Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

Comments
Now I need to figure out how to rub the other top 20 the wrong way! Only kidding of course. This is interesting and offers a nice level of transparency. Oddly enough, I had fun seeing the ratio of where my name was to others (I have a whopping 5) through the various sorts. Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

An interesting list. I originally thought that my count might have been distorted by my username change. However, a comparison of this and changes at User:CT Cooper/Requests for adminship over the last twelve months show this not to be the case. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I manually found and adjusted any users who had username changes over the last year, so hopefully your stats are correct. &mdash;SW&mdash; converse 16:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
We are grateful to User:Snottywong for the preparation of this data. For this and other similar work he has been doing for us in the background, and on other projects, I have awarded him a barnstar. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Good work, SW! 28bytes (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded, well done SW. WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fourthed. Thanks SW!  Swarm   X 06:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup - well done SW :o) Pesky  ( talk ) 08:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Worm's Analysis
(More editors' analyses further down)

Right. I've done a little snooping at the numbers - and here's some things I've found.
 * 578 (38.6%) editors only !voted once.
 * 1015 (67.8%) editors !voted less than 5 times.
 * 1318 (88%) editors !voted less than 20 times.
 * 842 (56.2%) editors have never opposed. (Including NewYorkBrad with 72 supports!)
 * 474 of these !voters had !voted once
 * Only 97 of these have !voted more than 5 times.
 * 133 (8.8%) editors have never supported
 * None had more than 9 !votes
 * A further 65 (4.3%) !voters voted oppose more than support.

Which tells me that the majority of people do support. But of course, that's no suprise - a WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW close will receive 8-9 opposes, whilst a "snow" support will garner well over 100 supports. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder what this would look like if you screened out all the supports for candidates who got over 85% and all the opposes for candidates with less than 50%. I suspect that many !voters would drop off the list. Taking NYB for example, he may only !vote support, but I've never known him Support any NotNow candidates.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * When I did a similar analysis about 2 years ago, I eliminated anybody who had fewer than 5 !votes figuring that they were voting for/against specific individuals, not as an ongoing activity.--- Balloonman  Poppa Balloon 22:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Size
Interesting work, though there is something about the size that made my PC hang several times before letting me see it. Perhaps replacing the admin columns yes/No with Y/N and the date of first edit with yyyy/mm would trim this a fair bit. also looking through the !voters who have very few edits I see a number of alternate accounts. I appreciate that it would be fiddly to do, but merging those into their main accounts would make the table shorter and more accurate of the !voters. also if you are going to list editors like this it is probably best to respect the opt out requests at List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Anonymous, and replace the usernames of those editors with  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've found that large tables like this usually cause problems if you try to access them using the secure server. Not sure why.  They pop right up on the regular server.  I tried to manually merge most duplicate users or users with changed usernames, and it was a time consuming process.  I may have missed some editors, but most of the ones that remain are probably blocked socks who voted in 1 or 2 RfA's.  Also, if any users don't want to be identified on this list, they are free to remove themselves (as one has already done).  I don't think there's any reason to jump through hoops to preserve the "anonymity" of various users' edit counts, especially when that information is already publicly available to anyone.  If anyone would like to manually go through the list and replace those users with, you are more than welcome.  I don't think I'll have the time to do that.  &mdash;SW&mdash; chatter 16:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Design
This approach doesn't differentiate between a very supportive editor who !votes for lots of snow candidates and only opposes those who make really egregious errors in their RFA, but never bothers to !vote in RFAs that are going to succeed anyway; and an editor who never bothers with RFAs that have less than 70% support but who has arbitrary criteria for edits or tenure that lead them to oppose many admins who comfortably pass. Both RFA !voters could have the same proportion of supports and opposes in their !voting record despite having radically different !voting behaviour.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I can see what you mean. I am listed as never opposing, which while technically true in the last twelve months, is because I usually don't bother with RfAs that are going down the tubes already, of which I would probably vote oppose. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously we can't  count the votes that  were not made. However, I don't  vote on  every  RfA either. If I  did I  would approach a score like Boing's. There's no strict pattern to  the way  I  vote. I  sometimes skip an RfA that's  obviously  going  to  pass, and ones that  are obviously  going  to  fail. I  might  cast an early  'oppose' on  a NOTNOW to  usher in  an early  close in  the hope of saving  the candidate some pain (though  I  think the SNOWs are a lot thicker skinned than more established editors.) My  purpose in voting is more for reasons of being among the more experienced regular voters - kinda supporting the system however broken it is, rather than for the individual candidates.


 * I fully expected the overall number of admins who vote to  be low, so  I  was wrong on  my  private prognosis. However, on  an individual RfA basis, the admin  participation  could fluctuate greatly. The number of votes from new and/or low edit count  voters gave me a bigger knee jerk than I  expected. It  would be interesting  to  investigate the voters who  stick out in  the stats - how loaded are theier talk  pages with  warnings, blocks, and redlinked creations/uploaded images, etc.; how many  are 'fan' votes, and how many  are 'hate' votes. How many  of the votes were accompanied with  less serious/relevant  comments. How many  of them are drama mongers? The burning  question is: Those of us who might think there should be a qualification  for voting, are we right? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpungs stats
''These are just numbers. No percentges.''


 * 578 voted one time only
 * 1,015 voted 1 - 5 times
 * 169 voted 6 - 10 times
 * 259 voted 11 - 49 times
 * 54 voted 50+ times


 * 50 voters had 100 or less edits
 * One voter with less than 20 edits voted 19 times
 * 166 voters had less than 500 edits
 * 1157 voters had less than 1,000 edits


 * Of the 54 who voted 50+ times,
 * 20 were admins
 * 16 voters had less than 10,000 edits
 * 2 voters had less than 5,000 edits


 * 465 sysops voted, although some may not already have been sysops for many of their votes (e.g. esp. Boing said Zebedee & Kudpung)


 * 45 voters had over 100,000 edits
 * 33 were admins
 * 16 voted 10+ times
 * 22 voted 5 times or less
 * 11 voted 1 one time only
 * 8 one time only voters were syops

Of the 33 100,000+ edit admins
 * 8 voted one time only
 * 7 voted 20+ times
 * 4 voted 40+ times


 * 109 voters had 51,000 - 99,999 edits
 * 72 were admins
 * 16 voted 10+ times
 * 22 voted 5 times or less
 * 11 voted 1 one time only

8 one time only voters were syops

Of the 72 51,000 - 99,999 edit admins
 * 8 voted one time only
 * 7 voted 20+ times
 * 4 voted 40+ times

Registration

 * 335 voters registered before 1 January 2006
 * 335 voters registered in 2006
 * 239 voters registered in 2007
 * 210 voters registered in 2008
 * 175 voters registered in 2009
 * 175 voters registered in 2010
 * 22 voters registered in 2011


 * Of the 22 who had registered in  2011, 8 had less than 10  edits.
 * Of the 175 who had registered in  2010, 26 had less than 100  edits.
 * Of the 175 who had registered in  2010, 51 had less than 500  edits.
 * Of the 175 who had registered in  2009, 22 had less than 1,000  edits.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts
I hadn't spotted that approx 1/10 of voters have less than 500 edits, but approx 2/3 have less than 1000. Also about 80% have been here over 2 years. WormTT  &middot; &#32;(talk) 15:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a real thought-provoker, that one isl the number of edits thing. Surprising. I find myself wondering why that would be.  Pesky  ( talk ) 08:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea!
(Thread copied from Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011)

I particularly like the idea of minimum qualifications to apply and then qualifications to vote, also. I like it being a right like reviewers and rollbackers. Many other excellent ideas, but those two really jumped out at me. Have a really neutral, clearly defined threshold, and then an evaluation by people who have been proven not to be trolls. Montanabw (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it could work if it's given out similarly to reviewer: given to virtually everyone who wants it, but it still provides that filter. You know the community, though: always fearful of new user rights.  Swarm   X 05:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad there is some support for this. However, I am also very  conscious of the fact that  it  conflicts with most  people's perceptions of democracy. 99.9% of any  country's electorate does not  need a degree in  political science to  vote for the party MP or representative of their choice. Ironically, Wikipedia is not  a democracy... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, in many democracies you still have to register if you want to vote...  Swarm   X 09:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And if you're serving time for a felony, you can't vote! In fact, in some states, even for misdemeanors.  And in some other states, with a felony conviction, you can lose your voting rights for life!  =:-O  And besides, a lot of voting, like for cabinet appointments, is indirect, via, for example, the US Senate... (lol)  Montanabw (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Observations
By my count there are 198 editors who oppose more often than they support. Excluding those who voted fewer than three times in the period sampled, there are 76. Of those 76, 16 are admins, including one arb and one 'crat. 115 voters offered zero support votes in the time period sampled. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Are RfA standards too low?
Judging by the voting patterns of the "top 25 opposers", at least some of our experienced editors and admins think so. Shall we solicit their opinions on how to better ensure candidates can meet their high standards before showing up at RfA? Perhaps we can turn the perceived negative of the "serial RfA opposer" into a positive by clearly laying out for potential candidates what the most demanding RfA participants want and expect from candidates. 28bytes (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we need to  take into  account their editing  experience. Length of membership in lieu of edits is a controversial area. My  voting  behaviour and the comments I  make around the board will show that I do not consider that pure length of usership  with  a low edit count does not count as experience. For example, I've been around for 5+ years, but I was a total Wiki  Dummy  until around 2 years ago - since when I probably made 95% of my edits. When we've finished looking  at  the table, we need to  start  looking  at  what's behind it. How many  of them  have published their criteria? The best measure IMO of standards is to  take a mean of the standards published by editors who  vote a lot and/or regularly. But standards is another discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because someone frequently opposes doesn't mean they think that standards are too low. After all many of these opposes will have been to candidates that did not succeed. Also RFA is far too complex to reduce all candidates to one consistent scale. I have opposed candidates who have passed and supported ones that failed, generally I have higher standards re candidates understanding of deletion policy than many if not most !voters, but I'm more relaxed about tenure and editcount than a lot of RFA participants. I suspect that a comparison of oppose reasons and RFA criteria would be interesting. As for long tenure, it is a very effective screen against the return of Pastor Theo et al. Five years of little or no editing followed by a few months of being busy is very hard for a sockpuppet to plan.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As the editor with the dubious privilege of having opposed candidates the most, I took a look at my track record when it comes to RfA. If you're interested, a list of all the RfAs I've opposed is here. You'll see that I've opposed 22 WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW candidacies and 13 candidates who chose to withdraw in advance. Of the 20 remaining RfAs I !voted in, 9 failed and 11 succeeded. In the successful ones, I opposed due to concerns regarding csd tagging (2), lack of experience in admin-related areas (4), regarding an unreassuring understanding of WP:BLP (1), concerns regarding activity and temperament (1) and wrong answer to a question (3, in 1 case regarding csd tagging). In the unsuccessful ones, I opposed tue to perceived block-happiness (1), lack of experience in admin-related areas (3, in 1 case also due to unsatisfactory answers), concerns regarding temperament (3, in 1 case also due to the candidate's block log), concerns regarding AfD closures (1) and concerns regarding csd tagging (1). All in all, I don't think RfA standards are too low; in general, to support, I'd like a candidate to be good-tempered, experienced in admin-related areas and well-versed in the deletion policy. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 01:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Salvio, that's some useful context. (I should put together a list like that myself.) The main thing I found interesting about the "top 25" was that there was no overlap between that list and the "signatories" here, which suggested we might not be having as broad of a set of perspectives about the RfA process as we could, so I'm glad you offered your input here. 28bytes (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The rubric for signing up says "Joining here assumes you are already firmly in favour of reform, and can invest time to regularly take part in its development.", which might filter out some perspectives. - Pointillist (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI, this isn't actually a list of the "top 25 opposers" in the sense of "who has cast the most oppose !votes". The criterion for selection seems to be the difference between the number of support and oppose !votes cast by an editor. I've added an O rank column that shows how each editor ranks in the original table sorted by total number of opposes. By this measure, the list shows only seven of the "top 25 opposers". - Pointillist (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

More....?
I like it, SW, is there any way your bot can see about who/how many users are asking questions at RFA? I think that would be another piece of useful information. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 18:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You read my  mind (again) Tofu. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two great mind think alike, ay ;) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 19:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also... would it be possible to see how often people vote in comparison to the result? So editors who regularly support failed candidates or oppose ones that succeed. Perhaps also how people vote in NOTNOWs and SNOWs.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been a bit short on free time lately, but I'll see what I can do. &mdash;SW&mdash; yak 14:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a table on the users who pose the questions in a higher priority. The voter stats table IMO should now be used as a tool for researching how individual voters performed on RfA and what their general maturity and civility levels are like in other areas. What we are looking at are relatively new users, users with low edit counts ho vote a lot, and to question why some users with huge edit counts only rarely vote. Why does it appear that new, inexpereinced users always go straight to NPP and RfA as their prime involvement on Wikipedia? Can we help them to better understand what Wikipedia is all about, and what it is not? Can we write to each of them? Can we include more advice to voters  without instruction creep? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is one that has really got me wondering, too. Why get into this side of WP if not-so-much interest in editing.  No, I;m not saying that a voter should have x-thousand edits, but new accounts with little editing history suddenly turning up to vote seems ...... odd.  Now I'm (sometimes) a suspicious sort of soul, and I find myself thinking along lines of 'power attracts the corruptible', and 'are they really new?'   Pesky  ( talk ) 08:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Question profiles for stats on questions asked at RfA. &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 00:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Moved to: RfA reform 2011/Question profiles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the table. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 02:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Threads copied from main page
(Please continue these discussions here)

Voting qualification
Provided it was set low, clear and automatic I would be OK with a qualification for !voting. I remember when I first checked out RFA I couldn't work out what the unwritten criteria was for voting and I left the page for months. I think I'd been editing over 12 months before I first !voted in an RFA, so a low threshold such as 200 edits would actually make it clearer more open and less cliquey.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do quite like the suggestions from Kudpung actually, basically "2m good standing". The only problem is that it makes blocks punative...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's interesting, WereSpielChequers, because my 1st !vote was "Support (Feel free to remove if non-admins are not allowed to vote in RFAs)." That caused this response on my talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with PhantomSteve - this is a community decision not an admin one. I think a potential solution would be to make it an indirect community decision by electing a committee to appoint admins, but that masks the real issue which is that we haven't agreed the criteria that admins should be judged against. If we set the criteria then I believe a whole bunch of editors will look at it see if they meet it and come forward. We'd have to set a criteria if we elected a committee - either explicitly or implicitly by the views of those elected. So why not set a criteria and then judge candidates against it?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like clearly defined goalposts. It's so much easier to hit a target when you're not blindfolded in advance.  And having a clear standard to be judged against would rule out a lot of 'personality clash' votes or 'xe's my friend' votes.  Pesky  ( talk ) 19:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

What we would need are some stats on  voter profiles, perhaps in  a sortable table like we've done for the NPPer profiles. It would go something  like this: This may help  to  establish a 'right  to  vote'. There's not much  point  in  speculating  what  that  threshold would be yet. We need those stats and then discuss it  further.
 * Number of voters on RfA over the past  12 months
 * Date of each voter's first  edit
 * Number of edits of each voter
 * Number of times the voter voted
 * Number of times the voter voted 'support'
 * Number of times the voter voted 'oppose'
 * Number of times the voter voted 'neutral'

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

Minimum qualifications
My feeling is that autoconfirmed status needs to be the bare minimum qualification to vote or ask questions on an RfA. This was imposed on mine when I noticed and reported some suspicious activity in the support !votes, which turned out to be sock puppetry. I don't know what the motive was, but it strikes me that, at the very least, setting a minimum qualification would stop this.

I'd like it to be higher, as I don't really see how someone who has been on wikipedia for, say, a month or two can critically evaluate a prospective admin. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  18:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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


 * I know it's better to  decide the rules before needing them,  and I  know it  is one of my  suggestions, but  I'm  also aware that  we want  to  avoid instruction  creep - that's why  it's all  only  at  the idea stage. There's also  the possiblity  that  it  might  encourage canvassing. There was a time, a long  time ago by  Wikipedia standards, when such low turnout  RfA  would pass, but  times have changed, and 100 votes of all  kind are common place. Even 100+ support votes are no  longer as extraordinary  as they  once were. It's certainly worth  more discussion. --Kudpung (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the ideas I considered is to transclude the RfA to the main RfA page but don't set the 7 day timer until a minimum number sign up. There are nuances to this type of approach which can be further defined. My76Strat (talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts
My thoughts.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not approve of RfAs being votes, as I feel this is contrary to the fact that Wikipedia isn't a democracy.
 * I do not approve of banning self-nominations as some potential admins may receive little attention.
 * I approve of lowering the approval rate if voting is kept, and if voting is abolished, then the bureaucrat will decide.
 * If a user feels that his/her RfA was closed unfairly, he/she should be able to appeal to another bureaucrat or (in some cases) a steward.
 * I do not approve of applications "right to vote". While Wikipedia does not have complete freedom of speech, I feel that this should instead by relegated to all autoconfirmed users instead of requiring application, as then the applications would be an unnecessary load on bureaucrats and current admins.
 * I do not approve of a 250-word limit which would be extremely difficult to enforce (both technically and practically) and would be a limit on potential useful feeback.
 * I definitely approve of banning off-topic comments and comments based on illegitimate reasons like hatred of the user.
 * Requiring both support and oppose votes from a user is very ambiguous, and I feel that it is unnecessary.
 * Definitely ban non-autoconfirmed users.
 * If voting is kept, I propose the following:
 * Of course, this would not be so clear cut and the content of the comments should determine the actual # of units.
 * The # of support votes should be a minimum of 15, not 30. 30 is a little too much.
 * No limits on questions, but Bureaucrats can discount obviously insignificant questions.
 * To be clear, you're advocating that longer rationales should be weighted more heavily? Useight (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So those who can express themselves concisely and clearly would have less say than people afflicted with verbal diarrhea? Hmmm -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My76Strat would certainly like this idea. :P Not so sure how it would benefit the rest of us.  Swarm   X 04:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eeeek! Those who waffle best / shout longest are more important? Pesky  ( talk ) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop the trolling. Did I not say that these are subject to what the comment actually contains?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is going to go nowhere fast if we can't refrain form accusing each other of trolling every time there is a criticism. I don't think you quite understand what trolling is if you think those comments are examples of it. Please, everyone let's try to keep this civilized and not let it become another snake pit like the one we are endeavoring to fix. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I used the term because of "My76Strat would certainly like this idea. :P", but maybe it's wrong. I think most did not read that the weighting is subject to the comment's content.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still missing where you specified that, link? Useight (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right below the table.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, there it is. I was reading above the table. Thanks. Useight (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It was just a joke about Strat's well known OTT wordiness. Sorry if it somehow offended you but I think "trolling" is a little exaggerated.  Swarm   X 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not see how I am considered a TROLL. It is a scarlet letter which I resent. If I put an effort forth, it initiates from good intentions. I hope to participate in this task force, and it would be helpful if people who believe I am negative, would give me a second chance, or AGF or whatever might allow me to function as a colleague. Please. My76Strat (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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


 * I'm not sure whether this goes far enough. To my mind, we should require !voters to have at least some familiarity with Wikipedia. How can we reasonably expect someone with a week's experience of Wikipedia to be able to judge whether someone would make a good admin?


 * I don't think equality is an issue here. We already have different levels of permission given for different purposes. I'd like to see !voting reserved for those with Reviewer rights (easy to get) and above. This would cut out at least some of the junk !votes I've seen, and at a guess, most !voters are of that level already. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting conditions
I'm generally in support of the spirit of that whole bit - but would just caution against making it look too much like we're trying to make Support voting easier than Oppose voting.
 * In reality, I'm against the idea of RfA being a vote when so many other things like XfD aren't. Wikipedia is not a democracy. An Oppose vote would also be easier.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Difficult one, I  admit. I  think  the RfA  process is in  fact very  much  a discussion, and that  the commented !votes are numbered and put into  sections for ease of parsing the results of over a hundred participants. I think  this is very  effective, and as we see often enough, it  can help participants change their minds, which  they  often do. The main  concerns are the maturity  and civility  with  which  the commenting/!voting takes place. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

End Weak and Strong
Kudpung is suggesting ending the use of Weak and Strong and giving the !voters just three choices, Support, Neutral and Oppose. Me I'm not sure what the point is of posting in neutral and rarely do so, nor do I think Strong is helpful (and if it did mean anything it would be open to abuse), I'd rather use the electrons to give an extra reason to support or oppose a candidate. But I do think that weak is useful, life is complex and Virtual Life even more so, I feel that three choices is insufficient to cover the range of candidates that I come across at RFA. I appreciate that prefixing my vote at RFA with weak is an invitation to the closing crat to give it less weight then normal, but some candidates I support or Oppose less strongly than others. Also I don't see any benefit to RFA in getting rid of this, and some disbenefit.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong is certainly not helpful. As has been mentioned it is often added to arguments that are in fact quite weak or at the least no better than any other. Although I admit I have used it myself a few times, usually if I really think a candidate would be a great admin. Weak, on the other hand, is a useful self-identifier. If someone marks their comment as weak, I expect the closing 'crat to give it half weight compared to others who did not do so, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to give someone who self identified their position as strong any extra weight. Not sure we could get rid of strong without taking weak off the table as well though. Why do we even have bolded votes at the beginning of comments? They are already organized into sections for support or opposition. Maybe we should just get rid of that tradition altogether. People could still identify their position as weak in the text of their remark if they felt it was so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The bolded text does increase readability, in my opinion. Useight (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking  on  the lines that  doing  away  with  the qualifying  adjectives would help  provide a clearer overview of the consensus that  is developing, and also  help the crats make up  their minds in  close calls. . As Beeb says, it  would force voters to  make their rationale ore detailed. I  must  admit I  have used the 'strong'  and 'weak' about  twice in  my  RfA  voting  history, but  only  when the outcome is already going  to  be blatantantly  obvious. However, we really  need some crat  input on  this.
 * I personally see no  objections however in continuing to  use the traditional bold text as used in  in  all debates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall a crat citing numerous 'weak opposes' in their rationale for promoting a <70% candidate in at least one instance. 'Strong support' is unhelpful (though it does no harm), while 'strong oppose' can be taken as uncivil. I certainly think 'weak' rationales are given weight by crats in close RfAs that might go either way.  Swarm   X 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that the modifiers help convey nuanced positions; and that removing the modifiers brings RfA closer to pure voting. Whether or not that's a Good Thing is open to debate, but I doubt it would solve RfA's more pressing problems; perhaps it might be worth concentrating efforts elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 10:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I'm looking at close RFAs, I don't assign half-weight or double-weight depending on the adjectives used. But I do look at how many of the supports were 'weak' and how many of the opposes were 'strong' and take an extra moment to mull over the rationales used. I feel like a 'weak support' is pretty much a "meh" and a 'strong support' is an "over my dead body!", dependent on the other contents, of course. A "Strong Oppose [sig]" is particularly unhelpful. Useight (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the !voting system... personally, if we follow this path I doubt meaningful change will occur. That being said, if we must have !voting, the strong/weak does help. Imagine a hypothetical RFA closing at exactly 70% support/oppose. Looking at the adjectives, you see all the supports are "Strong" and all of the opposes are "weak." Assuming rationale reasoning, closing the RfA as a pass is a lot easier. Similarly, same closing percent, but most of the supports are "weak" and the opposes are "strong Oppose." Suddenly, that RfA looks less likely to pass. The "strong/weak" help the reviewer determine how strongly the poster feels about the rationale they present. Two people can look at the same information, have the same overall "support/oppose" but for one the rationale is important for another it isn't.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bolded votes also make it much easier for bots to reliably parse your vote later, for statistical analysis. Just saying.  &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

More breakdown
I wonder if you guys could break down the data on this page into smaller chunks. What I'm wondering is 1) do admins and non-admins vote differently (and thus could you guys make two tables divided into admins and non-admins) and 2) do editors with ≥1 year's tenure vote differently to newer editors? This could make for fascinating reading (or it could be just as inconsistent). HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The answer to that  would probably  be to  have an 'and/or' sortable table, but  I  guess this would need some complex regex built into  the script. Snottywong's the expert. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There has been analysis on this in the past, my memory is that if there is any pattern it is that editors who have not yet run at RFA tend to be more supportive, editors who have run unsuccessfully tend to be less supportive and usually admins and non-admins split the same, but there are some "interesting" candidates where the RFA doesn't follow this pattern and admin non admin voting is different. Also there are some !voters who differ wildly from the above pattern.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a very interesting thing, WSC: the split between editors who have and haven't run the gauntlet themselves. It parallels some kind of "hazing manhood test" - "I went through hell to get this, so you should, too" kind of approach.  Like some of the barbaric tribal rituals associated with coming-of-age.  Is this mentality (trial-by-ordeal to be confirmed as an adult) just inherent in human societies, and does it always need the equivalent of a human rights intervention before it ceases?  Pesky  ( talk ) 07:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect there are a couple of different processes at play here. I'm aware of the theory that those who've undergone a hazing ceremony expect the same to be inflicted on others, but the pattern I'm seeing here is that the people who were rejected by RFA are the harshest !voters. I fear that it is the nature of hazing ceremonies to get harsher over time, and suspect that is a major reason why RFA is broken. I think that another process is that as editors get more experienced so they start working out tests to screen out candidates who they think would make bad admins, I certainly pay more attention to deletion mistakes than I did a couple of years ago.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps indeed the very reason why it appears that so many admins do not come out in support of reform is because they don't believe any one else should have an easier time than they did. Perhaps others simply can't be bothered with RfA stuff since getting the bit themselves, while still others who passed with 100+ flying colours dropped their edits from 1,000s a month almost immediately to a trickle of an average of 1 a day. Some clearly only come out of the woodwork to !vote with a vengeance, and others seem to enjoy RfA as being the one place on Wikipedia where they can be uncivil with impunity.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'd agree that most admins are inactive, I'm not sure that I've noticed many who go inactive almost immediately after RFA, if anything I suspect that becoming an admin tends to extend people's wiki careers. As for the incivil !votes at RFA, my experience is that the most incivil ones are the ones who are not admins and have no intention of ever running.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Alt accounts and renames
We have some !voters with more !votes than edits, these are the result of renames, including editors who have exercised rtv. There are also some alt accounts, I've removed five so far adding them into the !votes for the main account.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Update. The anomalous votes where RFA !voters appear to have !voted in more RFAs than they have done edits all seem to relate to accounts being renamed, presumably the stats were collected on the signature of !votes and not updated per RTV etc. There are a number of participants who made a !vote very early in their wiki career, and notall of these have been blocked as socks. but many have. I think that the number of participants is at least 1% less than we thought, and the entire drop will be of non-admin involvement as all the occasions of alt accounts and renames that involve admins no more than one of their accounts was listed as an admin one.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but
How is this a proposed policy or guideline? I doesn't seem to propose anything. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It was necessary research in orer to clarify some issues and theories. Pesky  ( talk ) 07:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It clearly says: ''The proposal is definitely still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" nor yet even as a proposal.'' --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
The research seems to  have been done. At any rate, barring  research  into  how the !voters actually  !voted on passed/failed RfAs and what  their rationales were, we have the basis for further extrapolation if needed. It might  now be time to  decide whether or not  we want  to  propose a threshold for RfA !voting participation, per all  the pros and cons that  have been discussed here and elsewhere it, and if so, what  levels. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Having looked through a lot of the participants with very low !votes I would say that there is little need for such a threshold. Far less than might have appeared when the stats were first run as at least twentytwo of the lowest !votes relate to alt accounts, RTV or renaming. I suspect from the proportion of the remainder who turned out to be socks that newbies who vote at RFA in their first 100 !votes should be looked at and if they aren't a declared sock they should be checkusered. In total 48 of the RFA !voters are currently blocked, thats 3% of all participants, though they tend to be low !voters so far less than 3% of the !votes will have been by blocked voters.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That worries me. Let's say  the average turnout (all votes) is 100, that's 3 on  every  RfA  that  are going  to  be suspect. hey are probably  more likely  to  be fan club  !votes in  the support section, but  if they  were all in  the opposition, that  could be catastrophic for the candidate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

'Low' turnout passes (under 100):

 * 2011 (out of 23 passes)
 * 1) feezo - (47/1/6) (54)
 * 2) Valfontis (63/1/0) (64)
 * 3) JaGa (83/3/0) (86)
 * 4) Peridon (64/3/1)(68)
 * 5) Neelix 	(69/14/12) (95)
 * 6) ErrantX (85/2/4) (91)
 * 7) Rami R (2nd) (66/12/8) (86)
 * 8) Acdixon (82/5/6) (93)
 * 9) Ponyo (75/1/2) (78)
 * 10) Gimme danger (77/11/6) (94)


 * 2010 (out of 75 passes)
 * 1) Grondemar (86/2/5) (93)
 * 2) PresN (70/10/3) (83)
 * 3) TheCatalyst31 (68/12/13) (93)
 * 4) Magog the Ogre (2nd) (65/4/3) (72)
 * 5) BigDom (2nd) (72/16/5) (93)
 * 6) HelloAnnyong (88/1/0) (89)
 * 7) Mandsford (59/16/4) (79)
 * 8) Michig (80/0/2) (82)
 * 9) Amatulic (80/2/3) (85)
 * 10) WOSlinker (83/4/1) (89)
 * 11) Jujutacular (78/0/1) (79)
 * 12) Joe Decker (78/7/1) (86)
 * 13) NativeForeigner (67/10/5) (82)
 * 14) 7 (2nd) 	(92/2/4) (98)
 * 15) Waldir (76/1/2) (79)
 * 16) Barek (65/0/2) (67)
 * 17) Eustress (71/1/2) (75)
 * 18) Father Goose (58/6/1) (65)
 * 19) J04n (2nd) (63/0/1) (64)
 * 20) Calmer Waters (81/2/4) (87)
 * 21) Taelus (69/5/2) (76)

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

 * 2011 failed with 100+ !votes
 * GiantSnowman (76/36/10) (122)
 * Ctjf83 (2nd) 	(55/38/12) (105)

(some may have since passed) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2010 failed or withdrawn with 100+ !votes
 * Richwales (58/44/9) (111)
 * Ling.Nut 	(113/63/7) (183)
 * The Thing That Should Not Be (2nd) 	(123/59/21) (203)
 * Alansohn‎ (2nd) 	(39/56/11) (106)
 * MZMcBride (4th) 	(56/124/21) (201)
 * DeltaQuad 	(65/34/12) (111)
 * Connormah (2nd) 	(88/30/11) (129)
 * Herostratus (2nd) 	(78/48/21) (147)
 * Blanchardb (2nd) 	(54/38/7) (99)
 * MichaelQSchmidt 	(87/60/11) (158)
 * Kingoomieiii 		(67/36/3) (106)
 * Ironholds (4th) 	(64/38/11) (209)


 * minor comment here, but the numbers for Ironholds don't add up. 64+38+11=113, not 209. Am I missing something there? PrincessofLlyr  royal court 13:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not missing anything. The exeercise was to demonstrate that the suggestion of a quorum of 100 to validate an RfA probably isn't necessary. History appears to show that most successful RfAs had around 100 participants or more during the period that was analysed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Restating some things
(Note: Thread copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion  here.)

I wanted to restate a few things said elsewhere which should be commented on here. In one example I asked how viable it would be to transclude an RfA but not set the timer until 100 participants sign up as jurors. This implies that perhaps all RfA should be from the same size jury. Additionally I suggested that these participants should not actually vote until around day 5, leaving the first 5 days for questions and comments. Are there any valid points to glean from these considerations? My76Strat (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an imbalance in the number of participants from  RfA  to  RfA. This is one of the reasons that  RfA is often criticised as being a popularity  contest, and where it  is  also possible for an RfA  to  succeed with  very  low participation in all !voting  sections. The suggestion  above for having  a minimum to  effect  a quorum has been touched upon previously, and I think  it's a valid point, but as a radical  change that would give the green light  for an RfA  to  go  ahead, but not as one that  might   improve RfA participants'  behaviour, do we want  to discuss it  right here and now? That  said, I  think a 'I will  !vote on  this RfA' call is not  a bad idea, and would be a possible solution  for preventing  the NOTNOW, but  it would prolong  the process while the 'jurors' are being  gathered.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree and only want to see a collective best effort. I did state some of this in line with the openness to "radical suggestions". While your concerns are truly valid, they can perhaps provide some answers unto themselves. If a quorum of 100 was established, it could also sign up and seat participants even before an RfA was transcluded. Under such a consideration the 100 members could be ready even before the next candidate. And yes, these are all radical considerations, but they may have some useful purpose. My76Strat (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got several concerns about this, RFA has many problems and I don't see any merit in a radical change that doesn't address any of the problems at RFA but does add some major new ones.
 * Why do you think we need 100 participants for an RFA? Mine was one of those that achieved that, but many don't. I can see an argument that a successful RFA needs at least a dozen support !votes - the number that a jury has to have here in the UK. But why should more be required to appoint an admin than to convict a murderer?
 * What are you suggesting should happen to the many admins appointed by less than 100 !votes? Remember these are often the uncontentious RFAs.
 * Not !voting for the first five days but just having questions and comments would drag out the whole process from 7 to 12 days and snow fails from hours to over 5 days. What benefit would that give us to outweigh the obvious harm?
 * Having to sign up to participate and then return several days later to do so is a lot of extra bureaucracy for no discernible benefit. It would also reduce the number of participants, probably making 100 participant RFAs a rarity.
 * The community is dwindling, setting a participation threshold that we don't always currently reach means designing a system that will fail if current trends continue.
 * If RFA had a problem with lack of participation I could see an argument to change the rules to require a minimum number of supports, but minimum participation is a different and flawed idea. Saying that an RFA with only 11 supports had insufficient participation would be a workable rule. Saying that you need 100 participants would mean that an RFA with 60 supports 25 neutrals and 15 opposes would be a success, but an RFA with 96 supports, 2 neutrals and 3 opposes would fail if two of those opposes struck and withdrew from the RFA. A minimum number of supports would add one extra failure mode, but minimum participation creates two extra failure modes and puts opposers in the awkward position that an abstention might cause an RFA to fail whilst an oppose would make it succeed.
 *  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What WSC said. Tweakage that adds extra layers of rules and restrictions is vehemently unwanted tweakage. In fact, all tweakage is vehemently unwanted. The page says somewhere that desysop should not be discussed, but folks, desysop is the problem, not RfA. RfA is indeed a brutal and evil process, but evil RfAs are solely and only a symptom of glacial, painful desysop. The reason adminship IS a big deal is because desysop IS a big deal. No more. No less. Done.&bull; Ling.Nut (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with  WSC's comments above, and Strat's suggestion  was at  least  a reasonable idea, even if  it  is not  viable. I  think  our desyoping  system  is adequate for the moment, but  I'll  admit  that  I  don't  know everything  that  goes on  around here. If anything, there should be sterner measures to  give some admins a hefty slap  on  the wrist sometimes, but while radical reform  of RfA is not totally ausgeschlossen, desysoping is not  on the agenda of this particular project. I've said before, that  I  don't  believe it's one of the reasons why potential  candidates won't  come forward, nor  is it  much  in  the mind of the !voters themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there actually a need to get into this? I can't say I remember any RfA that suffered from lack of participation. Most RfAs will attract more than 80 participants even with candidates who have kept a low profile. This year, the successful RfA with the lowest participation level by far was Feezo's with 54 voters. Hardly a shortage of participation.  Swarm   X 00:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WSC all of your considerations are prudent. When I say 100 participants, I mean for that to be an example. It is very likely after the most thoughtful consideration, some different number would likely be more appropriate. I would not be the one to object if the number were 12. The point I wish to consider, if at all valid, is if there should be a set limit to the jury like pool or not. Nothing in my suggesting anything is meant to imply anything about a current admin. If they have the flag, they deserve it! To the extent, additional burden could be imposed upon the participant who says they wish to sit in judgment, that additional burden can be mitigated, and would not rise to a thing greater than the vote, which they intend to cast! I have stated somewhere that a participant who states TLDR, could be removed from the user group with the right to participate, IMO, because to state such a thing, discounts your sincerity to participate in this kind of decision. So I wouldn't consider it an unmanageable burden for someone who signs up to vote, to follow a format which suggests they herd the request, entirely, and then voted. I would also not insist that any thing I suggest be implemented, only considered, which I am glad to see it apparently has. But they are only meant to be ideas, as we hammer out what might be an RfA reform. My76Strat (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

'Low' turnout passes (under 100)

 * 2011 (out of 34 passes)
 * 1) TParis (48/4/4) (56)
 * 2) Jimp (75/4/0) (79)
 * 3) January (91/1/0) (92)
 * 4) F (78/16/eezo  (47/1/6) (54)
 * 5) Valfontis (63/1/0) (64)
 * 6) JaGa (83/3/0) (86)
 * 7) Peridon (64/3/1)(68)
 * 8) Neelix 	(69/14/12) (95)
 * 9) ErrantX (85/2/4) (91)
 * 10) Rami R (2nd) (66/12/8) (86)
 * 11) Acdixon (82/5/6) (93)
 * 12) Ponyo (75/1/2) (78)
 * 13) Gimme danger (77/11/6) (94)

Compiled by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2010 (out of 75 passes)
 * 1) Grondemar (86/2/5) (93)
 * 2) PresN (70/10/3) (83)
 * 3) TheCatalyst31 (68/12/13) (93)
 * 4) Magog the Ogre (2nd) (65/4/3) (72)
 * 5) BigDom (2nd) (72/16/5) (93)
 * 6) HelloAnnyong (88/1/0) (89)
 * 7) Mandsford (59/16/4) (79)
 * 8) Michig (80/0/2) (82)
 * 9) Amatulic (80/2/3) (85)
 * 10) WOSlinker (83/4/1) (89)
 * 11) Jujutacular (78/0/1) (79)
 * 12) Joe Decker (78/7/1) (86)
 * 13) NativeForeigner (67/10/5) (82)
 * 14) 7 (2nd) 	(92/2/4) (98)
 * 15) Waldir (76/1/2) (79)
 * 16) Barek (65/0/2) (67)
 * 17) Eustress (71/1/2) (75)
 * 18) Father Goose (58/6/1) (65)
 * 19) J04n (2nd) (63/0/1) (64)
 * 20) Calmer Waters (81/2/4) (87)
 * 21) Taelus (69/5/2) (76)

What about Requests for adminship/Vejvančický (90/1/4) from October 2010? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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

 * 2011 failed with 100+ !votes
 * GiantSnowman (76/36/10) (122)
 * Ctjf83 (2nd) 	(55/38/12) (105)

(some may have since passed) Complied by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2010 failed or withdrawn with 100+ !votes
 * Richwales (58/44/9) (111)
 * Ling.Nut 	(113/63/7) (183)
 * The Thing That Should Not Be (2nd) 	(123/59/21) (203)
 * Alansohn‎ (2nd) 	(39/56/11) (106)
 * MZMcBride (4th) 	(56/124/21) (201)
 * DeltaQuad 	(65/34/12) (111)
 * Connormah (2nd) 	(88/30/11) (129)
 * Herostratus (2nd) 	(78/48/21) (147)
 * Blanchardb (2nd) 	(54/38/7) (99)
 * MichaelQSchmidt 	(87/60/11) (158)
 * Kingoomieiii 		(67/36/3) (106)
 * Ironholds (4th) 	(64/38/11) (209)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See also:
 * 100+ supports: 100 (215 users, of which 24 were withdrawn or not  promoted))
 * 200+ supports: Times that 200 Wikipedians supported something (8 users,of which 1 withdrawn, 1 not promoted)


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

Additional analysis suggestions from TCO
1. Can you do a cluster analysis? See who tends to vote with who? One of those programs that will do PCA and sort of spread it out into a 2-D map that shows who has similar voting patterns to who (I think you have to go by how they voted on same candidates). I wonder if you can then see the differnt "camps".

2. Be interested in seeing how the FA flag correlates to voting patterns. Is there a difference with the broader population.

3. I guess any other intersting flags we can thing of (not sure...we don't have that much data on demographics...and this thing is pretty stag.)

TCO (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Enough stats are available in  these pages -  do  feel  free to  help  by  extrapolating  a cluster ananlysis if you  feel  it is necessary. By  and large however, the sortable tables will  tell  you  all  you, need to  know already. There is a small but  strong core of regular !voters, mainly  admins, bureaucrats, and some very  experienced users who  don't  want  to  be admins, and there are the great  many  one-time !voters, many  of whom  have as few as 100 edits and probably  are not sure what  adminship is really  all  about,  and just  do  pile-on  !votes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's additive, seriously. Didn't know there were those two groups.  What is an exclamation point voter?  (is that a support without rationale...btw, I count NYB's one liners as essentially pass without rationale...certainly not an explained one...more like a pontification).  and then both groups are !ing?  Who would be some people in each group (pick ones that aren't touchy, so this does not become a drama...honest...I'm just trying to understand.)TCO (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The word !vote with an exclamation  mark is a traditional  IT  term that  means it  means something  else, such  as in  all  Wikipedia discussions, things are supposed to  be a discussion rather than a straight  vote. It  is generally  accepted that  any  uncommented 'support' !votes are simply  in support of the nomination  statement  with  nothing  else to  add. 'Oppose' !votes should of course be supported by  a rationale -  if they're not, there is a possibility  they  will not  be taken into  consideration much in  the case of a close call. I  do  understand the difficulty  in  joining a project  like this without  being in  it  at  the start, it  may  well  take an hour  to  read all  the pages here to  get  up to  speed. Thanks for your comments, and keep  them  coming! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a quick study. It is not "generally accepted" on the supports.  Sandy Georgia (or Malleus, I might have lost track) do not accept it.  And rationally, there are a lot of junk pile-on supports from inexperienced voters, are weak nominations, etc.  I think understanding at a minimum, what aspects of the nom statement and factors were convincing is helpful.  But I am not even trying to argue it.  Just saying, there are a reasonable amount of people on the other side of this debate.  I STILL don't get what you mean with the ! though.  Did you mean an unexplained oppose?  And who would be some people who do that?  If it is too touchy, point me to the list and you don't have to name them!TCO (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then I'm not  quite sure what  you  mean about  the (!). The main sortable table lists nearly  1,500 !voters -  the opinions of of Sandy  and Malleus are only  two of them,  but  they  are nevertheless highly  experienced Wikipedians.  If you  were to  follow WT:RfA (archives) over the last  18 months, you  will  see that  there is a weak  consensus for accepting  uncommented 'support' !votes, because they  are in  support of a statement  already  made. This is normal  also  for  all  Wikipedia debates. In any debate, you  either support the motion statement, or come up  with  a good reasons for opposing  it; a motion  for debate generally  does not  start  with  a negative proposal proposal. One of the most  contentious RfA in  recent times was my  own.  We sometimes have extremely controversial  RfAs, but  that's not  quite the same thing -  see Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare. Among  other problematic !voters are those who  come out  of the woodwork to  oppose with  a vengeance, and unfortunately  they  are often neither truthful nor  civil. The primary  goals of this project  are, rather than search  for an entirely  new system, to  find ways to  1). prevent  incivility  altogether, and 2). to  encourage more objective !voting,  and 3). to  discourage, as nicely  as possible, candidates who  don't  stand a cat in  hell's chance and from  wasting  their time and ours,  but  to  encourage them  to  stay  with  us as regular editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

1. This is just a definitional thing:  does ! mean "oppose"?

2. Well, 30% against someone can fail them. So if 70% of people think unreasoned supports are fine, that does not really mean anything...perhaps it is just the basic difference of low and high standards.

3. There are plenty of processes (for instance hiring) where this sort of "default is accept" would NOT be how things are evaluated. Many things are much more choosey. I realize you don't agree or like this...but a substantial fraction of the community disagrees. And really a non-miniscule minority can sway things at RFA, given you need 3:1 to pass.

4. Yeah...I definitely get the impression that a big driver of this initiative is that some of the people who want more admins or easier standards are not happy about things being tighter and want to either change the threshold or hush up the opposers. No wonder, I am pleased with how things are going lately and you are displeased. ;) P.s.  I really do find the opposes to be more thoughtful in their remarks.  You get some random malcontents.  But there are some braniacs like Sandy and Malleus.  And some people with significant life and work experience that influences their stance on how organizations work.  (Plus they are really good looking, too.)

TCO (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * From WP:!VOTE: "The terms '!vote', '!voting' and '!voter', introduced in 2006, are sometimes used in discussions to indicate that taking part in a straw poll is not voting, but rather engaging in an act of consensus-building. These terms serve as reminders that while we do vote on things, votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored. ¶ The exclamation mark in '!vote' is the symbol for logical negation and can be read literally as 'not vote'. It serves as a cute little reminder that it is 'not the vote' that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important." 28bytes (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still not getting it. Hold my hand.  Is a ! a non-explained oppose?TCO (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ! is just decoration, essentially. 28bytes (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As 28bytes says.
 * I'm not  displeased about the way  things are going, and there is certainly  no  consensus for lowering  the bar, nor for raising  it, because there is no  bar - the bar is set by  the !voters themselves for each  new RfA, based on their own criteria,  and not  all  the same !voters turn out for each RfA. However, if the last  5 or so  RfA  have been reasonably  civil, it's because unlike me, most  of them have not  been around long enough  to  have upset  anyone by  caching  them  for doing something  naughty or abusing  their power. Ironically also, the longer one has been around, and the more one is well  known,  the RfA  attracts more participation so  there is a slightly  fairer chance that  overall it  might  be reasonably objective -  take my  RfA  for example with  its particularly  nasty  opposes and personal attacks, but  passed with  flying  colors. We need to  look  at  the bigger picture and not  start  imagining  any  trends in  improvement  yet. For one thing, we are already  almost at  the end of Q2/2011 and still  only  34 promotions. That's too  low for natural  replacement, and plenty  of mature experienced editors have told us quite clearly why  they  won't  step  into  the snake pit -  I  took  a chance and it  worked out, but  probably  because I've been heavily  involved in  policy  work, I don't  know,  it  was certainly  a gamble considering the my  long  campaign  for improvement  of RfA  since long before I  was ever asked to  run  for office, and then finally  agreed to.   Do  remember also, that  some of the brainiacs might  not really be opposing  the candidate directly, but  globally  opposing  adminship as a system  for regulating  the quality  of the Wikipedia. A support !vote from  Malleus (when he makes one) is worth twenty  supports, but  unfortunately  cannot be counted as such! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am happy with a low pass rate. I am more choosey.  Have high standards for moderators.  They can do a lot of damage when they are stupid or mean.  You were a borderline candidate as I recall.  TCO (talk) 07:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I take a "have to prove you can hack it" approach. So if there is less history, it is a negative for me.  I am more "default fail" than "default pass"TCO (talk) 07:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with less of you all as well. I think it is a view of a reasonable fraction of editors.   TCO (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Mine was not a borderline, it  passed with  a very  healthy  margin. Please take a moment  to  review some old RfAs and the tables we have provided here on  this very  talk  page higher up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean numerically borderline, I mean my personal evaluation. What do you want me to get from the looking at the RFAs.  Surely I have participated in enough to see the ways they go down.


 * Actually, I think I had you confused with Carabane-man (a very questionable FA, translation with problems) Neelix. Sorry, guess you guys went through the meat grinder at the same time.  Don't recall if I voted in yours.  I did look at the stats, and you were definitely above 70%, but still not a January-like love-fest.  It's fine though.  Gotta crack some sku...eggs to make your breakfast. ;) TCO (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What the other Wikis do
!Voters on the French language Wikipedia:

2.2 Who can vote?
 * All registered contributors can give their opinion on the choice of a sysop. However, in practice are recorded only the opinions of the contributors who have at least:


 * 1 week of operation before the opening of the vote;
 * 50 significant contributions to his credit at the time of transclusion.

Intéressant, hein? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Italian Wiki
 * It.wiki is much worse...
 * Per it:Wikipedia:Amministratori/Sistema di voto/Requisiti
 * 60 days of operation before the opening of the vote
 * 500 contributions to one's credit at the time of transclusion
 * But it.wiki also has weird requirements to be eligible for adminship and yearly reconfirmation RFAs... Salvio  Let's talk about it! 15:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think reconfirmation or term limits are not a bad idea. It would really change the two-class dynamic that we have. Right now, it sorta feels like the admins are the "made men" from Goodfellas. I would be much happier to loosen the requirements or say "admin is no big deal" if it were not permanent. Problem admins like RHE need to get culled. He would never have passed an RFA with all his drama...but it was a bunch of bother to pry the mop from his cold dead hands (his words). It would also clean out the inactive admins.TCO (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't  think we should be discussing here our opinions on  individual  candidates or how their RfA  were closed. Pointing  to  an RfA that  was a close call, however, would be fine, and we have the stats for all  that. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

50 users must vote 'support' within two weeks, with at least two-thirds of the total votes cast will be Support-votes. Neutrals do not count as votes cast. Voters must have a minuum of 200 edits.
 * German Wiki:


 * Certainly interesting that it lasts two weeks rather than one. I don't remember any calls on the English Wikipedia to have RfAs last two weeks, and I think seven days is sufficient. The needs for two-thirds support (~67%) rather than 75% is also of interest, and the experience at de should be looked at carefully if there is any serious discussion on lowering the threshold from 75% to 65%. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * nooooo! Keep the percentage high.  I want more people like January-gurl.  not more teen-aged boys with a hard-on for vandals.TCO (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Within the framework of this reform  project that  is mainly  intended to  make RfA  a more pleasant  prospect, our effort is primarily  to  improve the !voters'  participation. Our bar  for candidates is fine and I  don't  think it's within the remit  of this project  to  discuss it, in  fact  there isn't  a threshold for serious applicants, and generally the right  candidates pass -  there are few really  borderline cases and most  of the fails are NOTNOW, or withdrawn. The problem is that  there aren't  enough candidates  coming  forward for all  the reasons stated.  What  is interesting  is that  other Wikis have minimum qualifications for !voters. Anything that  concerns a 'bar' for candidates is to  prevent  obvious non-starters from wasting  their time and ours. Hence possible suggestions such  as, for example, 3,000 edits/6 consecutive months. See: Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Candidates and WT:RFA2011/PP.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You really have not demonstrated to me, how we don't have enough admins. cluebot takes a lot of the load off.TCO (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've already provided you  a link  to  a very  detailed report  (and its comments)  in  the Signpost. However, it's not  the brief of this project  to  prove it. Our goals are clearly  stated, and that's not  one of them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: this seems to be a reference to Wikipedia Signpost 2010-08-09 Admin stats article, in which WereSpielChequers tabulates the number of successful RFAs on enwiki by month. However, the article does not consider how many admins are required, the extent to which automated tools can reduce the need for admins, whether changes in policy might reduce vandalism, etc., so it doesn't demonstrate whether we have "enough" admins. I'm just pointing this out for the benefit of any lurkers here—I do appreciate that active participation in this initiative is only for those "already firmly in favour of reform"! - Pointillist (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Giving consideration to lowering the bar is listed as an objective at RfA reform 2011. I don't actually have a strong opinion on it personally, and have neither endorsed nor rejected a change; the point I was making is that the experience on de Wikipedia should be looked at if the bar was lowered, as conveniently they already have a lower bar. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * They may  appear to  have a lower bar, but  having  lived there for nearly  20 years, I  can understand why  this may  be so. We  would have to  take into  consideration  many  factors pertaining  their stats for unsuitable articles, the level of user discipline, the amount  of disruptive editing, and the cultural  inference that  the de.Wiki  is mainly  limited to  Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Personally, I'm  OK  with  the bar as we have it  on  en.Wiki, but  it's a floating  bar anyway, because the majority  of voters change at  every  RfA - only  a small  core of regular voters apply  any set standards. RfA  here is a horrible process, and I've recently  gone through it and I can understand why many  of those who  would pass are not  coming  forward. My  next  exercise will  be to  read through  a sample of French  and German  RfAs. Unfortunately, anything  I  glean from  it  will  only  be OR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the cultural issues between the projects would need to be taken into account if any comparison is to be made. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 10:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@Pointillist: There is no cabal -  anyone and everyone is heartly  welcome to  comment, it's only expected that the task  force members are in  favour of moving  things forward for reform. It would be a bit  pointless if they  weren't :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a bit late to say that now, given that you've said the opposite for two months! - Pointillist (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually even though I'm "on the other side", I do think it is reasonable for those broadly in favor of "reform" to consolidtate their thinking and limit the broadening. So at least you can make a definite proposal. TCO (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has been said before, but...
"The total number of !votes cast in all RfAs has been decreasing since reaching a peak in 2006. The large percentage decreases show that participation in RfA as a whole is falling at at quicker rate than other areas of the encyclopedia."

Unless I'm looking at completely different chart, this is completely, utterly, and entirely untrue. Unless one is referring to fewer nominations, the average number of !votes per candidate has steadily increased since 2006. The wording makes it seem like there are fewer people vetting candidates. Again, I apologize if this is noted further up on this talk page, but this wording should be changed ASAP. - Running On Brains (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I produced the study that led to this conclusion, and both interpretations are correct. The total number of !votes in all completed RfAs has fallen in every year since 2006. The average number of !votes per candidate rose is every year except one (2006-07), when it fell for successful candidates and rose for unsuccessful ones. This situation is explained in the bullet point one below the one you cite, which states that "The mean number of !votes on successful and unsuccessful RfAs for each year are higher than the previous year in all but one case. The percentage increases in recent years show that participation in individual RfAs is increasing at a quicker rate than other areas of the encyclopedia. This apparent contradiction is explained by the falling number of completed RfAs." Alzarian16 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Al, and your explanation is exactly how I had interpreted it. We have never imagined that  the road to  RfA reform is going  to  be quick and easy and what  we need now is for all  the editors  who  have contributed stats that  are being  used in  this project, to maintain them and keep them up to date.  Although  the WMF generally has no influence over how the regional  Wikipedias run  their affairs, they  have stated on numerous occasions that highly efficient statistical  support  is required for major policy  changes.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility to vote
A script is available here that  could easily  be adapted   to  check  on users' eligibility to  vote. Slightly more complicated sorftware-wise, this script  could also  be automatically  triggered by an attempt  to  edit  the 'support',  'oppose', and 'neutral' sections. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

New tool
For a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, see RfA Vote Counter. Courtesy of Snottywong. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Time to do something now
See here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is important. It has been closed and may  soon  be archived, so  please look  for the archive, then see the new follow-on  discussion here. These events are vital  references in  support of proposals to  introduce measures to  clean up  the environment  at  RfA. RfA has become a safe haven for those who seek  a venue where they  can   abuse Wikipedia core policies with  impunity,  or treat  the process as a joke, only  by  putting  an end to  the pollution, can any changes to  the stagnation  of  nominations for adminship be expected. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We need to lower the standard, by force.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * *Loads shotgun*  Swarm   X 11|11|11 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jasper, lowering the standard for adminship is not one of the objectives of this project, and should not be. The standard is something set by the community - and I'm not convinced that the standard is wrong. I think there are many users who would meet the current standard but refuse to run because of the atmosphere at RfA - that is where the issue lies.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 19:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, why didn't anyone propose an RfA ban for that user? A "civility block" is a borderline unspeakable thing on Wikipedia, but, as you say, we're at the point where we seriously need to eliminate the pollution.  Swarm   X 11|11|11 18:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am  also  surprised, but  any  one of us could have done so - I didn't, because I  stir up  enough  commotion on  Wikipedia already  as it  is ;)  The actual  outcomes of the AN/I and the RFC/U are not  as important  as the factual  impact  they  will  have when cited in  arguments for reform  of the process. However, and this is only  my  opinion, I  do  seem  to  detect  over the years that  there appears to  be a certain  attitude from  several editors of all  user groups to  keep  defend RfA as a venue for the worst  of Wikipedia incivility that  would certainly  get  them  blocked or at  least  topic banned anywhere else -  to  the extent that some people might even be inclined to  find any  reason  at  all  to  torpedo any  good faith attempts to bring about reform of RfA and redress intractable  behaviour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to find a way to invalidate incivil !votes in order to encourage more objective feedback.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What if a vote is both incivil and at the same time objective? The two aren't exactly mutually exclusive. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the vote is truly  objective (the majority  of incivil  votes aren't), the user should be warned in  the usual  way  for incivility. If the user has a significant history  of incivility  anywhere on  the site, and if it  persists, and attempts to  encourage civility have failed, then measures should be undertaken to prevent  further disruption. In  cases of repeated gross  incivility, and/or after three warnings, immediate block might  be considered by  some admins, otherwise a RfC/U would probably  be preferable. The result  could be an eventual block, or if incivility was contained to  RfA, a topic ban from  the voting  process. A current  example of such  a discussion can be found  at  Requests for comment/Badger Drink. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See here for my suggestions on this. Feel free to move that to this page if it's better over here! Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections on voting by Jéské Couriano
(Coordination note: Copied from WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion  here.)

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)
 * There was gross incivility, deceit, and unresearched pile-ons to  dubious opposes on  my  own RfA. Fortunately it  passed, but  a worthy  candidate with  a lower history  of contributions, and less well  known might  not  have fared so  well. Granted, RfA is not  (supposed) to  be a popularity or unpopularity contest,  and we've seen candidates pass in March  and June this year with  as few as 47 support votes.  --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is almost certainly our biggest problem at RfA. The combination of incivility and cherry-picking one or two glitches that an editor may have (and I bet we've all got the odd kick in our gallop over one or two things), and then blowing them up out of all proportion to an editor's over-all potential as an admin.  Pile-on opposes can  never be good, especially when they don't seem to mention anything at all in support of the candidate.  The atmosphere at RfA is one of the things that first made me decide I nevver want to be an admin; but to be totally honest, since then, I've realised that adminship isn't for me anyway (it's not the kind of area I'm interested in, and I'd oppose myself on the basis that I have no need for the mop!) We do have any number of good, sound, experienced editors who would make excellent admins, but just don't want to run the gauntlet because of precisely these issues - which means we are losing out, and losing out for abhorrent reasons. Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 08:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The single most totally distasteful area of Wikipedia is that  of RfA.  It  seems to  be the one  place where some  individuals go  to  be unpleasant  to  fellow editors with  impunity while hiding  behind the anonymity  that  the Internet  affords.  Being  an admin is most definitely  no big  deal and the RfA process to obtain that 'no big deal' is far too often a disgusting  arena of controversy, contempt, contentious behaviour and deceit. I  had committed myself to  do  something  about  it  long  before there were rumours of admins being  a dying  breed, or even dreaming of  joining  the brigade myself,  and  I  am distressed to  see users at  the current  RfC/U displaying  a clear lack  of good faith in  suggesting  that  the discussion  has been perpetrated and supported by  those who were dissatisfied with  the outcome of an RfA  they  were involved in. The behaviour at  RfA (many  of them) is but  the tip  of an iceberg, and if the recent RfA was a catalyst, then so be it,  and it  should be a further stimulus for reform of the system. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The poisonous atmosphere (again) - courage and topic bans required
(Coordination note: This thread has been moved from  WT:RFA2011. Please continue the discussion  here.)

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)


 * Arbcom does not  make policy, or decide what it's role should be. The roles and functions of user groups are decided by  consensus of the community. The Arbitration Committee arbitrates on  individual  cases and applies existing  policy on  a case-by-case basis. There are recognised steps within  the structure of the Wikipedia disciplinary  system, which  should generally  escalate only  when one level  has failed to  reach  a satisfactory  conclusion  or solution:
 * an appeal to  order on  a user's talk page
 * AN/I or appropriate disciplinary notice board (sanctions can be imposed by  an administrator following  consensus)
 * RfC/U - a discussion  on  a user's behaviour. Recommdations for solutions are made, usually  towards a favourable agreent  by  the offending  user to  abide by  the rules. The conclusions of RfC/U  are informal  and non-binding.
 * Arbcom - generally the highest  instance, especially  for Amin misbehaviour and other cases where all else has failed.


 * It is generally  not  recommended to  escalate to  another level  or to  move to another kind  of dispute resolution  board until it  is clear that  a current  discussion has clearly  failed. Some discussions are expected to  remain  open for a minimum period of time. Moving  early from  AN/I to  RfC/U may  not be the most  suitable option. Moving  to  Arbcom  is usual after 30 days at  RfC/U, and an Arbcom case must  be opened before the RfC/U actually expires or has shown no  movement  for a significant  period of time. Escalation or moving  horizontally  from  one process to  another should preferably be done with  consensus of a community  if that  community  is currently  and actively  discussing an issue.  As with  most processes on  Wikipedia, these are guidelines,  not  rules,  but  they  are generally  accepted by  the community  as the best  way  to  go.


 * As regards this WP:RFA2011 project is concerned, there is little it  can do  to  intervene in  such  procedures. The goal  of this project  is to promote necessary  reforms that  participants feel  could be useful  to  the RfA system, and to  propose them  for discussion  by  the community. At sometime or another since the creation of this project all  possible flaws in  RfA have been examined and discussed, and it  is hoped that  the project  will  move forward to  proposing  some of the suggested reforms. This takes time, as do  all  new Wikipedia proposals for changes to  policies and site systems. Everyone on  Wikipedia is considered equal, so  users with  'street cred' have no  special  powers. This flat  hierarchy  ensures that  decisions are made through consensus. Individuals can of course bring  their own proposals to the table, but  it  would be highly  recommended that  they  ensure they  would have a minimum  backing  first. Generally, such  individual  proposals begin  in  an appropriate department  of the  the Village pump, where a trial gathering  of views may  be conducive to  moving  to  a more broadly  exposed  central  discussion, and that's where Wikipedia projects can be of greatest assistance.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I probably didn't make what I was thinking clear enough (either that or I've totally misunderstood you); I was thinking that ArbCom could take on the "case" of "incivility at RfA" as a whole, and stamp it out. Ignore me if I'm being brain-dead here - it's that Real Life stuff again!   Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 13:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've numbered the bulleted points above in order (more or less) of priority. I  was just  attempting  to  outline the various resources and steps to  address behavioural  problems to  save you  hunting  round the site to  find out (even I  didn't  know much  about all this before I  became an admin). Incivility  'as a hole' would have  to  be addressed by  the community  at  large, by  proposing some kind of metrics for it -  which  would be extremely  difficult  to  define. Hence each  occurrence of incivility  has to  be addressed on  a case-by-case basis. The irony  is that  not  all  AN/I  discussions are populated by  the same people and admins, so  the threshold for incivility  decided by  consensus iwould be different in each individual  case - plus the fact  that  other circumstances are taken into  account (although I'll  never understand why). The only  other alternative would be to  introduce a common law system. Everyone on  Wikipedia knows that  AfD is a snake pit whether they  admit it or pretend it  isn't, and it's not  necessary  to  relist  the reasons here. What  we are doing  here on  this project  is to  examine the cause and effect, address the suggestions for changes, and ultimately  propose them  to  the community  for debate and implementation..


 * Put another way, empirical  studies of why  RfA is broken appear to  point mainly  to  incivility and fraudulent voting, and I'll  hasten to  add - lest  I am  misunderstood by  some as being an advocate of limiting the rights of the oppose voters - on  both  sides of the fence. Our goal  here is to  clean up that  process by  encouraging  voters to  act reasonably and vote accurately, and if they don't, apply  some measures to preventing abuse of the system - bearing  in  mind that  blocks and bans are for preventing  further disruption and not  to  punish, although there is not always a perfectly  bright  line between prevention  and punishment (take prison  systems for example). This may  have to  be achieved by  limiting  the right  of all  users to  vote such as they  are on  other Wikis. Two analogies: A bad driver will  get  points on  his licence and when has enough, he gets banned,  but  we don't punish  the entire community. If however an entire stretch of road is so  straight  that  drivers regularly  drive too  fast  on it, we impose a speed limit  for every one. That's then a rule, and if the limit  is reasonable most drivers will  stick  to  it; and those that  don't  will get  points (a warning), and a fine (punishment), and repeat offenders will  be banned (prevention). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Every editor I've tried to convince to run for admin in the past year has declined specifically because they didn't want to go through the inevitable attacks and incivility. I would suggest making it clear that all participants are required to adhere to a high standard of civility, and that any uncivil comments will be subject to removal. I would also suggest prohibiting participation by anyone who has been blocked in the past month or two. If we do end up having an RfA clerk, they could be tasked with moderating the discussion and removing uncivil comments. Kaldari (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, how many potential candidates have we lost through this? I've only approached 2 people on being an admin (the rest have approached me), and 1 declined for that reason. Kudpung, Kaldari - I'm curious to know roughly how many people you've approached since the beginning of the year?  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 11:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've approached 11 since Sept last  year. Most declined for the usual reasons. One said they  they  were quite happy  to  continue to  contribute articles (and excellent  articles they  are), and one  said they  would not  want  the flak that  using the tools would attract. They  would all have been excellent  admins -  people who  have no  controversial  issues at  all. I've had several  requests since the 'Request-a-nom' page was started, but  none of them  would have passed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Update: By coincidence, I've have another user decline today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

What the Bureaucrats are saying
- about policing RfA. It's interesting to  note that  WBscribe has also  had some editors decline his proposals for adminship. Interesting reading  for anyone who has 10 minutes to  spare; many  points covered, and it  may  have some influence on  how a possible proposal for  clerks might be addressed. The discussion is still  ongoing but  may  be archived soon.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Miller test
At the main talkpage, Kudpung has made reference to an RfA vote that, in the eyes of several people, was considered invalid. In addition, we also saw another RfA vote a few days ago that was so bad it had to be oversighted. This brings up a topic which has been of much concern; the manner in which people conduct themselves at RfA. Through the many discussions, we've established that 1. everyone has a different standard for civility and 2. RfA is, by its nature, somewhat confrontational (if you're opposing at RfA, you're opposing the person, unlike everywhere else here where you (or at least you should) oppose the action). However, the fact that it was another opposer who e-mailed oversight in the second example above demonstrates that, even now, there is a certain threshold for what we're willing to take; there is at least some semblance of common sense. To make RfA a less distasteful experience for most people, it will require a more liberal application of said common sense. There is no way to completely quantify it, so we have to know it when we see it. The two ways I can think of to go about enforcing it are the following. If a substantial number of editors (I'm talking 4-5) agree, with no opposition, that something is completely beyond the pale, an admin/bureaucrat (doesn't matter which access level we choose) can strike and indent it, or if it's bad enough remove it altogether. The second would be what was suggested above; to let the bureaucrats police RfA votes. I won't make any grand proclamations that this will solve all the problems of RfA, but it's a way of combating one of the problems we've identified. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's obvious which !vote is referred to in one of the above examples, and I made a few comments myself - I'll weigh in briefly:
 * Yes, it seems there do need to be "rules" about what rationales are "acceptable".
 * Inevitably, applying these rules will need liberal doses of "common sense" and judgement.
 * There seems also to be a need for a procedural way to "enforce" this. Clerking sounds good.
 * I ended up commenting far more than I should, and probably making a messy situation look worse - but, if I had known that procedure would deal with the issue, I would have found it a lot easier to "stop arguing". I feel bad, now, that a wish to comment on what I saw as a bad "advert" for RFA just probably resulted in it looking like an even worse "advert". I could have confined myself to talk page comments - probably I should have (I notice Kudpung was able to do this) - but it's hard not to want your refutation of a poor rationale to be visible when you feel strongly, and once 2 or 3 people join in - there's your "mess". Begoon &thinsp; talk  11:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My opinion? It was a perfectly valid vote, with a perfectly valid reason behind it. The reason was weak, but the badgering the opposer received on the RfA was plainly disgusting, and a lesser editor would have taken it much worse. I'd like to commend BlueRaspberry for how well he took the criticism. Clerking, whilst a great idea, should just be doing what the community already does, so unless a decision from the community clearly shows that it was inappropriate and can define why for future situations then it should not be removed by anyone, let alone clerks.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be absolutely correct, and if you are, then it was comments like mine that needed to be removed, prevented, or at least properly discouraged. That would serve to clean up some of the "mess". Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. And I don't blame you for it at all, wanting to rebuke an oppose you disagree with is perfectly normal. I do wonder if we should automatically put all chatter after an oppose on the talk page with a link to the section...  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, holding the thought, it would not have offended or irked me one bit to have it all moved to the talk page. I wish I'd thought to be bold enough to do that myself. In this scenario, I become the latest in a long line of users to be the "walking proof" that we can't "just trust" even well meaning !voters to do the right thing in the heat of RFA. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that anything more than 2 or 3 comments after an oppose should be moved to the talk page. One oppose and the badgering that follows shouldn't be able to take up my whole screen.  &mdash;SW&mdash; squeal 16:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That I can agree with, and I suspect being quicker to do that would receive wide support. In addition, I'm not going to comment on the specifics of that example, and whether or not that's a valid oppose or not is up for debate; however, there are some instances where everyone, even other opposers, agrees the oppose is completely ridiculous.  I'd argue that in such a case (i.e. I saw one once that was "I have to oppose for all the other people who would have" with nothing else) it should be moved to the talkpage and not count as a vote at all; if it contains unfounded insults (i.e. "[It doesn't seem you sufficiently value the time of project volunteers who aren't operating on your wavelength.") it should be removed altogether.  Again, this will require knowing it when we see it, because it's not possible to come up with a hard list of things you can't say, but it's usually easy enough to see when it happens.  That we haven't done anything about it in all instances doesn't mean the vast majority of us don't already.  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that clerking  would lead to more propriety  in  the process. To  what  degree beyond simply  maintaining  the format of the page, checking  for duplicate votes, socks, and banned users, or moving  long  theads to  the talk  page, etc., remains open to  discussion (a list  of suggested tasks is at  WP:RFA/C). Some votes, (and some are even  based on lies and deceit) are clearly not  acceptable but if nothing  is done, they  can - and do - lead to  pile-ons. and such  votes are even far more toxic than entirely  uncommitted ones. A participant  who  justifies their vote by  expressing   an opinion that  something  on a practically empty user page is blasphemous, clearly  needs to  be at least drawn to  the importance of objective voting if they  intend to  take part in  RfA more often; it's how we do  it that  will  have effect. Oppose votes, for example,  for reasons of a user's religious affiliation (or lack of it) are also  out  of order and totally  irrelevant, although  the community  has been unable to reach a consensus. In the current   climate of RfA, badgering is therefore a necessary evil in many cases, but as I have previously mentioned, whatever clerks actually  do,  the fact  that RfA would be being watched more closely would almost  certainly  have some psychological  impact  on  the behaviour of the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've meant to respond to this for a while now; I completely agree. I don't know who else would be up to the task, but if the bureaucrats don't want to do it we'll need to find people.  I'm not quite sure how we'd go about doing that; the one idea I can think of that wouldn't involve tedious elections is to have the crats select 4-5 people who they think are capable of handling it.  But even that I'm not sure they'd go for, in which case I'm (for the moment at least) out of ideas. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think  we need to  review everything  we've discussed at  WP:RFA/C and see if there's something there than can be proposed. However, that  said, although  I've never been in  favour of radical  alternatives, after the recent  Arbcom  elections I'm wondering  now if a similar secure poll  system would be worth  trying, perhaps as a trial for a while where candidates could choose one or the other system.  Admittedly this system amounts to  little more than simple vote counting, but  it would force noms and self-noms to  make strong  nom  statements, and may  just  force participants to  do  some proper research  of their own  before voting,  and cut  out  some of the trolling (which  is now actually  getting  worse than ever). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt SecurePoll will work. It was tried for the 2010 Oversight/Checkuser elections, and it wound up, rather infamously, only getting one CU and no OS promoted. ArbCom was forced to intervene. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 10:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the 2010 election was much of a precedent either way for using SecurePoll at RfA because (as was discussed in the RfC afterwards) that election lacked RfA-style discussion and open commenting. I think there are two questions to be asked. First, should we consider having separate stages for commenting and for voting? This would mean that no votes would be cast until all comments were closed, and votes would not include comments. The question of using SecurePoll is secondary to that and raises different issues, e.g. as Risker said in the 2010 post-election discussion, "Voting, particularly secret balloting, tells us who is most popular. We should not care who is popular." - Pointillist (talk) 14:59 & 23:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Badgering the voters does not seem to be enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A New Year's resolution
Some people who don't  appreciate all  the hard work  and discussion that's been going  on  at  this project  for the last  7 months are complaining  that  RFA2011 is nailed to  its perch. What we have at  least  done is  create the first  ever focused set  of discussions on  RfA  reform, confirmed what's blatantly wrong  with  the process, and come upwith a lot of ideas. I suggest  we now finally  get  round to  drafting  some concrete proposals and  throw them  to  RfC and see what  happens. If one fails, we follow up  with  another, and so  on  every  30 days until  we have a clear idea of what  the community  wants (or doesn't  want). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)