Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 4

< Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011
Latest comment: 13 years ago by WFCforLife in topic Where to?
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Please consider this for a minute

Latest comment: 13 years ago36 comments12 people in discussion
5 June 2011. Various comments by User:Fetchcomms and responses. All now being discussed on respective RFA2011 sub pages.

Note: This thread now needs copying to a more appropriate sub page - which one?

Every time I say this, I get ignored or the discussion gets off-topic:

The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants.


By participants, I do not mean the candidate (although sometimes that might be an issue), but the actual voters. There will be rude people, and there will be annoying people, and there will be people voting per rationales that you think are stupid and I think make perfect sense, and what the hell else. That's life.

roux noted several month ago that we cannot change users' behavior without any incentive for them to change. Well, we obviously aren't going to be mass-banning people from voting in RfAs, so we need to be focusing on how to eliminate the things that prompt bad and/or annoying behavior.

Some thoughts:

  • No "badgering", broadly construed, please. Basically, unless someone seems genuinely "wrong" (e.g., new user posting a support comment in the oppose section, or a factually inaccurate comment), no user should be allowed to question another's vote. Why? Because a) bureaucrats have enough brain cells to discount "silly" votes; b) RfA is about opinions, and as long as they don't hurt others (that's discussed next), they're allowed. We're not a democracy and we don't have a constitution, but if RfA is truly a discussion (well, more of a vote + semi-discussion), all users are allowed to express their own opinions, regardless of how unpopular or "wrong" they may appear to be—except when they are rude, attacking, etc.:
  • We all need to take more time to put some thought into our votes. I see often new users creating RfAs for themselves. There's always that one nice user that opposes but explains kindly what an admin does, what's expected by the community, our standards, etc. Well, I never see that for more "established" users' RfAs. Instead, everyone writes short, concise, and rather affronting rationales in opposes. An extreme case might be, "Strongest possible oppose [User X] should never become an admin because ... [blah, blah, blah, tirade, rant, etc.]." This is absolutely the wrong way to go about voting at RfA, but so is "Oppose The unacceptable CSD taggings listed above make me think [User X] is not the appropriate candidate for adminship at this time."
  • Obviously, as I said, we need some sort of incentive to prevent such unthoughtful and uncaring comments. Well, here's the other issue: people need to stop taking RfA so personally—both the candidate and the voters. Voters, 99% of you have never even seen or talked to the user in real life (and 50% of you haven't ever interacted with the candidate onwiki, but that's irrelevant here). Stop acting like his or her bad CSD taggings are a slap in your face, because they're not. Just because the candidate needs to review the CSD policy does not mean you can talk to him or her as if you're better than him/her. Candidate, it's a website on which you are anonymous. Ugh, seriously, I know it's disgusting to see people insult you en masse, but they don't know who you are. Improve on what they're criticizing and prove dem haterz wrong. Don't quit, what the hell does that do?

What kind of "reform" are we grabbing for? The only reform that is needed is for rude voters. Although there is no incentive for people to comment nicer, what we should be reforming is voters' attitudes and tones by leaving them gentle talk page reminders of how to make comments offend others less (it is almost always unintentionally offensive) and then just growing a thicker skin and ignoring the nonsense altogether.

I'd really like "no badgering" to become a sort of rule or requirement at RfA, because all it does is cause drama, but I'd like to see how many agree with my sentiment, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea fletch. I will need to think further about this before giving a longer reply --Guerillero | My Talk 03:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
  • If someone says "Oppose - candidate hasn't even created one article", and the candidate has in fact created a dozen articles, I'm going to badger. Because if I don't, there will be a bunch of "Oppose per lack of content creation"s from people who took the statement at face value and didn't bother to do the research themselves. 28bytes (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I just clarified that above. Obviously, pointing out factually inaccurate statements is acceptable. However, I don't think that badgering about opinions (e.g., "not enough content work for me") or even rationale-less opposes, is helpful to the RfA atmosphere. It often encourages hostility between supporters and opposers. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This is actually why I think it is imperative that we discuss alternative means to desysop people in conjunction with RfA Reform. As long as people see RfA as being a one way street, then people are going to be a little more vociferous in their opposes. Since there isn't a viable means to remove the bit from bad admins, it becomes more imperative to prevent questionable admins from passing. If there was a viable means to remove the bit, then promoting flawed candidates becomes less problematic. In the current system, if a person is running for admin and there are any concerns about the candidate, then the only time to speak up is during the RfA. Opposes have to be as strong and persuasive as possible. If, however, there was a viable means to remove the bit, then it becomes easier to support flawed candidates knowing that mistakes can be fixed later on. You'll see more people assuming good faith on the part of the candidate and giving them a benefit of the doubt. And if we do it right, we can make it so that having the bit removed is not the be all and end all in the community.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
This task force is already aware that RfA needs urgent reform. Four years of informal discussion at WT:RfA (which has now all but dried up, BTW) by 2,000 commentators has also come very firmly to the conclusion that something needs to be done, but has got nowhere with it. This project is the first serious attempt to address the issues, especially those pointed out to us again by Fetchomms. Research, including sortable tables on voter profiles and the questions they ask, seems to assert yet again that the problems are clearly due to the way people participate. We need to move on from here and continue the discussions towards those solutions that we have now started on the several sub pages that make up the family of this project. In the meantime I have created a page for suggestions for radical reform, and am copying to it any relevant threads that concern it. What we need now is more active participation from those who have signed on for the task force, which should preferably include people who have a working knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and policy, and are prepared to devote some time to the items to be addressed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, this is not the first serious attempt at reform. There was another precursor attempt about 2 or 3 years ago that lasted for months where a number of users tried to come up with a viable alternative. In the end, it resulted in several people leaving the project because they realized the futility of making change. Which is why I am not as concerned about coming up with an idea that will garner enough consensus as I am with coming up with a truly viable alternative(s) that people can live with. I do not believe we will get a consensus to change, but do believe we need to put something on the table with an idea of where we'd like to go.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Balloonman, I agree that a desysop solution is necessary (and I'm currently unsure of how it should be structured; any current system—recall, RfA reconfirmation—is quite easily abused if we make it mandatory; this is aside the point for now, though); however, just because voters should "prevent question admins from passing" does not mean they must do so in a manner that degrades the candidate. It is perfectly possible to oppose a candidate politely, taking time and care not to hurt their feelings (although, as I said above, sometimes sucking it up is needed). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Both "unacceptable" and "not the appropriate candidate" are a bit demeaning, IMO. There are better ways to say it: mistakes in CSD tagging; spend a little more time with CSD/NPP and come back soon; look forward to a support from me once the CSD mistaggings are resolved; etc. But I would not like my work (honest mistakes, probably) to be labeled as "unacceptable" or to think that my candidacy is "inappropriate". What would be appropriate? ... etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 06:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)There is an endemic propensity at Wikipedia for editors to go out of their way to look for possible bad faith in comments Wikipedians make. This is in itself bad faith. It's intrinsic in any form of written dialogue that does not convey the nuances conveyed by intonation in the spoken word. That said, the discussion on voting behaviour is here, and a table (which can take up to 20 seconds to load) is here. From that table, it is possible to extrapolate who, when, how, why, and where, the individual RfA participants voted - and hence who the drama mongers, the pile-on voters, and the 'fan' voters are. The discussion is not lacking in suggestions, which is is coupled with the suggestions for RfA clerking, also on a dedicated page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's key that we don't assume bad faith by thinking that anyone writing a comment that appears rude is doing so on purpose (however, in certain cases, it is quite clear they are purposely being rude, such as the "strongest possible oppose" example I gave above); it almost always just happens to come out less nice that one would expect, and I think just a little question at the voter's talk page ("Hey, I saw your comment at [User X's RfA] and it came off a little harsh to me; with respect to your opinion, which is valid, do you mind toning it down a little for the candidate's benefit?" etc.) might help. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no way one can pretend that blatant incivility and personal attacks are good faith. When it happens, the bad faith is done. Damage control can't revert it. It has to be discouraged before it happens, or we're still going to get fewer and fewer candidates coming forward, and more candidates leaving the project when they fail. You said it yourself: The problem with RfA is NOT the process. It is the participants. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly; while we can work with the good-faith users and try to improve the general tone of RfA comments, the bad-faith comments should be prevented. However, as I said earlier, roux had already pointed out the issue: without any incentive, we cannot force any such change. There is no way to prevent someone from making uncivil and blatantly disrespectful comments, just like there is no way to prevent vandalism—only respond to it and discourage it. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 
u can haz badgering. 125.162.150.88

I'm late to the party, but let me just say that what "badgering" is is subjective, and it's completely called for if someone's opinion is wrong. Swarm X 04:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a wrong opinion. It's logically impossible. An opinion does not need to be based on factual or empirical evidence. Some people opine that AIDS does not exist. While most would consider this to be a factually unsupported opinion, it is still a valid opinion—and the best way to deal with it is to ignore it, because they want to generate publicity and controversy. Badgering, I think, is anything that contests or attempts to discount an opinion, broadly construed (so really, almost every comment/response, not made by the candidate, to a vote that tries to point out how dumb they think it is). However, as I and 28bytes noted above, it should be acceptable to "badger" inaccurate statements of fact, such as "only has 2,000 total edits" when in reality, the candidate has 8,000 total edits. But I see too often people making (admittedly) silly opposes, and five or six people responding with, "This is stupid" or "This vote should be indented" or "You should stop voting at RfA if you're going to act like this". While the initial vote contributed nothing to the RfA, the followup comments did nothing to improve the environment, either, except to make it more hostile. Obviously, constructive discussion should not be prohibited, but as I've said before, crats are smart enough to ignore votes you or I consider silly. It's not the place of six other users to repeatedly point that out during the RfA and then have a big argument about the appropriateness of the votes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 05:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
If you're going to state an opinion that is contrary to fact, you're wrong, and if someone tells you that, "I’m entitled to my opinion" is not a valid response. For example, if you say "Not enough content work, IMO" and the candidate has created 500 well sourced articles with 127 GAs and 86 FAs or whatever, your opinion be damned, you're wrong, and I'm going to badger you about it. :) Swarm X 17:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Against vandalism and the creation of crap articles, we have, or will have, firewalls such as NPP, RCP, and the prevention of creation of new pages by non autoconfirmed users. Against uncivility, which is the major issue at RfA, and the reason for the dearth of good candidates, preventative, not palliative, measures are needed. Nobody likes to be made to look a fool on Wikipedia, and if that threat looms in the shape of a clerk, they will almost certainly rationalise their behaviour, to the extent that actual clerk intervention may not even be necessary. At the moment, RfA is like a classroom of kids when the teacher is out of the room. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That is an excellent metaphor. Well said. :) Swarm X 01:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
See also: Lord of teh Flies. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Fetch is right, but has the context too focused:

The problem with Wikipedia is the participants.

The "Holy Community" is the problem. See many of the {{humour}}ous essays; they usually have a fair bit of truth in them. The project's problem is its toxic community. It poisons everything.

There's certainly a pretty strong consensus that RfA is broken, and it's pretty clear that the project is broken in many ways. As Tyler Durden said; just let go. See also: Humpty Dumpty. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Swarm, "not enough" is subjective. Your definition of "enough" differs from mine, I'm sure. If someone has the nerve to say that 86 FAs is "not enough", they're not wrong (I mean, it's based off their own view, not any fact—unless there is a universal definition of "enough" to which all users assess candidates), they just hold a radical view. Do you think that badgering such a comment will do anything? If they have the nerve to say that, they sure won't be changing their vote any time soon. Badgering only makes the atmosphere more hostile and unfriendly—we still have to be nice to the people with radical beliefs. If they want to look foolish, then it's not my problem or the candidate's problem—it's a single oppose that will be discounted in the end, and any 86-FA writer who takes such a ridiculous claim personally needs to grow a sense of humor. As I said before, a bureaucrat will come along, think, "Hmm, that's silly," and ignore the comment—badgering will do nothing but generate drama (and RfA pages are not the right place to gather pileons for an RfA ban).

Kudpung, we just cannot prevent these things without incentive. What will prohibit that user who thinks 86 FAs is not enough from voting? In such extreme cases, humor should be applied, not a serious rebuttal—no crat needs five people to say, "That's the stupidest oppose ever" to realize it. Yes, things like a "three-strikes-and-you're-RfA-banned" will help prevent this nonsense, but we can't check every user's comments before they hit "save" and make it permanent (in the page history, at least). /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We've seen where humour gets us on plenty of RfAs. If you are a highly popular and excellent editor who is not a gnome, such as Boing for example, everyone can use humour and get away with it, otherwise, even humour from anyone can torpedo the RfA of even the most deserving candidate. One of the advantages of a template is that the wording can be very neutral, all clerks or anyone else who uses it will use the same one, just like we do with uw, and a further advantage is that a template can clock up a user log .Three slaps (not necessarily on just one RfA), and that's it - out of RfA for the next thee months (for example). The very knowledge that such a policy exists will cause a magic clean up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd have an immensely hard time remaining silent if someone (assuming they're an established editor who's being completely serious) says an 86-FA writer has too little content work, and I suspect many other regulars would as well. "Badgering" by itself isn't the problem; most "badgering" is either completely legitimate answers to a !vote and/or constructive discussion. The problem is excessive badgering. For example, if someone questions a !vote and the voter reasonably explains their opinions, further badgering is not going to be productive. Anyway, I guess we can agree to disagree on this point and I won't bother you about it any more. Swarm X 07:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, no, I think it's important to have this discussion (because it will inevitably resurface later), and I do understand where you're coming from. Perhaps it's not always the badgering itself, but the tone of the badgering—if you were to respond to the 86-FA-not-enough opposer, would you probably do it in a more ... "WTF are you talking about, you're a moron" (not necessarily that you would do that), or would you ask calmly, "Why do you feel such a high standard is necessary?" (etc.). My guess is that 99% of users who would respond to such a "not-enough-content" comment in such a situation would do so with a snarky or taunting or condescending or rude or other undesirable choice of words because they feel, frankly, that this opposer is stupid (heaven forbid anyone oppose an RfA!). So I think you do have a point that simply wondering about an oppose is not always bad, and I certainly agree that pileons are entirely unhelpful and not at all conducive to producing a pleasant RfA experience. However, if a candidate does not personally respond to a questionable oppose, or if he/she says, "I disagree but I understand where you're coming from", etc., I always wonder if it is appropriate for me or another user to respond/criticize the merits of an oppose.
I think most users would agree that pile-on ("excessive", as you said) badgering is annoying and problematic. Would it make sense to formally propose some sort of restriction on that, rather than all badgering, as part of this RfA reform process, or as something just to implement now, via a discussion on WT:RfA, regardless of what other reforms are approved by the community? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Proposals and discuaaions already taking place on these points on the respective pages of this project, particularly those on !voters and clerking. WE know wht's wrong with RfA, what we need is to focus these discussions on solutions and just forget about what goes on at WT:RfA - which BTW, has all but gone out of business. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you seen that thread Fly By Night started at WT:RFA within the past few days? Shameful. WT:RFA has less class than a Victorian dung sweeper right now. And, @Fetch, I definitely agree- the natural tone in response to someone who is "wrong on the internet" is often rude and condescending, and that's the problem. This is where, I think, the clerks would come in handy. Moving, collapsing, minimizing and otherwise addressing discussions that may be too long or uncivil would be part of the job. Swarm X 06:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Fetch, you're dead right about it being the participants that's "wrong". You only have to get one or two nasssssties being unmuzzled and allowed to get away with it, and then you have the lynch-mob piling in. The 'penalties for being a dick' idea - that if you have to be 'politely requested to remove your toally dickish comment' by the clerks too often, or otherwise break the rules on the kind of interaction that would be considered on user or article talk pages, your voting rights are taken away for x-amount of time ... that might just stop (or at least muzzle and leash) the worse offenders. The main idea about clerking is that hopefully participants will be constantly aware that their behaviour is being observed, and may lead to sanctions, and so behave better. But you are SO right - it's the participants that have created the bloodbath we all know and ..... errrrrm ..... :o) Pesky (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is derived from the participants, and no participant is perfect, or free from their own error. In one example, you, Fetchcomms, asserted that an editor could rack up 3000 edits over the weekend using huggle. This in spite of the user having consistently edited over a significant period of time. In this case, the reality made the comment a bit inappropriate.
I say this because Fetchcomms is generally much more tactful in the responses I have seen, and simply proves that anyone can, for many reasons, make an error in judgment. Here is also an example where a clerk would be best suited to point out any discrepancies, minimizing badgering, and I would hope the editor would consider modifying their own comment, if they agree the remark was superfluous. My76Strat (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the biggest participant problem is that the prospective candidate often appears to be blissfully unaware of how their dirty laundry, if they have any, will be put on display during an RfA debate and, for that matter, blissfully unaware that their laundry is dirty.

My opinion is that we should get rid of sponsored nominations altogether and make every candidacy a self-nomination, but introduce a structured clearing process. How many editors are there who are suitable for adminship, but never bother because they don't regularly cross paths with those involved in the RfA process? To an outsider taking an interest in the process it appears that self-nomination is usually the surest route to failure.

Have a gentle process whereby candidates are reviewed by a couple of volunteer admins (following a defined checklist) so that they're at least aware of potential problems and given the opportunity to sort them out prior to being exposed to the masses. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "badgering": I do not think that is desirable to prohibit users from commenting on other user's opinions contained in a !vote. If you don't want users to comment on the rationale given by other users, you should prohibit users from giving a rationale to support a !vote in the first place.

I am not saying that this should or shouldn't be done, merely that the half-way position that is being suggested shouldn't be done.James500 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that:

(1) All reasoning should be confined to the talk page of the RfA in question;

(2) That the talk page should be laid out in the form of "pros" and "cons", and that the reasoning should be laid out one issue at a time in a logical order with no repetition; and if necessary the page should be refactored in order to achieve this.

The object of this would be to separate !voting from argument altogether.James500 (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Or perhaps you could allow them to give a minimal rationale like "for reasons numbers 1, 4, 7 and 8 listed on the talk page".James500 (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of moving the comments to the talk page has been brought up many times, even before this project was begun. Major criicism were that it would create a disjointed process, requiring participants to flip back and forth between the page.
Numbered pre-formed criteria: In my opinion, this would make voting too easy. If anything, participants should be encouraged to do their own research. One of the evils of he current voting system is the 'as per' in the oppose section. 'As per nom' in the support section seems to be far more acceptable, because a nominator's statement is (or should be) reasonably detailed and carry a strong argument for according the mop - less effective of course than self-noms, which generally lack the eloquence and impact of nominations made by experienced editors and admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This thread now needs copying to a more appropriate sub page - which one? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Restating some things

Latest comment: 13 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Note: Copied to Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles - Please continue the discussion there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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.
  1. 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?
  2. What are you suggesting should happen to the many admins appointed by less than 100 !votes? Remember these are often the uncontentious RFAs.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
ϢereSpielChequers 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.• 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 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)

Compiled by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia: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)
2010 failed or withdrawn with 100+ !votes

(some may have since passed)

  • 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)

Complied by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

See also

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

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. ϢereSpielChequers 13:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you participate in a survey to help us improve the RfA process?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
10 June 2011. A request for participation in an external survey. Nothing ever came of it.

The Communicative Practices in Virtual Workspaces research group in Human Centered Design and Engineering department at the University of Washington http://courses.washington.edu/commprac/ is inviting editors like yourself to participate in an online survey that allows us to find connections among users in Wikipedia. We are particularly interested in the Wikipedia Request for Adminship (RfA) process. The survey will allow us to better understand the RfA process and to research tools that could make the process easier for members of the Wikipedia community. The survey will only take about 15 minutes to complete and no personally identifiable information will be linked to your survey responses. We want to research how the community is managed and how it makes decisions, specifically the process in which a person is decided by the community to be promoted to administrator status in Wikipedia. Questions in the survey will ask you how you evaluate an RfA candidate, what characterisics are most valuable when evaluating the candidate, and what information you use to evaluate the candidate.

Here is the link to the survey: https://catalyst.uw.edu/webq/survey/commprac/135246

Thank you and please share this opportunity to help our research group with other Wikipedia users you know. --Avdelamerced (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(Copied from user's talk page) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Did it yesterday ;) WormTT · (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you to those who have participated in this survey. Your data will be put into good use as we progress further in our research group. We will be closing this survey on June 24th, which is next week. If you have not completed the survey, here is your chance to participate and we would still greatly appreciate your contributions. Thank you again!

(Note: The 18 and over confirmation is standard practices in research. It was required to include this in our survey.) --Avdelamerced (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize to Swarm

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please disregard my parenthetical gibes.TCO (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO opinions

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

1. huge amount of discussion, some debate, not that much analysis. Before wrestling with options for change, set the baseline of factual understanding. The voting patterns is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be MORE of that sort of analysis, and more sophisticated. for instance cluster analysis of voting patterns. Also the "dearth of admins" has been cited, several times by Kudpung, but we lack data on what processes are too backlogged (or for that matter...what articles...or real product...are being negatively impacted). Or reading rationales (for some subset of course) and analyzing the actual words and grouping them manually into categories. Yes, this is "a bit of work", but it is how people solve problems and "do work" as business analysts at companies all the live long day. Why not stop the chat, chat and divvy up tasks that anyone can agree will inform the discussion and have usefulness?

2. If "RFA is not a vote", then there is nothing wrong with expecting the candidate to answer a lot of questions. Actually perhaps that is the best part of the process. Not the voting. Not the Swarm badgering of opposes.

3. I'm not so sure the process is broken. I'm pretty happy that a lot of candidates aren't making it through. Especially the ones that do dramatic "black retiring template" displays afterward. They've shown there inability to keep their cool.

4. This whole thing seems very process oriented (too much so). The goal of Wiki is not to have admins. The goal of Wiki is the free encyclopedia. If you convince me that more admins, lower standards, etc. will make for better articles, then you will get my support. I have not seen a fleshed out discussion to really show this. (In contrast there is very strong evidence that the editor mode user interface, makes writing on Wiki harder, limiting our content quantity and quality...and driving away a lot of great writers. There is a reason why our CEOess is driving improving this. Same with making the videos actually play for the over 50% of users that surf in on IE.)

5. I don't want the candidates to be crushed by the experience. And I do a lot of opposes and am happy when the candidate I'm opposing doesn't get the nod. But I don't do it to crush them. I do it because I think high standards emphasis will pay off in terms of our Project. But actually looking on the people who oppose...I really have NOT seen that much visciousness from the opposes. Some unfair opposes (but often pretty terse). Some opposes that some of you all disagree with (content, age, experience, etc.) but usually pretty plainly stated.

Really, I just think the process is inherently un-nerving and gauntlet-like even though the opposers are not really going for the balls (I mean...I could show how it's really done...but Wiki doesn't tolerate that. And really...I don't want to hurt the candidates. Yes, I think some of them are misguided in "wanting to be a moderator", but I don't want them to cry or feel bad about themselves when the fail.) And really...this inherent, perhaps even unplanned trial by fire is a good thing. Because they are going to get EXACTLY that on user interactions. and they need to keep their cool.

Like, I love Mall-man, and would trade a LOT of moderators here, for all the effect he has had in encouraging young content creators (e.g. NYM, me, etc.). That said, he showed he could not keep his cool. Twice. And it's some of the same behaviour he has on Wiki. Similarly 76er (who I think was the cause of this whole committee) went down in flames and could not get it, that he was too wordy and vacuous. Even with Jimbo telling him that. And then he went and posted the big black template and put us through some silly drama. Pretty much PROVING that he did not have the leadership and poise to do the moderator job.

So, we don't need to make plebe year harder...and we shouldn't delight in misery...but it's really working fine, from my perspecrtuive. Now, FAC...that could be a little more encouraging. After all FAs are what really matter and encouraging quality content creation WITHOUT dropping standards is the most important thing.

6. I heart Kudpung for wanting to get something accomplished. So I understand the need to limit scope. That said, I also worry that the "side" saying "RFA is broken" or "let's make it easier for young, inexperienced, non-article-writing participants to be moderators" is a bit advanced by cutting off some of the legitimate concerns on how diametrically opposed the "admin culture" is to writing articles. I mean even Jimbo and our CEO (or Brad, heck he said in the WR in 2009 he would write more, haven't seen it). Where's the leadership by example? Even one FA a year. No. Nothing. And I'm a little wondering if there is some back channel Jimbo-Kudpung coordination to try to get "something" pushed forward on this initiative.TCO (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If you take a moment to look on the related pages of this project, you will see that there has been an enormous amount of statistic gathering, and the stats are shortly to be updated yet again. It would pay to review at least the last 200 or so Rfs (as we have), and the pioneering work made by WereSpielCheckers who demonstrated with stats, and a detailed article in the Signpost what the problems are. I assure you that there has been absolutely no 'back-channel' discussion between me and JW (or anyone else at he WMF) - in fact I'm not even sure that he is aware of my existence - at least he has not acknowledged in the public pages that he has is following this project, although the WMF is sure to be aware of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Will read the Signpost, will look at more of the pages here, do appreciate the volume of discussion and that some definite grunt work has been done, just not seeing the shape of enough analysis yet (and there was a lot of early solutioning and sort of a bias, in the early postings on here, before analyses had been done. Appreciate the comment about Jimmy...totally retract my "I wonder"! P.s. Cut where you edited into my post, but was this same info.TCO (talk) 06:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
TCO, I don't think that anyone's concern here is that people who fail are / aren't the ones who should be failing, it's with the brutality, unnecessary snark, incivility, and biting-and-stabbing that goes on in the process. It should be perfectly possible for a community of intelligent, civilised people to be able to run what is to all intents and purposes a 'job interview' effectively, ruling in th ose who should be ruled in, ruling out those who should be ruled out, without it ever becoming the bloodbath that it does become. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, Rfa reform 2011 is bogging down

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
29 June 2011. The complaints here did not serve to move the project along

I have hesitated to add anything at all to this sprawling mass of proposals and comments. I'm inclined to agree with those who object to the limits imposed on the discussion, that it is not about:

  • Length of tenure of admins
  • Unbundling of sysop tasks and tools
  • Probationary or trial adminship
  • Preparing future admins through mentoring or training
  • Desysopping
  • Bureaucrats and their tasks

I don't think we can have this discussion under these limits. Also, I was involved fairly heavily in the failed 'Community de-adminship' proposal WP:CDA which soured me on the process, seeing as the admin vote was was killed the proposal in the Rfc.

As I have already said on my talk page (under the heading 'Task Force'): It is my strong opinion that most issues dealing with entrenched admins, many of whom became admins five or more years ago when standards were considerably more relaxed and whom would not pass an Rfa today, require thinking outside the box. Deliberations on adminship by a community whose true identities are unknown, by their nature generate more heat than light, go on at excessive length, and wind up turning reasonable voices away.

I go on to suggest an appointed council, with binding powers and accountable to the WMF, as a solution; however, this would require substantial change in itself. But if not that, there has got to be a way found to cut the Gordian Knot, and I believe facing that very fact is the first step towards fixing the problems this task force is supposed to be dealing with. Jusdafax 22:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, and we're just waiting for members of he task force to start writing some drafts of proposals that we could put forwards. As far as I can see, all he necessary discussion have taken place, we know what's wrong with RfA = and that's why we're here. Any bogging down is being done by other commentators who are either trying to tell us we are wasting our time, are vehemently opposed to administrators as a system for managing the site, or are the mongers mongers of the drama that this initiative instends to supress. Note also however, that WT:RfA has also been unusually quiet over the last few week. So have actual requests for adminship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well at least there's some good news then. But the general Wikipedia malaise is much more widespread; look at WP:TFAR for instance, the first time I can remember it getting close to running on fumes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Care to venture a guess as to why that is Malleus? —WFC— 11:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Admins to be desyopped after 12 months of inactivity

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion

A proposal has been passed by an overwhelming consensus to remove admin rights from sysops who have not made any edits for 12 months.

Admin accounts which have been completely inactive for at least 12 months may be desysopped. Completely inactive is defined as "no edits or administrative actions in those 12 months". This desysopping is not to be considered binding, or a reflection on the user's use of, or rights to, the admin tools. If the user returns to Wikipedia, they may be resysopped by a bureaucrat without further discussion. This resysopping is contingent on there being no issues with the editor's identity and contigent on the fact that they stopped editing Wikipedia while still in good standing or not controversial circumstances. The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month and several days prior to the request for desyopping.The summary in the user rights log should make it clear that the desysopping is purely procedural.

See RfC: Suspend sysop rights of inactive admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup, good; good start. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and if you look at the comparison table of other language Wikipedia that I added yesterday, you'll see that we still have a long way to go. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
This is certainly good news, and I'm glad that this has finally passed. This shows that reform can happen if done in the right way. CT Cooper · talk 12:02, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Good news indeed. My76Strat talk 06:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I must say this information cheers me up, though I have not investigated the details. Still, it appears to be a fine first step. Jusdafax 16:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While this is certainly good news, it's not really helpful in terms of RFA reform. Inactive admins are the least of our problems, because they simply aren't there to be a problem. It's admins who are active, and abuse their powers, which make people more wary when voting for new ones. What is needed now is a simpler way of desysopping abusive admins, rather than jumping through all the DR hoops. AD 17:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How many admins would we be left with, were this enacted automatically (rather than by request as it appears to be)? It is certainly a great step forward, not so much because of what it acheives, but because it shows that the community is listening to freshn RfA reform proposals which have been well thought out, despite their perennial status. WormTT · (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many we're left with, we'll still have the 700 or so that are considered active according to our vey low criteria. Although from the active names I see around, I would suggest the true number (upwards of 300 edits a month) is very much lower - probably as low as 50 - 60. But by and large, they seem to be coping with the work load. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting an RfA nomination

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

As you may or may not know, I've recently run through the gauntlet myself and come out the other side smelling of roses. Lucky me. But before I ran, I was thinking about nominations and wondered if anyone would nominate me. I did actually ask someone, who was a little too busy, so I jumped in and self-nommed. However, I think there's a lot of people out there who could be an admin but are worried about running the RfA process and there's a lot of people out there who are a bit too cocky and shouldn't really run.

On the radical alternatives talk page I suggested requiring a nominator. Also, we have the idea of a software fix to stop transclusion under a minimum requirement. To mitigate these ideas I've come up with a new concept - User:Worm That Turned/Request an RfA nomination. It's currently in my userspace, but I'm planning to take it to WT:RfA soon and then on to Wikipedia space.

It stands up on it's own, there's no need for either of the two proposals to go through for it to be there, but it may help against some arguments on those proposals when they are ready. The hope is that it will reduce SNOWs and NOTNOWs, and increase overall admin levels. It may not work, but I think it's worth a try. If it goes ahead, we can create a category and possibly even a userbox to go with it.

For now, I'd just like a little feedback on the idea. Any thoughts are welcome. WormTT · (talk) 10:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What if a candidate was qualified but their previous history makes no admin willing to nominate them? Since a failed RFA will nearly always reflected negatively on the nominator (blaming them for not scrutinizing the candidate effectively enough), many editors could be unwilling to risk their reputation nominating someone they think may be a border-case candidate. Your proposal would bar those editors from RFA, even if they are qualified enough to be an admin. Also, some candidates will surely dislike the idea to be associated with some editor for the rest of their wiki-"career" just because they nominated them. Previous discussions showed that the community was more in favor of less nominating than more nominating, often arguing that the number of nominators should be restricted to two or three because it's not the nominator's job to check whether a candidate is fit for adminship, it's the community's. Forcing to have a nominator would only serve to enforce the idea that nominators have special responsibilities that !voters don't. If a candidate wants to be presented by someone else, they are free to ask someone to do it. But if they want to present themselves, they should also be free to do that. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I would expect this to be a personal decision taken on the part of the editor (never said it needed to be an admin who nominates) to see if they are willing to nominate. If they are not willing to, the only thing I'd expect is that they explain why they won't.
So, if it's a borderline case, or the candidate has a "history", then all that can be expected is to explain to the candidate why no nomination is forthcoming. I agree that your point of view would be a big issue with respect to my "radical" proposal, but what about right now - putting the essay out there to allow potential admins to request a nomination? WormTT · (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
SoWhy makes some salient points - which I think most of us are aware of. I would personally feel I had failed miserably if I nominated someone and they failed. As it happens, all those who I have mailed and suggested they would like to run have all said 'not until RfA is a civil environment' - and these are all well established editors with nary a blemish in their history. I was fortunate to have two strong nominators. In fact for a long while I declined their, and others' suggestions to run, much for the same reasons, and also because I thought that my work on RfA reform, which goes back a year and a half, would go against me. In the past we have had all kinds of noms, some from editors who are not much more mature than the people they nominate. Some users systematically oppose self nominations. I think that's wrong - not all candidates see adminship as an award scheme, or as an access to a power hierarchy. On some Wikipedias, self noms are the standard thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a great suggestion. To imagine a borderline candidate who would both both pass an RfA, but not be able to find a single admin to nominate him or her is fantasy. If a candidate can't convince 1 out of X admins to nominate, how are they going to convince a clear majority of 100-odd users to !vote in their favour? Even though the original suggestion didn't limit nominators to admins, I think it would be reasonable to do so given the number of active admins Jebus989✰ 21:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

James500's thoughts

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
11 July 2011. These points are discussed at WP:RFA2011/CANDIDATES and WP:RFA2011/VOTING and WP:RfA/C

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but I think that opposers should be prohibited from posting remarks:

  • encouraging the candidate to withdraw their nomination, or telling them that their RfA is going to fail. (Intimidation.)
  • alleging or suggesting that the supporters of the candidate have not reviewed the candidate's contributions. (Insinuates the supporters agree with the opposers opinions about those contributions and the standards to be expected of administrators. Misrepresentation.) James500 (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Salient points. A revised version of 'advice for RfA voters' is planned. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both of these. But to avoid drama, it might also be worth restricting supporters from suggesting that opposers are !voting in bad faith, which also seems to happen far too often. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Both sides should refrain from accusing each other of bad faith unless there is some positive evidence. And the second comment that I made above could in principle apply to allegations or suggestions made by supporters that the opposers have not looked at the contributions, although I have never actually seen that happen.James500 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing we can do about voters who pile-on 'as per' or who vote in bad faith, so long as their vote and comments are civil, undramatic, and to the point. There will always be some voters who will vote 'oppose' out of vengeance for having been warned, blocked, or their article deleted; there is of course a question of voters dragging things up that were too old to be taken into consideration, and there are also voters who deliberately take old issues out of context. (My own RfA was a classic example) What we must do is introduce a rule requiring minimum qualifications for candidates and voters. Please see the recent relevant discussions and updated stats on the WP:RFA2011/CANDIDATES and WP:RFA2011/VOTING and WP:RfA/C pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Where to?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Activity here in this task force has seemed to dwindle since the beginning of July and I can't help but wonder if this project might die out and become one of the many failed attempts at RFA reform. Having said that, I'm proposing a few courses of action below that the task force can take to progress RFA reform, or at the very least, make RFA a bit less brutal than it is currently. These proposed courses of action are by no means set in stone as of yet and are purely subject to the consensus of the project; they're just listed here to hopefully generate some discussion and, hopefully, begin acting on proposals/rolling them out to the community.

  • One promising possibility is the clerks proposal. I've said this several times before and I'll say it again for the sake of this discussion: we need to introduce the option of having clerks moderate a candidate's RFA at their discretion, thereby allowing willing candidates to utilize their RFAs as 'testing grounds' for the proposal. I think it could work. This is the most realistic and logical course of action this task force could take in its current position, IMO.
  • Open a request for comment on the nature of RFA questions, to allow admins and non-admins alike to verbalize their opinions regarding the matter and, hopefully, introduce a mandate to the community regulating the usage of questioning at RFA.
  • Begin consulting past RFA candidates unsuccessful and successful (especially those who have underwent the scrutiny of more than one), in order to allow them to verbalize their opinions regarding the nature of the entire RFA process and provide some feedback as to what, exactly, should be done with RFA (even minor, albeit helpful things).
  • Begin helping possible administrator candidates prepare for their RFAs. It is absolutely imperative, IMO, to address possible issues with the candidate before their RFA even begins. This can be done by listing administrators or experienced editors who would be willing to help prepare a candidate for RFA on the RFA nominations page itself. This would help avert the uncivil/controversial atmosphere of some RFAs and mitigate the need for WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW closures at RFA that so often chase away editors that would otherwise be invaluable to the project.

Again, these proposed courses of action are subject to discussion, and I'm certainly open to feedback and more possible courses of action that might ultimately make RFA a more pleasant place than it is currently. Having said all this, I leave the other members of this task force with a question that is, appropriately, the title of this thread: where to? Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Treating your points as if they were numbered:
  1. Yes.
  2. No. Some feel that RfA should be more qualitative and lose the voting aspect altogether, others feel that we should just make RfA a straight vote and stop kidding ourselves that it is anything else. The opinions are too divergent to bundle that discussion in with the other things we are aiming for.
  3. Not opposed to it, but I don't see the point. We have a pretty good idea of how past RfA participants felt about the experience.
  4. Absolutely.
—WFC— TFL notices 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:RfA_reform_2011/Archive_4&oldid=1142662945"