious that  it will  not succeed.

If the user does not check  the box  but  tries to  save the page,  a simple script that  will  load a notice declining the transclusion: "Sorry, but  as you have not  read up on  all  that  is required to  become an administrator, it  will  not be possible to  process your request  this time."

Enter these details: 1. Total number of edits to date: [field 1] 2. Total number of recent  consecutive months editing: [field 2]
 * 1) 2 Short questionnaire

if the software detects less than 4,000 for field 1, and/or less  than 6 in  field 2, a simple script   will  load a notice declining the transclusion:

''"Please note that candidates with  less than 4,000 edits and/or 6 months continuous editing are most  unlikely  to  succeed. If you  wish  to continue please click here,  but  be aware that  your application  is unlikely  to  succeed." '' if the software detects less than 2,000 for field 1, and less  than 3 in  field 2, a simple script   will  load a notice declining the transclusion:

"Sorry, but you  do  not  appear to  have sufficient experience to  become an administrator at  this time.  Please read the pages at  xxx and xxx, and xxx, and discuss your request with  an administrator before applying  again."


 * 1) 3 We simply set the bar as low as possible (e.g. 2,000/3) to ensure that  the certain  time wasters don't  waste our time,  install a Twinkle script  that deletes the RfA proposal or the RfA if  it  has already  been transcluded, and leaves a message on  the applicant's talk  page:
 * "Thank you for applying  to  be a Wikipedia administrator. You  do  not  appear to  have sufficient  experience at  this time, and your  application  has been declined. nevertheless, you  may  wish  to  read  xxxx and xxxx and xxx, and try  again  when you  feel  you  meet the recommended minimum  criteria. In  the meantime you  may  wish  to  help  out at  Recent Changes Patrol and  New Page Patrol, and taking  part  in  more AfD, RfA, SPI, and AN/I, which  will  certainly  help  increase your experience of admin  tasks significantly. Good luck,  and happy  editing!"

Basically, we've discussed setting  a bar before, but  every  time we have,  people have assumed us to  mean either raising  it  or loweriing  it. This is not the case here. What we are doing  here is making both  the time wasters not  waste their or our time, and encouraging  others who  may  not  be time wasters, but  have little chance of passing, to  take more advice and get  more experience - such  as those who  would pass in  another six months or so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll just  add that  a lot  of people here probably  are not  aware of the number of RfAs that  don't  make it  to  tranclusion, and I  don't  see a way  of tracking  those deleted or reverted applications for the stats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates. Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

don't let newbies transclude
have software stop it or have buros authorize transcludes. TCO (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. My76Strat talk  01:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * See next thread. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Also set the bar high
I will take any bar. That said, I recommend setting it high. Even if there are SOME editors who will do a great job with 3900 edits, it is just more efficient to set it at 10,000. Don't WORRY about excluding a small number of good candidates. Unis and companies routinely filter candidates. You can't obsess on the one that got by. Think about an efficient process. And if they really love the encyclopedia, they will keep editing, regardless of the "moderator hat". TCO (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We also have stats for that  too -  of the ones who left  Wikipedia in  disgust  of the way  they  were treated at  RfA. Whether the candidates  pass or not, there is a clear need to  filter out  the drama mongers and and incivility  from  the voting  process.. They  might  not  all  be posting comments here, but  some people are working  constantly  on  stats in  the background. Please consider !voting  on  the proposals when they  are ready  for RfC. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Companies that are paying people need to be picky and sometimes to be arbitrary. Admins are not paid and we have no shortage of mops, so providing we screen out a few unsuitable candidates the more admins we appoint the better. That said a low threshold for self noms would screen out some people who the community won't take seriously as candidates. But it needs to be an automated thing in terms of permissions i.e. Only editors with >1500 edit can transclude to this page, not a snarky excuse to delete RFAs without consideration. we also need the safety valve of allowing other editors to nominate candidates and make a case for an exception.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I really doubt anyone is going to quit because a mechanism stopped them from transcluding. A regulation.  It's more being part of the process and losing that makes them sad.  I would seriously consider to put the bar reasonably high.  Let special cases (if really needed and we don't) be dealt with by crats going around the system.  Set it high.  You want to eliminate the waste of time train wrecks.  Set it at 5000.  Or even 10,000.  1500 is insane and does nothing for us.  Might as well  have no bar then.TCO (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As I have said in several  places before, the actual bar  'floats'. It  depends on  who  turns out  to  !vote and what  their individual criteria are. There is only  a very  small  core of regular !voter that  have their own  set criteria. AFAIK, there have never been any  serious discussions on  this project to  raise or lower that  bar. There have, however, been suggestions  to  introduce a low threshold that  is just  enough to  screen out some people who the community won't take seriously as candidates, as WSC says. The French, German, and Italian Wikis have such  a threshold. Here at en.Wiki  It's very  rare to  see anyone passing  with  less than around 3,000 edits these days, and Snottywong's table shows a median of more around 11,000. Only  yesterday  we had a candidate trying  to  transclude with  only  36 edits. It  won't show up  in  any  stats because it  was nipped quickly  in  the bud. What  I  suggest  would be a threshold of 1,500 edits/3 months, and this is still  lower than that  practiced by the other countries. The only  exception  I  can think  of would be the rare times a new bot would need admin  access for some reason  or another. It  would not  be difficult for the devs to  write a software block for editors who  try  to  transclude under the bar, and load a templated message such  as, for example:
 * Of course, there is always the psychological danger that  once such  a threshold is known, there may  be a stampede of candidates who  meet it. That's just  the collateral  damage we would have to take int  consideration. It  always amazes me that  they  don't take any  notice of this in-your-face message when they  try  to  transclude:
 * Of course, there is always the psychological danger that  once such  a threshold is known, there may  be a stampede of candidates who  meet it. That's just  the collateral  damage we would have to take int  consideration. It  always amazes me that  they  don't take any  notice of this in-your-face message when they  try  to  transclude:

 



Wait, ! Please read Administrators and the Guide to requests for adminship before you nominate yourself. Adminship is not for new or inexperienced users. You need to  have made several  thousand edits to articles and housekeeping tasks. You also need a good knowledge of deletion, copyright, and other policies, and to show that you can exercise  sound judgment  in  awkward  situations.

Applications from editors without considerable experience are often quickly declined as premature. If you are not  sure that  you  qualify, please ask  an admin or an established user for advice. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the rush from people who just meet the quota - by the time people have 1500 edits they usually have an idea as to their chances of passing. As for TCO's suggestion. 5,000 is higher than some candidates who have recently passed, so setting it at that level would mean delaying some people from adminship. Turning down good candidates is a bad idea, and any proposal to change the system to exclude a group of candidates who currently get consensus support is logically doomed to fail. Remember that while there is an argument that you don't want so many active crats that a crat chat becomes dysfunctional, there is no equivalent way in which one could ever have too many admins.  1500 and 2000 are both figures that I and others have proposed before and got majority support though not consensus, they are of course only partial solutions to the problem - but partial solutions can be useful incremental improvements. I'm pretty sure that only one candidate has got through in the last three years with less than 2,000 edits, and he could have got a nomination if he'd asked for it. So the advantage of a 1500 or even a 2000 threshold is that it would delay a group of candidates who can currently get badly bitten by the system, whilst having a healthy safety margin to avoid excluding serious candidates. My understanding of the pattern is that by the time an editor has 1500 edits they usually know enough not to run until they have a chance of getting through, so a 1500 bar if gently applied would improve our treatment of a bunch of newbies whilst not losing any potential admins.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that really the message we currently put for transclusion? I thought we limited that stop sign for badfaith final warnings before we block people.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ooooh, I hated the "STOP" sign! Don;t we have a "WAIT!" sign instead? The stop seems horribly ... errmmm .... 'heavy-handed', or some such phrase.  I can;t think of the right phrase, but I guess the rest of you guys will know what I meant, anyway :o)  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't mess around with 1500. I really DO worry then that you get a lot of 2000 edit noms and you do more damage than help with an unrealistic threshold.  Make it 5000.  We only had a tiny fraction of people (one?) below that in the first year, and he would have qualified in a few months.  10000 is too high, if 11000 is the median. The warning is a waste of time, Kud.  Make a real change, not something so flimsy as another exhortation.  The minimum requirements is easy.  If you guys can't nail that, then I have zero hope that you are going to do anything harder in terms of reform.TCO (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * WSC: Yes it is, but  I didn't  put it  there! What  we really  need is something  more attractive but  that  really  hammers the message home. I'm  thinking on  the lines of Fetchcomms' excellent modern page designs at  the MedaiWiki outreach  project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate the editcountitis implied by editcount based thresholds, but too few of the electorate will seriously consider a candidate with less than 2,000 edits. I suspect that most candidates with 3,000 would struggle; Though of course if they had an FA and relevant experience on other projects it would be a different matter. The trick is to set the threshold high enough to make a useful difference, low enough that it won't delay good candidates, and to have a safety valve for exceptions..  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the problems with RFA these days have a lot to do with the fact that there doesn't seem to be any 'minimum requirement' per se. Therefore, inexperienced editors seem to have the impression that it doesn't take much to become an administrator when this, in fact, is not the case. Establishing a minimum edit count threshold is a necessary measure to prevent candidates from pursuing RFA too soon. Tyrol5  [Talk]  01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should get  a local consensus here for one of the solutions I  have proposed above in  'Comment from Swarm', and the template above, with  it's software block, and then draft  a proposal we can agree on  for posting  at RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Minimum requirement suggestions
Well, if we're looking for local consensus on what the bar should be - I'd suggest looking at the summary of candidate findings. Essays seem to agree that you should have 2000 edits and 6 months tenure minimum, so that seems like the right sort of place to put a software bar. Especially since we've only had one candidate since the beginning of 2009 who has had less than 2000 edits (a special case, who could have got a nomination I'm certain). That would take out the NOTNOWs, and by the time they have 2000 edits, they should be savvy enough to know whether they should transclude. NB since 2009, removing MGA73, there were 0 successful candidates with 0-3000 edits, but 20 with 3000-5000 - so we should really pitch the bar below 3000. WormTT &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with anything on the lines of 1,500/3 months, 1,500/6 months, or 3,000/6 months. I don't think we need 12 months like the German do (they have their own cultural reasons for the things the do). Let's not forget that the bar we are suggesting is not a qualification for adminship, it's more a fence to jump over to get to the door of the interview room. It prevents those who think Wikipedia is a club, a blog, or a web forum, and those not tall enough, from getting anywhere near the building: "Come back when you've growm a few more inches and then we can start to talk about it." --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I'd prefer to set the bar lower for that reason. However, since no one has passed with less than 3000 (nor with less than 8 months) in the past 2.5 years, and we already have a "Journeyman editor service award" - 2000/6m - I thought that'd be a good place to put it ;) WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent - and I like the Journeyman bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Journeyman level seems like a good place to start, unless someone has a heap of edits-and-good-standing globally but not necessarily in -en.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 11:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly, and if we have a software check (is this even possible? - I know we use it for elections, but they're not actually held on WP), IAR situations can be transcluded by any user over the Journeyman level. We could even have a category of "Users who are willing to consider RfA Nomination requests". In fact, why the hell don't we have that already? WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)




 * I've suggested in this discussion that we require a qualified nominator only for candidates that haven't reached Journeyman editor yet (or whatever criteria we agree upon; personally I like the Journeyman requirement). Tyrol5  [Talk]  15:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If we get a consensus for the suggestions I  extrapolated above, there won't  be a need for a nominator for those who  have not  reached Journeyman -  we would only  be excluding  the candidates who  clearly are not ready  for RfA. If in  spite of that  they  still  think  they  should be considered, they  can ask  an admin  for an opinion. There is in  fact  no  real  reason  why our bar should  be any  lower than those practiced by, say, the German Wiki (One year  and significant four-figure edits). More important background to all this at  WT:RFA2011/CANDIDATES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Qualifications for voters
After reading through this proposal, I believe the community will immediately reject it. !Voters should not have to be qualified to !vote at an RfA, much like users who have discussions to try to get a consensus do not have to be qualified. We have to keep in mind that a request for adminship is aimed at getting a consensus from the community on whether a candidate should receive the tools or not. This isn't an election per se, but more of a discussion. If we limit who can participate, the number of !voters will surely decay over time due to lack of interest in "registering" to speak one's mind. Eagles  24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 17:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the bar can be minimal- it could be one month and 50 edits. It doesn't have to mean making an "RfA voter" group.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 19:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's too much to ask; we require that participants in other community processes as well (i.e. ArbCom elections). It makes sense to have an experience threshold for RFA participants, albeit an easily attainable one. <font color="#960018">Tyrol5 <font color="#960018"> <font color="#960018">[Talk]  20:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we were going to go with a new "RfA voter" group, it could simply be automatically added to a user's account after they've been autoconfirmed. That way, we could stop most of the vandals while still allowing input from almost everyone. Having the new group also means that someone who has been abusing the process can be blocked from voting for a finite period of time without going to the extreme length of hitting them with the banhammer. &mdash; Oli OR Pyfan! 02:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's reasonable, but I think autoconfirmation is still too easily attainable.  <font face="Old English Text MT">Swarm  <font face="old english text mt">X 02:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that the "RfA voter" group should be designed to stop people creating an account solely to ruin the chances of a specific candidate - anything else could be gamed. The number of edits I'm not worried about (though there should be some) but I think the time period should be 1 week. <font color="#000">WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 06:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't  think  the community  will  reject it. We  are forgetting  again  that  this bar is not  a qualification -  it's not for  preventing  suitably  mature and experienced candidates from  voting. Lack  of maturity, experience,  and civility, have been demonstrated enough for it  to  be of concern. Some other Wikis have  qualifications for voters. Autoconfirmed should be enough, with  a topic  ban for anyone who  abuses the system three times for incivility, creating  drama, unreflected voting, and posing  silly  questions. The fact  that  such  rules would exist would be a deterrent and once they  exist, they  would probably  not  be broken. There is  more important  background  at  WT:RFA2011/VOTING. I  was once plumply  told by  an admin to  publish  a list  of the names of such  editors, but  I  refused out  of decency,  only  to  be told by  the same admin  that  by  not  naming  them, I  was acting  like a child in  an elementary  school  playground - one wonders how mature some of our existing  admins really  are -  one only  has to  examine  a year's worth  of RfAs to  know who  the drama queens and kings are. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We currently have an unwritten rule for this, replacing it with a written rule isn't about extra bureaucracy it is about openness. Socks created purely for a particular RFA are rarely if ever worth listening to, but I don't think we get much participation from editors who have a few hundred edits, and I fear they are the group who can spot that there is an unwritten rule, but are unsure if they qualify. So provided it is kept low I'm happy to support a qualification for voting, to keep things simple we should use an existing threshold. I think that "All wp:Autoconfirmed editors are welcome to !vote in RFAs and RFBs, but please read the guide for voters first." would be a good way to go. The only worry is that once you formalise a criteria you risk having standards inflation and at some point you'll need as many edits and as much tenure to vote in an RFA as you originally needed to pass one - but as we've seen with RFA, unwritten standards are more prone to inflation than written ones.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See:Comparison of voting on RfA other Wikipedias. It's been suggested that we take one of the lower service awards such  as for example  Novice Editor) (200/1m) or  Apprentice Editor (1,000/3m) as a qualification  for voting.  Other Wikis have a software check  to  see if voters have attained the requirement -  no  'right'  needs to  be specially  accorded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Encourage oldtimers to !vote
I have long held out the theory that grizzled old timers who've been here since, say, 2008 or earlier, are good to have at RfA. They are less likely to suffer from editcountitis and more likely to focus on what makes a good admin than being swayed by weak arguments in the oppose section. Maybe I'm completely wrong, but I think that encouraging long-standing users to !vote at RfA would help more RfAs pass. And if more pass, more reluctant editors will step forward. It doesn't, of course, address the main problem, which is declining numbers of editors, but hey, at my best I'm good, not brilliant. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only around 2% of our active admins even  come back  to  support the RfAs with  a vote of some kind, and even some of them  don't  always vote in  an  intelligent fashion, so  we"re open  to  all  sorts of suggestions as to  how we can enlarge the pool  of reasonable participants. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention admins, but all old-timers. I think they could be encouraged with some carefully considered messaging on their talk pages, supported by the Signpost. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedias with far fewer registersed users than en.Wiki have a similar turnout  of voters at  thneir RfAs. Each  RfA is published at  their Village Pump or some such  venue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of me really likes this idea and part of me is somewhat skeptical. Will the old timers really be more reasonable !voters? What makes you think that? <font face="helterskelter">Swarm  18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are less likely to suffer from editcountitis and more likely to focus on what makes a good admin than being swayed by weak arguments in the oppose section. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's a fairly simple thing to try, isn't it? --Dweller (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A huge number of 'old timers' are stolid content  workers and are probably  not  interested in  any  Wikipedia meta subjects.  The irony  is that  many  of them  are just  the right  kind of people to  be admins. Edit  counts are always a contentious issue - for example,  my  edit  count has dropped dramatically  over the last  6 months, but  the time I  spend on  Wikipedia doing  research and participating  in other WikiMedia areas has in  fact  increased significantly. However, edit counts are not  always a true demonstration  of dedication -  or maturity  and responsibility  either. It  can be assumed that  anyone with  upwards of 6,000 edits might  have sufficient  clue for admin  tasks, but  is a poor criterion of character. Edit count  is unfortunately  one of the few  metrics available. I'm  not  convinced that  all  voters actually  look very  hard  at  the quality  of a candidate's edits or know how to  interpret the pie chart. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit notice
I suggested this on the Wikipedia talk:RfA reform (continued) but nobody really responded there (I think it got buried in the other conversations). On the topic of the civility problem, perhaps it would be helpful to modify the edit notice that people see when they're voting on an RfA. You could add material about the length of comments, badgering, civility, etc. Here's an example of how it might be tweaked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)