Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Organising our discussions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?

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

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

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

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

voter profiles page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Survey ideas

12 April 2011. Moved to Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

Errant (chat!) has come up with some really good stuff over here in starting to formulate some survey / feedback questions. Recommend y'all go take a look :o) Pesky (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Yep, feedback and additions more than welcome; hopefully this survey/study could integrate with the reform work here - either drawing on it or informing it. w/e. --Errant (chat!) 08:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC) I have no idea if this is already available (or from where), but the stats on duration/edits of 'not now' candidates might already be aggregated somewhere, as well as for successful ones; this might show where the community has unconsciously (wisdom of crowds) already group-thought what the minimums should be (and likely changed over the years, although only the most recent two years would likely be helpful); I'm sure there's overlap, but might indicate the minimums. If it's not already available from the foundation/bureaucrats, it could be compiled, though tedious. It might also be interesting to see how it's evolved over the years. Survey results would likely be comparable. Dru of Id (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Voter profiles We're having a table made up based on the following parameters, plus possible extrapolation of any percentages we need: Voters on RfA over the past 12 months Date of each voter's first Wikipedia edit Number of Wikipedia edits of each voter Number of times the voter voted Number of times the voter voted 'support' Number of times the voter voted 'oppose' Number of times the voter voted 'neutral' Voter has admin rights or higher. Y/N However, it will take five days. If the community thinks it's too long to wait, we can try to find another programmer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Perfectly reasonable to wait five days. If that's how long it takes to get it done properly, why hurry it along? Being hasty about stuff is one sure way of getting it wrong in the end! Pesky (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC) These things take time. Five days isn't unreasonable. WormTT · (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC) See User:Kudpung/RfA reform/Voter profiles. —SW— squeal 23:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Moved to: Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting qualification

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

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

Provided it was set low, clear and automatic I would be OK with a qualification for !voting. I remember when I first checked out RFA I couldn't work out what the unwritten criteria was for voting and I left the page for months. I think I'd been editing over 12 months before I first !voted in an RFA, so a low threshold such as 200 edits would actually make it clearer more open and less cliquey. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I do quite like the suggestions from Kudpung actually, basically "2m good standing". The only problem is that it makes blocks punative... WormTT · (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC) That's interesting, WereSpielChequers, because my 1st !vote was "Support (Feel free to remove if non-admins are not allowed to vote in RFAs)." That caused this response on my talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I agree with PhantomSteve - this is a community decision not an admin one. I think a potential solution would be to make it an indirect community decision by electing a committee to appoint admins, but that masks the real issue which is that we haven't agreed the criteria that admins should be judged against. If we set the criteria then I believe a whole bunch of editors will look at it see if they meet it and come forward. We'd have to set a criteria if we elected a committee - either explicitly or implicitly by the views of those elected. So why not set a criteria and then judge candidates against it? ϢereSpielChequers 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I like clearly defined goalposts. It's so much easier to hit a target when you're not blindfolded in advance. And having a clear standard to be judged against would rule out a lot of 'personality clash' votes or 'xe's my friend' votes. Pesky (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC) What we would need are some stats on voter profiles, perhaps in a sortable table like we've done for the NPPer profiles. It would go something like this: Number of voters on RfA over the past 12 months Date of each voter's first edit Number of edits of each voter Number of times the voter voted Number of times the voter voted 'support' Number of times the voter voted 'oppose' Number of times the voter voted 'neutral' This may help to establish a 'right to vote'. There's not much point in speculating what that threshold would be yet. We need those stats and then discuss it further. Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Voter profiles Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC) We now have an excellent sortable table of who and how voted on RfA over the last 12 months. Play with it - there is some extraordinary information to be gleaned from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Minimum participants

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

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

There is a temptation to simply say that chance would be a fine thing, but it is in theory better to decide rules in advance of needing them. I'm loathe to have a rule that a set number of participants are required as this could give an opposer an invidious choice. - Oppose and it passes 29 to 1 or stay stumm and it fails 29 - 0 for lack of participation. These sort of thresholds only work if you define a minimum number of supporters. So if it needs 22 supports and 70-75% support then 20 - 0, 21 - 7 and 69-31 all fail but 22-7 is a success and 22-8 and 22-9 are crat calls. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I know it's better to decide the rules before needing them, and I know it is one of my suggestions, but I'm also aware that we want to avoid instruction creep - that's why it's all only at the idea stage. There's also the possiblity that it might encourage canvassing. There was a time, a long time ago by 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) Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts

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

Boing's first thoughts

13 April 2011. Moved to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed, but I'm just jotting notes down here as I think of them, and I'm deliberately doing so without having read anyone else's feedback first. Hope it's of some use... This could be run as a parallel optional RfA process for a trial period - Yep, I like the idea of an optional parallel trial Candidates & nominations Minimum qualifications for candidacy - I definitely agree, yes, but I think there would be stiff opposition. I think the bar should be set quite low, but having no bar at all is naive and allowing hopeless cases to keep crashing and burning has to be bad for their morale. Nominations to be made only by admins etc - I don't like that idea at all, for a couple of reasons. There really is nothing special about being an admin that makes a person any better qualified to decide who else will make a good admin. And it would reinforce the "elite" accusations that are a major part of the problems with the admin system. I'd suggest anyone can be nominated by any editor in good standing, but the nominator must verify that the candidate satisfies the minimum qualifications. And for a self nom, a clear statement that the minimum qualifications are met is also required. Any noms that do not make such a declaration should be immediately rejected. Having such a declaration doesn't necessarily mean the candidate really does qualify, but it does mean someone has at least read the qualification requirements - most of our NOTNOWs have clearly not read a word about suitability for RfA Fresh start candidates: must declare, in confidence, their intention to run for RfA to an ARBCOM - agree Qualifications for voters Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I really don't like the idea imposing any minimum requirements for eligibility to !vote, as it goes against the entire equality ethos that in general has worked so surprisingly well. Generally, limiting !voting to autoconfirmed registered users is enough, I think, but I would probably support one small tweak to that. If we had a !voting right that was automatically granted once an editor has been registered for 7 days (just like the 4 day autoconfirm one), that would stop new SPA registrations after an RfA has started. Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Voting conditions Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I'm generally in support of the spirit of that whole bit - but would just caution against making it look too much like we're trying to make Support voting easier than Oppose voting Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

End Weak and Strong

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

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

Kudpung is suggesting ending the use of Weak and Strong and giving the !voters just three choices, Support, Neutral and Oppose. Me I'm not sure what the point is of posting in neutral and rarely do so, nor do I think Strong is helpful (and if it did mean anything it would be open to abuse), I'd rather use the electrons to give an extra reason to support or oppose a candidate. But I do think that weak is useful, life is complex and Virtual Life even more so, I feel that three choices is insufficient to cover the range of candidates that I come across at RFA. I appreciate that prefixing my vote at RFA with weak is an invitation to the closing crat to give it less weight then normal, but some candidates I support or Oppose less strongly than others. Also I don't see any benefit to RFA in getting rid of this, and some disbenefit. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Strong is certainly not helpful. As has been mentioned it is often added to arguments that are in fact quite weak or at the least no better than any other. Although I admit I have used it myself a few times, usually if I really think a candidate would be a great admin. Weak, on the other hand, is a useful self-identifier. If someone marks their comment as weak, I expect the closing 'crat to give it half weight compared to others who did not do so, but I certainly wouldn't expect them to give someone who self identified their position as strong any extra weight. Not sure we could get rid of strong without taking weak off the table as well though. Why do we even have bolded votes at the beginning of comments? They are already organized into sections for support or opposition. Maybe we should just get rid of that tradition altogether. People could still identify their position as weak in the text of their remark if they felt it was so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC) The bolded text does increase readability, in my opinion. Useight (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I was thinking on the lines that doing away with the qualifying adjectives would help provide a clearer overview of the consensus that is developing, and also help the crats make up their minds in close calls. . As Beeb says, it would force voters to make their rationale ore detailed. I must admit I have used the 'strong' and 'weak' about twice in my RfA voting history, but only when the outcome is already going to be blatantantly obvious. However, we really need some crat input on this. I personally see no objections however in continuing to use the traditional bold text as used in in all debates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I seem to recall a crat citing numerous 'weak opposes' in their rationale for promoting a <70% candidate in at least one instance. 'Strong support' is unhelpful (though it does no harm), while 'strong oppose' can be taken as uncivil. I certainly think 'weak' rationales are given weight by crats in close RfAs that might go either way. Swarm 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. —SW— confabulate 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC) Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea!

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

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles

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) <outdent> And most places there is some kind of minimum criterion - like age. And I don't think people who've been certified insane can vote in many places. I think having a 'mental age' (subjective, probably!) and 'recognition of sanity' badge is not a bad thing. Pesky (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC) Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Clean start

A short discussion about clean-start issues.

Currently policy is that clean start candidates are strongly recommended to inform Arbcom. But on recent experience it isn't particularly workable for people to run with an Arbcom statement that their previous account was clean enough to be disregarded. So I'd be OK with Arbcom giving people the green light to run without revealing their former account, provided either that the former account was uncontentious or that the former account was was so long ago that matter is moot. That would men that on some occasions Arbcom would have to say to a potential candidate that either they wait x months or they run disclosing their prior account. In the event that someone who has made a cleanstart but their early edits disclose that they are a clean start account then Arbcom would need to say whether they would have allowed the candidate to run without mention of their clean start. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) If ArbCom were to publicly announce that a particular user couldn't run without disclosing their previous account or wait X months, and then the user waited X months, there is a decent chance that that would derail their RFA right off the bat. In my experience, there would be opposes for refusing to reveal their prior account. Useight (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC) True, but as we saw in a recent RFA, not enough to derail an RFA. The only private way to inform Arbcom about a previous account that you had a clean start from is by Email. Arbcom then have an interesting set of choices including allowing the candidate to run without mentioning the former account, not allowing them to run without disclosing the former account, or as happened recently, allowing the candidate to run with an Arb statement about the nature of the previous account. They could presumably also say "keep your nose clean for x months and ask us again then". I'm not and never have been an Arb and don't know how often if ever the first two scenarios have happened (though I would hope that it could if the only reason for the Cleanstart was outing or harassment). Current policy strongly recommends that Clean start candidates talk to Arbcom, and I think that many would like that to be mandatory. ϢereSpielChequers 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I have no problem with a person running for admin with a clean start, if the clean start was to cover up an outting or harrassment or something along those lines. When a candidate uses a clean start to redeem him/herself from past mistakes, then I have a concern. A person with 12 months clean record and a person with a 12 month clean record after a clean start are not the same.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, so how long do you think someone should wait after a clean start from a "contentious" account. Remember that we have had people exercise RTV when there was outing or harassment but they themselves had not behaved entirely uncontentiously. I would like the community to give Arbcom some guidance here so they felt empowered to say "in this case we need an extra x months good behaviour before allowing you to run without declaring your prior account, you are of course free to declare your prior account and run earlier". At the moment I suspect Arbcom are seeing this as a binary choice, allow people to run without disclosing their prior identity or not. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mandatory counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amalthea 13:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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

A necessary distinction

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

RfA model should be scrapped

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

Continues at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives

So far everybody is talking about RfA reform as a modification of the current RfA model... IMO, RfA is so broken that any model built around it is doomed for failure. We need to completely scrap the model and come up with something new---a completely new way of getting the bit.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I like that idea..you have any ideas?Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 01:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I'd certainly be interested in such a measure, but we need to be realistic. It will take a considerable amount of time to completely rewrite RFA (which I would support), but it just might be necessary. I think that for now, we should stick to realistic measures and experimentation/trial until we can come up with a process that eliminates the current RFA model. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC) We do need to get this past the community. There is some doubt that they will accept he clerks proposal. I doubt at this time they would accept a complete overhaul. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC) (ec)And I think it would take a lot more time "rewriting" the old model and don't think much will be accomplished if we did. Just look at the above discussion and that's just people spouting their opinions on the current status quo.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I don't believe any options are off the table in this conversation, if you have a proposal to fundamentally redo the entire process by all means present it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Several editors have mentioned that if we could get even one of the suggested reform items past the community, this may open the road for more, and I wholly support that. That said, this project certainly does not exclude the possibiliy of coming up with an entirely new system. We could open a new sub page for discussing that, but it would be a very long and tedious route. There may be cabals, perhaps even at WMF, discussing such measures already. JW's silence may seem to suggest that, but he may well have very good reasons not to comment here, though it would be great if he would chime in. What we as a task force need to decide is whether we offer these reforms to the community singly, over a considered period of time, or as a bundled package. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC) There are some ideas it would make sense to bundle together, but in general I think they should be presented to the community singly. As Kudpung, and many others, have said, getting one reform idea past the community may open the road for more. If this is the case, it should be much easier to get the ideas past the community singly than if we were to group them all together. — Oli OR Pyfan! 02:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Pros & cons: A bundled reform would entail interminable discussion by the broader community on all the individual points, probably in a traditional unstructured debate. Staggering the proposals would meet the suggestion that one reform would open the road to more, and would not pile on a lot of individual proposals for the broader community to consider at the same time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC) What a nightmare... are we here to fix RfA or to put bandaids on it? Issuing changes piecemeal does not "fix" the problem, but will introduce pieces in a disconcordant manner without any assurance that the issues needing to be fixed will be fixed. And like I said, IMO any reform that builds upon the current model will just perpetuate the problem. If we are going to make a proposal, I say we go full bore, present an IDEAL. Even if that ideal isn't accepted today, we get it out there. Personally, I am dubious that any meaningful change will come about, but I'd rather present a new ideal that we can be proud of than haphazard suggestions that don't really do anything.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Tofu, there have been several suggestions in the past. 1 - Breaking the individual tools out ala rollback. 2 - Alternative methods of giving the bit ala coaching with tools. 3 - probational periods with the bit 4 - making it into a true vote with secret ballots. 5 - making it into more of an RfC type scenario where people endorse individual statements making it the 'crat more responsible for interpretting consensus. There are numerous alternatives, the question is can we come up with a viable alternative.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I've mentioned some possible pros and cons already. Rolling out these suggested changes to the existing basic system as a bundle would in fact amount to a major reform. Neverthless, we are not ruling out suggestions for a completely different concept, such as, for example, secret ballot, although I suspect that such ideas are already being discussed in another place. If we do go along that track as well, let's make it a discussion on a separate sub page. Nevertheless, for the moment, I think we would have a lot to gain by discussing the changes that have been listed here as possibles, and reaching some consensus on them. Hence the straw poll below (with space for discussion below it), which may produce working priorities for them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Hang on a moment. I'm all for discussing new ideas, completely radical or minor tweaks. However, before you suggest ripping down RfA for a new system, I would expect a clear direction and reason for the new system. For example, my personal opinion is that the current system does elect the right people, but the broken-ness is around the way failed candidates are left to feel. That point of view can be (and has been) analysed and specific solutions have been put forward. The larger picture "what is an administrator", "unbundling the tools" or "how do we get rid of administrators" should be out of scope for this reform, or the good work will get lost in the noise, they can be dealt with seperately. Having said that, some fixes you've brought up can and should be entertained. Perhaps an WP:RfA reform 2011/Ideas lab page, where sections for different methods (even the perennial ones) could be discussed, improved or vetoed through discussion. WormTT · (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I want to expand on my comments in the !vote below. I agree with Worm that the task force can find room to discuss the more radical ideas, and a new page to do so is a good idea. In terms of the core aims I think the next steps are clear; we need to elucidate the ideas we have discussed so far into a proper list of proposals (maybe, WP:RfA reform 2011/proposals). That way we have a clear idea of what to work on next. --Errant (chat!) 09:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC) We have that already on the main page, and as we progress, sub pages for them are being created. You may have noticed that I've already copied some threads over to the respective pages. If there are any aspects of reform of the current system that we have missed, just add them neatly to the sections on the main page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC) I sincerely hope that WMF is considering an alternative or replacement to the current RfA process, for there is no chance of this task force implementing one. None whatsoever. Sorry, but that's the truth. What we can do, realistically, is try to implement changes that will improve the existing process. I'm more than happy to discuss alternative methods, but a serious initiative to scrap RfA by way of community approval would be, I fear, a waste of time. Swarm X 19:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC) You are probably right, which is why I'd rather come up with an IDEA of what we as a community would like. Get an actual consensus to change it will not happen, but if we have an idea of where we want to go, it might get implemented by fiat.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC) And if the powers that be are watching this, we might be able to discourage plans that the community would reject AND might address some of the issues that they might overlook.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC) My personal views are: We could at least try to get clerking approved for starters. This task force would never get an entirely radically new form of selection process past the community. The powers that be are probably not watching, and if they are they are, they have their reasons for not chiming in. It would be nice to know though. I don't like wasting my time or anyone else's. Radical change may come at any time suddenly by edict from higher authority. We don't want to discourage ourselves from discussing any of our points for reform, but we can reach a consensus to not waste time on any that any that may not be absolutely viable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

A radical proposal that could be tried immediately

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

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

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

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

Again, this is an idea that a brave soul could try immediately. (note, I am not advising somebody to try it as it might have negative reactions, but pointing out that if somebody wanted to try something different, this could be done.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Focus on improvement and recognition, not inquisition

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

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

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

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

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

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

–SJ+ 08:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

(This thread has been copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives. Please continue it there) — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 04:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The ideas on this page

The ideas on this page

Well, as the project has expanded in scope, the discussion on this page has somewhat tapered off. However, there are still numerous good ideas on this page, primarily having to do with "rules" that can be introduced. Since this has become more of a home page/directory for the project, should we move the "suggestions" on this page to a subpage for further developement? I really think we should push some of those ideas forward- like a basic requirement for candidates to prevent NOTNOWs. Swarm X 19:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC) There's a lot of agreement on this, and associated pages, hence less discussion. It would be great to see the solidly held views, move forward toward implementation. My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Swarm's right, what someone could do is to go through the list of reform suggestions and put < Now under discussion at sub page WP:RFA2011/XXXXX > next to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Place for the NOTNOW solutions would be the Unsuccessful candidates department. Go for it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

New Admin School's Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list as pre-RfA mandatory reading

This is something that's been floating in my head for months. We can't actually force people to read it, but if we state that everything on Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list is required reading before someone puts up their RfA, it'll make RfA seem like a bit more of a commitment and hopefully reduce the number of snow closes.

Lots of RfAs sink when the candidates reveal that they don't know policy. The solution? Demand they know policy before they run.

I think it'll help. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that this was common sense, but I agree with Sven. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes... but it's apparently TLDR for some. Would some sort of self-assessment, multiple choice exam be feasible? Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A multiple-choice self-assessment test would be a brilliant idea! Good thinking :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It'd work. Swarm ^X 19:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that unless you have people writing questions all the time and rotating them in, the answers will get out and it won't assess anyone. It won't be an assessment of what they know (or know where to look the answer up in the policy) but a box to check by getting the answer from someone else and we will never know which one happened. GB fan (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, any candidate who is serious about wanting/needing the tools, and really wants to pass RfA with flying colours, will read up on absolutely everything on RfA, including old RfAs passed and failed to see how people answered/reacted to the many different questions. I know I did, but ironically (and possibly unique), I didn't get one single question on my knowledge of Wikipedia process. Most of the questions were rather rhetorical and based on my own philosophy towards them. The one really odd-ball question was ostensibly designed to trap me into admitting that editors should only write articles about the country they live in! Because I refused to play ball, I got a 'neutral' (with 'oppose' undertones) from the questioner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I imagine I had more questions about trees in my RfA than anyone else.

I also read virtually every RfA from the past year or so and read and re-read the admin's reading list over the course of around six months. Had I not done this, I would have crashed and burned spectacularly, as I really didn't understand a lot of areas of policy. I still felt under-prepared when I transcluded the RfA. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, in spite of two strong noms from respected admins, I hovered with my mouse for a long time before pressing the transclude button. I'm pretty strong on policy in the areas I work and want to work in, but the buggers always have a knack of going (deliberately?) for the ones your not interested in. If I remember rightly, several RfA passed last year where the candidate had never even seen an RfA before. Trees, well... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please change it again...

I think this should be done here, the fast removal of personal attacks and incivility should not rely on admins or even crats being active.--Müdigkeit (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)