requests For Adminship/Archive 209

A quick look at the archives shows that it also happened in November of 2009 (13 yeas 11 nays) and December 2007. (34 yeas 33 nays) I suspect we would have more "yea months" if we disregarded the NOTNOWs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to send an email to Jimbo because I believe WP procedures should be discussed on-wiki. How about solving the issue by abolishing the RfA system altogether? Imagine a talk message like "You are now an administrator. Please consult the reading list for administrators if you wish to make use of these new rights. If you misuse the tools, we will remove them again. Have fun." This could be sent at the user's 1000th non-automated edit, or after 12 months of editing, or at some other arbitrary criterion, by a crat who performs a spot-check on the candidate's edit history and block log. Adminship would again become the no-big-deal it once was, and only bureaucrats would have to go through Hell Week. --Pgallert (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone who wanted tools for any reason would spam edits up to 1000, and soon every RFA would be conducted in an atmosphere of suspicion, exactly the opposite from the direction we're trying to go of treating candidates with more respect. OTOH, I'm totally with you if you're looking for a way to reduce the power and prestige of the mop itself. (That's not putting a limit on admins, individuals could still gain whatever prestige they can gain, it's just that we wouldn't be giving it to them. I'm thinking particularly of the fact that admins continue to block established Wikipedians when there's no clear consensus to do it and claim that we voted to give them that power in their RFA; such a block happened again just a few days ago.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
But with 30,000 admins as opposed to 1,000 a block would not be as bad a spot on your white vest as it is today. It would happen all the time because a lot of admins would be totally inexperienced. Of course, it should be as easy to lose the mop as it would be to gain it, "You haven't used your admin rights in the last three months; we took them away again. Feel free to ask it back any time." or "Your block of editor X was a bad decision, see this discussion on ANI. Feel free to ask for your block rights again after you familiarised yourself with WP:BLOCK." --Pgallert (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
In theory, if we could find a single admin userright that rarely causes us to lose a contributor when it's misused, we could hand those out and see what happens, but people are debating ideas at the moment that strike me as a lot more promising that haven't already been debated to death. If we try the other ideas and they don't work for some reason ... then sure, I'm open to trying something new. But a majority in the community feel that it's really, really bad to step on a newbie's toes, and that a bad block or bad deletion does just that. Also, I think handing someone a mop before they're ready is probably setting them up for failure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I wasn't expecting this to be implemented tomorrow. But then, we hand out the editing right to people before we know they're ready. I could do nasty things with that right if I wanted to. We hand out reviewer and rollback rights--if misused we take them away again. Wifione made an interesting suggestion on User talk:Jimbo Wales, pointing out how far-reaching the accountcreator right actually is. I had that right some time ago. I did not use it as much as I thought I would, and after a few months someone took it away, no problem. That's what I call "no big deal". Losing contributors, that's of course serious. But can you really say we lose no potential editor by all this negative coverage on a perceived admin cabal and the strong hierarchic structures WP has developed? The reforms discussed so far do not go far enough. --Pgallert (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but the thing is, we've evolved complex checks and balances, through blood, sweat and tears, to deal with bad edits and bad accounts. We have evolved no structures to deal that would deal with a host of bad admins ... and I don't know why we'd want such a thing, but if we did have it, we would almost certainly evolve another heirarchy above admins to deal with them, starting the cycle all over. I'll talk about the "admin cabal" thing in my next post, I want to talk about making RFA more open and inviting. (Btw, I don't mean to monopolize this conversation, I was just hoping to bring up points that have been made time and again, hopefully to save us a little time ... I'll stop now in case someone else wants to jump in.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes but do we actually have a "host" of bad admins? I suspect that depends on where one stands over the areas of admin contention. We have some admins who stretch the deletion policy beyond where I'm comfortable with it, we have others who block or unblock vested contributors and a fourth group which includes most admins who haven't used the tools in months. I suspect that every admin is a "bad admin" to some people, but one person's bad admin is another's good or uncontentious admin. On past performance we will lose half a dozen admins in the rest of this year either desysopped or resigning under a cloud; But when we look back on this year in Jan 2012 I doubt that many of those will be ones that seemed inevitable or even justified by what was publicly known at this date. ϢereSpielChequers 11:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear, I was responding to Pgallert's call to make just about everyone an admin (until they're not). I don't take a position on how good the current admins are; I rarely visit ANI, AN or Arbcom, and I'm pretty out of touch with who's doing what to whom. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
OK That's different. I've added a heading for this thread, I'm not aware of any wiki that uses this system apart from Rational Wiki. I agree that autopromoting every longterm user without filtering out those who would have their own ideas as to when to block, unblock, delete, undelete or protect would be about as sensible as abolishing the driving test would be in the real world. It would certainly fix RFA, but I'm not convinced we should move to a Rational Wiki style of operation where everyone is demoted to admin and people dish out 10 second blocks to each other "for te lulz". That said the motive for the suggestion is spot on, the way to make adminship less of a big deal and to torpedo ideas of an admin cabal is to appoint everyone who is suitable. In particular the candidates who intend to continue spending most of their time here creating or improving content and would just use the tools when they came in useful. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think autopromotion is a very good idea - we'll never know who will be a bad admin until they are a bad admin. We have to live with the bad admins we've got (and we have got some), but I'm not convinced there are really so many, nevertheless some form of scrutiny is required for future candidates, to avoid potential mishaps slipping through the net. That scrutiny must be a system that also cleans up the selection procedure and the voters themselves. WSC is, IMO, correct in his assumption that the number of active admins risks getting low, but if we can get a system, not too different from the present one but which is a less humiliating experience, we will probably get more candidates of the right calibre. We don't need 30,000 admins - in view of the decline in new articles, we probably only need to maintain the current number of active admins. Kudpung (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[W]e'll never know who will be a bad admin until they are a bad admin. -- exactly, you cannot know before you let them try. That's just my point. Browsing through some of the entries at Wiki: Former administrators you will see that incidents that led to desysoping almost never were anticipated in the respective RfAs in any form. So RfA did not sort out those. On the other hand, of course, you cannot know who would have been a good admin despite a disastrous RfA. Taking this thought further, is there any indication the RfA process achieves all, or even some, of its desired objectives? There are two types of editors that pass RfA: The highly popular and highly active ones that almost never make a mistake, and the ones that manage to accumulate a few thousand edits without getting into any significant controversy. All others have to expect an uphill battle. The first group would become admin under any process. The second group (not entirely free of the occasional bad apple) will probably remain uncontroversial and thus not make tough decisions. But people failing due to outspoken deletionism (who says they would close AfDs their way?), participation in WP:NEWT (where did AGF go?), not-enough-edits-in X (can they not improve?), 10% declined CSD tags last month...who wants to say they are going to make bad admin decisions in the future, instead of rising up to their new responsibilities? So what exactly does RfA establish? --Pgallert (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I stay busy, and the answers to your questions (if there are answers) would require a lot of digging and surveying. If you would address some of our arguments, I'd be more likely to make some time to address some of yours. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not a natural defender of the RFA process, and I do think it is inconsistent and capricious . But I do believe that many of those who currently fail RFA would otherwise have been bad admins, as for the new admins the vast majority start out just fine. When we do desysop people it is frequently after three or more years, which is why I think that we need an ongoing admin training program. As for the examples of reasons for rejecting admins, it is reasonable to assume that if someone has been making excessive mistakes at UAA, AIV or CSD they would make the same mistakes as admins. If you jump red lights and swerve erratically whilst taking your driving test don't be surprised if you fail. ϢereSpielChequers 15:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I like this idea. Let us not forget that in the begining, this is about how it worked. Jimbo would just promote long term editors to become and admin - and that was that. I've been here for many years, been involved in all kinds of activity. I am pretty sure that I would never submit to this process, though I have considered it in the past. I've seen perfectly good noms torpedoes for stupid reasons, and horrible ones approved for popularity reasons. The truth is that being an admin has become a big deal, despite the fact it was never intended to be one. Sad to say, but alot of editors don't really care for the well-being of this project as a whole, they care more about their own self-interests. I've participated in the RfA review process, nothing came of it. The fact is, the majority of the community does not have the will to make major changes. Not here, and not anywhere. And threads like this will go nowhere. The same mindset that started us down this road years ago is more entrenched than ever, and its direct result is that it drives away disagreeing editors, and we have created a bureaucratic monster behind the scenes of wikipedia that discourages new users from particpating. At a certain time, drastic reform is called for. And it must come before too much longer if we want this project to continue succeeding in its goals. I would whole heartedly support any reform here, but lets be serious. Its never going to happen through a consensus of the community. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly a fan of the RFA process and know I will never submit myself to it, but proposals such as this are probably not the answer. Any automated process can easily be manipulated (not to mention encouraging of editcounitis). I doubt it would take long before some page or another headed straight to Wheelmageddon. Kansan (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
A problem with auto-promotion is what to do with long-term problematic users. A visitor to WP:ANI will usually find a discussion related to one of several well-known and generally productive users whose actions routinely push the boundaries of acceptable conduct but have not yet justified a long term ban. Sometimes this is because said users are forcefully advocating viewpoints at the edge of the accepted normal range or because they have difficulty maintaining their civility. Providing users with known self control issues with the technical means to block other users with whom they disagree or to delete or protect an article in which they have a vested interest seems like a recipe for increased Wikidrama with little to no compensating benefits. While I am no fan of the current RfA process, I believe we will always need a responsible person in the process to screen for obvious conduct problems before promotion. --Allen3 ^talk 15:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Similarly blocks of editors would become an issue, and any possibility of civility blocks would be impossible. How could you block a editor who could just unblock themselves? you'd need more crats to be able to block and remove admin at the same time - Oh look, we've just got ourselves into exactly the same mess, at RfB. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is a thought, how about an elected committee that has the authority to give and remove admin powers, based on some set of agreed to standards. Regularly elected, with rotating membership perhaps. They could oversee the auto-promotion process. The current process is hopelessly flawed, shown by years of debate. A radical change is the only solution. Completely alter the dynamics of the system. And if that system fails to work, then change it again until we find what does work. Lets not just keep living day after day with the same problem but failing to deal with it. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC).
Well, to its credit, I think that idea gets better the further it diverges from pure autopromotion. :-)
I would firmly oppose autopromotion. I think that the long-term civil pov-pushers are just as big a problem for Wikipedia as the obvious and swiftly-blocked vandals; if we start handing the mop to people who've spent the last year diligently "correcting" a thousand articles related to their favoured cause, or merely said the same thing a thousand times on Talk:Kosovo, then we're doomed. bobrayner (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd also oppose the idea of auto-promotion, on the basis that it's at best a sticking plaster on a wound requiring more radical treatment. The whole idea of administrators needs to be rethought. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The standards-based voting patterns at RFA make it abundantly clear that auto-promotion is a complete non-starter, against the community's will in every visible way. Recommend putting a kibosh on this discussion before it becomes just another unproductive thread on 1,000 different topics. Townlake (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

100% agreement on that, Townlake. Kudpung (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree, its impossible for this community to arrive at consensus on anything except that there is no consenus. Any discussion for reform is pointless (evidence the last five years of this talk pages archives) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I absolutely hate this idea. Nothing personal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Realising that the majority wishes this discussion to end, I'm not sure if it is a good idea to bat at it again. Please just skip this post if I bore you. Let me try to collect the counter-arguments:

1. easy to manipulate
2. thoughtless blocking drives away productive editors
3. no structure in place to deal with bad admins
4. creates Wikidrama, possibly anarchy
5. no screening for conduct and competence will make bad admins
6. will just shift the problem to BfA and crats
7. adminship itself should be abolished
8. against the community's will

What could be said to that?

1. Prone to manipulation. That's true. Making the criteria harder to reach could obviously achieve something in this regard; I am of course not going to argue about the exact numbers useful for a threshold -- 5000 edits, 18 months service, clean block log, add whatever you like. That's not changing the spirit of the suggestion. I do believe there is at least some possibility of manipulating the current process as well.
2. Bad decisions drive away editors. That's IMHO the most serious of the concerns. Could possibly be addressed by making clear that the first really serious blunder would result in immediate removal of the bits with little chance to ever get them back (Reconfirmation RfA, old style).
3. No de-admin procedure. Indeed. That issue needs to be sorted out anyway, I believe. If you really want me to make a suggestion, this would be it: During the first X (10, 20, 50) admin actions, the awarding person can take away the right, logging the reasons. Later, and for all admins elected per RfA, the panel of all active crats votes without making their reasons public. 3/4 majority=desysop.
4. Anarchy. This does not have to be implemented over night, for all editors. Try 20 guinea pigs and see how it works for a few months. Then take 100 more.
5. No testing of conduct and competence. Well, I did suggest a superficial screening by the promoter. Maybe, instead of a single promoter a panel can be used, somewhat like the regulars at FAC: One checks AN and reports, one browses talk page archives and reports possible problems, one samples civility, and so on. A crat decides.
6. Then BfA would be the slaughterhouse. True. The problem would be greatly reduced in numbers, though, even considering that we would need more crats.
7. End adminship. Not sure if this can be reconciled with WMF decrees like visibility of deleted content. Needs to be more detailed to be able to be discussed.
8. Against community will. Any data to back this up? Community ≠ RfA community. Publish in Signpost and make a poll.

--Pgallert (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I started editing long after the era when Jimmy simply appointed admins, but surely when he did so he didn't simply appoint on demand as CharlesEdward seems to imply? I think it would be safe to assume that Jimmy exercised some sort of judgement as to who he and didn't make an admin. The key feature of the automatic admin proposal is that after a certain amount of editcountitis admins would be appointed automatically regardless of whether or not the rest of the community thought they were suitable. A much better idea IMHO is that we agree a criteria for adminship and then allow the crats to simply appoint the candidates who meet that criteria, but use their judgement to steer controversial cases to RFA. Mind you the difficult thing is the agreeing of the criteria, do that and RFA itself is probably fixed. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to provide some institutional memory here, lets not forget how we scrapped our deletion process. Everyone concurred it was broken, no one could agree on how to fix it. It's parallels to this are actually quite deep. The same arguments in general, the same deadlock. So an admin deleted VfD, IAR style with a detailed 'why'. It locked down the server for 45 minutes. And when we could get back in to the 'pedia we had to hammer out a new deletion process. There was the questionable technical ability to restore that many pages at once, but also it was an opportunity to put a deadline and need on it to encourage hammering out some issues. And they were. AfD wasn't drastically different from VfD, but it solved things. If there's substantial consensus that something has to change, but not what that something is, it might be a good time to wipe the slate clean and see what the community hammers out to replace it. -- ۩ Mask 04:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I wrote an essay on how to really evaluate RfAs after being put off by how often potential admins actually pass. Please read it and add your thoughts on the talk page. See User:Jasper Deng/Voting on an RfA.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(TLDR. But read it anyway.) User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#RfA is a horrible and broken process, plus the fact that I realized last week for the first time that we've been doing a terrible job at RFA, have had me stressing all week that Jimbo might shut down RFA. I feel awful (seriously) that I didn't figure this out before. My only comfort is that you guys didn't figure it out either.

• You show up to apply for your driver's license. The woman hands you a test, then follows you to your chair and criticizes each answer as you write it down. Then she takes you for your driving test, criticizing your skills as you drive. Is there anyone here who believes that this woman has a shred of social skills? Does anyone think she'll keep her job? That's RFA. (And you people who knew this already and have been telling us all along, don't look so smug ... why couldn't you explain it in terms we could understand?) We have to find a way not to get up in the RFA candidate's face while they're taking their test and demonstrating their skills. (Ideas that might do this have already been suggested by several different people above, without too much dissention, which gives me hope.)
• A husband drinks; his wife tells him it's all right, and makes excuses for him. He keeps losing his jobs; she keeps finding him new ones. Is there anyone here who can't figure out why the wife is depressed? It's fine to help or care about someone who's having a hard time, but the moment you let them suck you into their problems, the moment you feel that it's your responsibilty to fix them, you lose the ability to make the situation better. Admins are promoted precisely because they care about the community in some sense; unfortunately, they often care like the wife does. They see a situation where the community keeps arguing and can't make up its mind, they see people having problems and they want to make it better, so they step in and absolve the community from any blame and try to fix the problem themselves by acting without consensus. Example: established users are sometimes blocked or unblocked by admins after a discussion at ANI when it's clear that no consensus was reached. These admins almost never lose their mops. Another example: WPians have never come to a consensus on whether a new account should be immediately blocked if the username has a few edits that tie them to a company of the same name, but don't really "sound promotional". There are good arguments on both sides, and different admins will make the call different ways. I'm as guilty as anyone of jumping in and making the call in these cases. By doing that, I soothe the conscience of the community, absolving you of the responsibility to make a decision, and making myself feel good that I'm "rescuing" your from yourselves. But this feels very much like the wife and the drunk to me (and of course, I'm not going to do it any more). The community is responsible for fixing the lack of policy, or not.
• The worst consequence of this dysfunction happens at RFA, IMO. People who work at UAA generally know and care about usernames, and the same goes for WP:CP and copyright; that's why those environments are relatively drama-free and collegial. But not everyone who shows up at RFA is there because they care about how RFA works; some have given up on Wikipedians in general, and they're looking for admins to save us from ourselves. Of course, heroes are hard to come by, so these voters feel a need to knock the candidates around some and make sure they're made of strong stuff, and they want to grill them to make sure that in those areas where the community is avoiding deciding policy, the admin will step in and make things right (in their view). The solution IMO is to say that everyone promoted at RFA after (say) May 1 is required to understand that they are not to use the tools in any area where the community has clearly tried and failed to find consensus, and that if it's clear from their actions that they don't understand this, Arbcom is instructed to desysop them. If we do that, then hopefully the people who are coming to RFA looking for heroes will go home disappointed, and the RFA participants will once again be composed mainly of people who are actively encouraging, training and evaluating admin candidates; RFA is only the most visible part of that community.
• I would of course love to apply this change in understanding the role of an admin retroactively, and I think that's why so many people are hot to tie RFA reform to making it easier to desysop admins in general, but don't go there. We know from years of experience that that will only ensure that RFA reform will never happen, and again, it is not the responsibility of people who care about training and encouraging admins to save the community from itself. If the community wants to form a consensus to redefine adminship, fine, and if they don't, fine. We have a job to do at RFA that has nothing to do with wiki-politics. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Inserting: to make sure it's clear, my proposal would not apply in any way to current admins, and I'm just expressing the "pure" idea ... in practice, there are always exceptions, cases where we expect admins to step in, and we can figure those out as we go along. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh. This would just add to the bureaucracy. If admins are forbidden from acting when there's no clear consensus, then nothing would ever get done (especially if it gets reported at ANI). It's nearly impossible to get a consensus on anything if more than half a dozen people are involved in the conversation. We need to be able to trust admins to make the right decision in a particular situation, even if there is a drama-laden conversation about the situation which hasn't (and will likely never) come to a consensus. Also, I find it difficult to believe that making it easier to desysop an admin will cause people to relax their RfA standards (unless it becomes very easy to desysop). —SW— ^{spill the beans} 19:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say that, I said admins are prohibited from acting unilaterally when it's clear that the community has tried to find consensus, and failed. That applies to very few decisions at ANI. And my suggestions, together with many suggestions above, are fairly big changes, and likely to make some kind of difference; there's one way to find out. - Dank (push to talk) 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you give an example of an area where the community has tried and failed to find consensus? Admins are supposed to interpret consensus, so the line between that and "acting where there's no consensus" might not be clear. Swarm ^X 19:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I just tweaked my ANI example to make it clearer ... that and the username example were the two that came to mind. Since this would be a big change, I want to be careful not to own it; what's a situation that you disapprove of where the community argued about something, couldn't come to a decision, and an admin used a tool anyway? - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

RFA gets it right the vast majority of the time. It can be a rough process, but it survives because it works. If Jimbo decides to issue a royal fiat closing RFA because a microscopic percentage of editors are getting their feelings hurt, that'll say a lot about his real vision for the future of this project. Townlake (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm past my TLDR limit here so I'd prefer to let others respond unless someone's pointing out that something I said was wrong or confusing, in which case I'll try to fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
So you're right right and everyone else is wrong Townlake? Rather unlikely don't you think? The issue has nothing to do with microscopes, but with proper governance. Which is something wikipedia has been lacking for years. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been wrong before and I will be wrong again. With that, I have to withdraw from the discussion, as I'll be off wiki for the next few days. Townlake (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Not everything that works is good. I can get fantastic graduation results by letting prospective students write their final exams before admitting them into university. That our Holiness recognises how bad the process actually is without being a regular participant, and that he asks for fundamental changes instead of insignificant tweaks, does show some vision, don't you think? --Pgallert (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dank, I'm absolutely with you on the driving test issue. No problem with that analogy at all, and if we could solve that, we'd be going a long way towards fixing RfA (my opinion). I'm not keen on creating an adminship role without teeth though. I don't see admins as heroes, I certainly would never expect a new admin to weigh in where consensus has been failed. A new admin closing the pending changes RfC is likely to be as controversial as a non-admin doing it. But the new admins grow, and mature and become old admins. The only way I could accept the idea is if it was time-limited. 6 months? A year? Worm^TT · (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems we've come to the conclusion (more than once) that RFA is broken, but what are doing to fix it? Sitting here and saying it's broken doesn't get us anywhere. We've decided it was broken before. Now begs the question: What are we doing/going to do to fix it?. I think Dank makes a good point, but now we have to act on it. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Define "broken". Without a definition of what's wrong (other than "it just is") we can't fix it. I'm yet to see an "RFA is broken because.... bulleted list of acceptable reasons argument" .....but I've seen plenty of "It's broken because such-and-such passed or so-and-so didn't. (Request not directed specifically at your good self Tofutwitch11).
We see this a lot. So let's challenge it;
• RFA is broken because we "promote" less editors then we used to - so? Why is that an issue? Justified with true stats that show AIV and BLP/N etc. are backlogged to the point of harming the project as a whole it might be, but....
• RFA is broken because the standards have gotten higher and higher - so? Why is RFA broken? Surely that's a problem with editors standards, not RFA - after all there is no minimum requirement for adminship.
• RFA is broken because of incivilty/personal atacks. "It's a gauntlet to run" - so? We have methods of dealing with WP:CIV and WP:NPA - it's nothing to do with the RFA process. RFA isn't nasty. People are.
• RFA is broken because Jimbo says it is - so? When did Jimbo last partcipate in an RFA?
The process -> vote/discuss (whatever your preference) -> 'crat clicks button or does not -> end.... is not broken. It's too bloody simple to break. What's broken is the way we deal with the process. That's a very different issue.
Pedro :  Chat  22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
There's distinction to be made between the RfA process, which is whatever it is, and the results of that process in creating an almost untouchable hierarchy of "trusted" super editors, too many of whom have great difficulty in distinguishing their arses from their elbows. Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. But the results of the process are not the fault of the process. They are the fault of the people that contribute without thought too the process. I know this sounds nit-picky but really, really it isn't. Much wailing, gnashing of teeth and moaning about "the process" is not the right approach, because the process is fine (or at least okayish - we could sort the vote / !vote thing out, but hey). It's the process of the process that's stuffed. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Any effective process needs checks and balances; RfA has none. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree and disagree. Any process that is very simple needs no check or balance, as it will simply fail to produce an end result if it does not work, thus no harm done . An analogy (vaguely relevent metaphoricaly) - the process of lighting a match is simple - strike match against touch paper - it lights or does not, with no check or balance needed. The process of the process is more complex - strike match away from body, ensure match is not damp, do not douse oneself in petrol first etc. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro (talk • contribs) 22:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty comprehensive misrepresentation of what I said. Let me give you another analogy. If I recruit a policeman (which is what administrators believe themselves to be), there are effective procedures for removing said policeman if (s)he turns out to be unsuitable. This discussion is nevertheless missing the point, which is that whole concept of "administrator" here on wikipedia is screwed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, I'm not sure why this is a "comprehensive misrepresentation" of what you said at all to be honest. It's just my thoughts, not a critique of yours - apologies if it came over as anything else. I agree that this discussion does not get to thrust of the concern however. Pedro :  Chat  23:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
How about this. We seem to agree something is wrong, but can't agree on what. RFA is certainly not what it used to be, look at RFA's from years past. There wasn't editcountites and the myriad of other factors that often wage in to whether or not you pass an RFA today. Is this change bad? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Maybe we won't agree that process needs to be changed entirely. However, there are steps we can take to make RfA a more civil and efficient place. Introducing minimum qualifications for RfA candidates or making a rule that personal attacks should be removed on sight don't seem too controversial and they would help. Does anyone disagree? Swarm ^X 23:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Minimum qualifications is where I think our plan will go sour. I'm not sure we will be able to agree on them. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On what the qualifications would be, or in principle? Swarm ^X 23:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
What the qualifications would be. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

(continue the minimum criteria discussion above)

Based on useful historical pages such as Wiki: Arbitration Committee/History my impression is that since 2003, the power to make judgement calls has transferred from Jimbo, to Arbcom, to individual administrators. Let me be clear: in my view that is not a bad thing. But the point of contention at the moment is that there are ~800 active admins, with a lot of power, and very little in the way of checks and balances against them. DRV only deals with blatantly bad calls, while Arbcom is difficult to get to. RFA is almost the only thing the community has.

Every time anything is proposed, ever, a section of the community will call it bureaucracy. But frankly, I think we need another layer. I think that this layer would improve RfA, by ensuring that only those who actually want to do the controversial stuff are expected to go through it. The structure would be something like:

• Janitors (with a slightly more glamourous title): Users who are trusted and considered sufficiently competent to use the tools according to a strict black-and-white basis, and to defer judgement to admins whenever there is a grey area. As far as I can tell, this is what admins DID six, seven or eight years ago, except that they deferred to Jimbo. I'm being deliberately vague about the mechanism for selection and deselection. If the whole idea is rubbish, let's not waste time on the mechanism. If it's good, the mechanism would be the final piece of the jigsaw. All I will say is that I believe the process for gaining the tools should be lightweight, and that they should probably be removeable by any admin (although unless there is blatant abuse, that should ordinarily only be done after engaging with the user in question, and if that fails, a discussion at a relatively lightweight venue, such as ANI). If the previous sentence is controversial, re-read it, swapping "admin" for "crat". If the previous sentence sounds problematic or excessive, don't.

• Admins, who in addition to the tools have the freedom of judgement that admins today have, and who could therefore be reasonably expected to go through something along the lines of what RfA is today. Their workload would be slightly increased by having to deal with the selection and deselection of janitors, but would be small in comparison to the benefit of the extra editors with the tools.

• Arbcom (and in theory Jimbo), who remain the call of last resort.

As far as RFA would be concerned, we would have fewer candidates, because those who want the tools for uncontroversial purposes would have them. At the same time, we would have more active editors doing admin tasks.

If anyone is minded to say that "two-tier adminship is a perennial proposal" that was always rejected, please link to a proposal of this nature being shot down in the last few years, so that people can read it and judge for themselves what happened, and whether this would be subject to the same objections. —WFC— 01:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're saying that admins currently exercise the power that used to be exercised by Jimbo and Arbcom, and that people have increasingly come to see RFA as the only way to put brakes on that unbridled power. If all of the power struggles of the wiki are being reproduced at RFA, doesn't that guarantee that it will be ugly? Who is it that really wants RFA voters to make political decisions for Wikipedia? Because politics is what it is ... Wikipedia, like any other organization of similar size and scope, has factions and intrigue and in-fighting. I would think RFA would be a saner and calmer place if we stop trying to hand out and withhold "power". The way to do that would be to give Arbcom a clear message that any new admin (promoted after the cutoff date) who clearly, knowingly uses an admin tool "out-of-process" or "against consensus" to gain "leverage" should be desysopped. (Of course, we'll have to do some work to define these terms, but I really think Arbcom has had enough experience that they know this when they see it ... we can invite them in for their opinion.) Blocking established users after trying and failing to get consensus springs to mind as an example. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that we completely lack checks and balances; if there's serious concern about an admin's actions, it can pop up at AN/I or some similar drama-page where the community will pay closer attention, and I can think of a couple of recent cases of experienced admins who simply walked away (having hitherto been prolific contributors) when their dubious actions were brought to community attention. We don't guarantee swift punishments for single infringements, but the same applies to non-admin editors in that regard, as I'm sure MF is aware. bobrayner (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
That you talk about "punishment" is rather revealing. Malleus Fatuorum 10:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(edit conflict)I'll just say again, that I do not believe that the issue of desyoping is one that is foremost in the thoughts of either the candidates or the voters. It's nevertheless a crucial issue, but one that needs to be debated separately, possibly also by a work group. Let's not also forget that sysops are supposed to be a role model and lead by example -in my experience, most of their misdemeanours are more subtle and sinister than simple abuse of the physical tools. Two-tier adminship, like unbundling of the tools would just lead to us having an even greater pool of people who might turn out to be less trustworthy then we thought. I still think the road to reform is to establish some rules for candidacy, voting, and behaviour at RfA, that would make RfA a more attractive process for the experienced long-term users who currently refuse to subject themselves to the indignity it has become, and that a designated task force should be charged with coming up with some suggestions. WT:RfA is probably not the best place to do it - it's too much like a gaggle of populated bar stools all talking at the same time, interrupting the process with off-topic comments and occasional incivility, and a lot of background noise - and I'm as guilty of it as the rest of us here. Kudpung (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a reason for pessimism; everyone who's spoken has added good points, and we're not actually contradicting each other very much. You and WSC are doing great work at your "RFA Reform" pages in your userspace. Several of us are tweaking the endorsement idea to deal with various objections over at User talk:Dank/RFA, please jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I've signed this post twice. I'm happy to be responded to after each sig, as the paragraphs are two very different points.
Kudpung: there wouldn't really be a lot of trust involved. Those in the lower "tier" (I hate that word but accept that it will be used) would have a very tightly defined mandate, that would nonetheless cover the majority of work that admins do. The mandate to action most (possibly not all) CSDs. The mandate to block obvious vandals, and to temporarily protect pages that are suffering from a very high level of it if blocking alone isn't working. To action PRODS, and XfDs where the consensus for delete would be strong enough for a non-admin closure if it were for a keep. In all probability that's not an exhaustive list. If someone oversteps the community's agreed parameters, and if they continue after an explanation of what they are doing that they shouldn't, as well as a follow-up warning, the tools are removed. It would be acceptable to hold out-and-out admins to the sort of standards that they are now, because it can be assumed that anyone running to be an admin is going to exercise their judgement. Without wanting to be completely dismissive of RfA reform, it's hard to force people to be nice, and a pipe dream to think that RfA standards are going to be lowered unless it is forced through by dictat. —WFC— 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Dank: My view is the exact opposite, although I believe the initial aim and end result would be the same. RfA would be a better place if we stopped pretending that we're NOT handing out power, and ensured that only those who are actively seeking that power need to go through it. If people simply want to be janitors, we should be practically giving the mop away. If on the other hand someone specifically wants to be a judge, RfA is a fundamentally sound process, that is just lacking a couple of ground rules on civility and etiquette. —WFC— 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
WFC, I like this idea and agree with you. To those who may have doubts about it (which I duly respect): Do remember that members of the WP community are obliged to AGF to other members. While this is not directly a GF issue, it can be applied somewhat indirectly. The two-tiered adminship proposal does just that. It allows the editors who merely wish to maintain the encyclopedia using the tools to obtain them, while giving the power of judgement to certain admins. This preserves the idea that "adminship is no big deal" and allows more editors to participate in the uncontroversial administrative maintenance of the project. Subsequently, the administrators given the extra priv. to make controversial judgments are the only ones directly scrutinized by the community (and rightly so, as this was originally the role of ArbCom and Mr. Wales). I think this is the whole (or the bulk of) the reason RFA is where it is today, because the judgment role and janitorial role were merged at some point in the past several years. In order to fix RFA, the roles have to be separated again. Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is talking about lowering the bar for adminship. What we are mainly discussing are ways to make the process less humiliating, reduce the number of SNOW/NOTNOW, and encourage the established editors to run for office who won't util the process is cleaned up. To achieve that we need to have some guidelines or policy that don't exist yet - and that's why the the process is currently a free-for-all. Kudpung (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that part of the problem with this process is that it isn't clear exactly what the problem is - or rather more than one is being discussed at once. Finding a solution to the SNOW problem (probably by introducing minimum criteria, an idea I'd certainly support) isn't necessarily going to mean an increase in successful applications from suitable candidates, just fewer from unsuitable ones. I certainly agree with above comments that recognising that adminship is a big deal, especially because it is in effect "a job-for life" unless your misbehaviour is pretty extreme, might help. Some, perhaps much, opposition is based on a fear that if potentially unsuitable candidates pass it may create high drama and/or be very difficult to resolve afterwards. I am not a fan of incivility, but above it was suggested that "RfA is an emotionally draining and possibly spiteful place" - yes possibly, but that has its advantages. If admins are expected to be able to engage with complex and difficult problems that will inevitably result in highly-charged opposition, what is the point of hiring people who can't deal with that? There are various general ways to create a larger number of qualified admin candidates:

a) making the creation of new sysops simpler (i.e. by amending RfA);
b) having different types of admin function as suggested above, which might make the process less daunting for some, who may only be interested in some aspects of the work, but are required to appear to be enthusiastic and proficient at all of them;
c) reducing the volume and hysterical nature of opposition by e.g. having probationary periods or some kind of Recall process.

I fear that successfully completing (a) and (c) may be beyond the community, so unless the outcome is to be resolved by other means, if I had to choose I'd go for (b), although I don't know enough of the history to endorse or otherwise Tyrol5's suggestion. Ben MacDui 12:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I Would like to partake in becoming an admin, i am confused on where to read about requirements and whatnot, please respond on my talk page! Imslimshady (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply can be found on your talk page. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

... on WikiTrauma

... on PRSD (Post-RfA-Stress-Disorder) and PWSD (Post-Wiki-Stress-Disorder).

Over the past couple of weeks, I have read, and read, and read (not quite ad infinitum but it feels like it!) previous RfA stuff. Don't ever, ever, nominate me, anyone, not now, not ever, ever, EVER. Any 'process' which causes such massive trauma to anyone who goes through it surely should carry some kind of Health and Safety warning? Seriously broken. Anyone actually looked into any possible stats on Post-RfA suicide?

Emotional and psychological torture, and 'humiliating and degrading treatment' are banned under any number of Human Rights laws, Acts, wossnames, and rightly so. What I've read is truly and genuinely shocking. Pesky (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaded long-term contributors to this page should pay great attention to the above posting. "Pesky" is a relative newcomer - although xe joined up in 2006, xe only started 'serious' editing on Jan 31st this year [1].
This is the perspective of a person who has not been embroiled in the many debates; and I think it is a very astute observation.  Chzz  ►  10:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's melodramatic and distracts from fixing RfA. Reading mean-spirited and douche-y opinions of oneself is not a happy experience, but it is hardly a 'human rights abuse' or anything that would run afoul of legalities. RfA is broken, there's agreement between myself and the poster on that, but suggesting a number of people commit suicide over it? Comparing it with torture, something a close family member of mine went through in the Korean War? Those are offensive notions to people who know the reality of either suicide or torture. Iraqi citizens were stripped naked and electrocuted on video tape. That's a human rights abuse. Having a page full of vaguely anonymous comments that dont like you, which you can choose not to read at any time is unfortunate and stupid when it keeps well qualified people out. My RfA only failed by a couple votes, which is funny considering 2 or 3 votes were people objecting, in all seriousness, that because I had a photo of myself as part of my userpage i was violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE. The problem with RfA is it produces bad results not that it incites death, and to suggest it does is distracting and just plain wrong. -- ۩ Mask 10:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding flippant, can you actually cite any sources proving that there has never been a post-RfA serious mental breakdown /suicidal depression? (I know, I'm sorry, it's that 'proving a negative' thing). But (without going into too much real-life detail), as a long-term animal keeper, and long-term First Aider, I've been involved in some pretty horrific 'suffering' situations, and none of them has actually made me feel as physically ill and shaky as some of the RfA pages have done. I'm normally one of the most level-headed and good-humoured people around (I think), but this stuff really knocked me endways. And yes, though it no way approaches the kind of violations you're illustrating - I do appreciate that - again, from RL experiences, I do know about serious, suicidal depression - and how little it can take to trigger it. And yes, most of the 'oppose' comments I;ve read have been pretty much OK - but on the other hand, some of them have come across very much as "the beatings will continue until the yelping stops". Not good at all. I do not mean to offend anyone, really I don't - but the RfA process looks like "here's where to wander if you feel like being beaten up some day". :-( Pesky (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
A great man once said 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. You are claiming that people kill themselves after reading postings on wikipedia. I read postings on wikipedia every day and dont kill myself. Millions of people read postings on wikipedia every day and dont kill them selves. Tens of thousands have gone through RfA, and to this point no ones suggested they killed themselves. That is the very definition of an 'extraordinary claim' because it is in opposition to all known observations. The burden of proof lies on you not me just as surely as if you told me the Laws of Mathematics we have were wrong all along. I mean, the media blames pedophiles on us, dont you think if even one case came even close to this thered be Fox Headlines 'Wikipedia kills Child'? -- ۩ Mask 11:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not actually claiming it - I'm asking if anyone has actually done any research into it. Pesky (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

That's simply window dressing. You're asking because you're suggesting there's a link. We have an article on this particular logical fallacy at loaded question. The answer is limited to 'no', which allows someone to present their intuition as a incontrovertible opinion without contrasting, fact-based views. This is a great example of why we need to focus on fixing RfA and not spend time bogged down in emotional appeals: They produce bad reasoning. -- ۩ Mask 11:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not asking ' because I'm suggesting there' IS 'a link'. And I'm not attempting to make any emotional appeal, either. (And, without wishing to sound, or be, at all confrontational), it's generally not a good idea to tell people what they are and aren't suggesting or trying to do, unless you're a long-distance mind-reader, lol! I appreciate that while mental health records are confidential it would be very difficult to do any research of this kind, but people do (on-wiki) talk about 'wiki breakdowns' and discuss how the RfA process has had emotional, stressul impacts on them in real life. So some people, at least, have had stress-related problems. And that's just those who are willing to talk about them. Rather than regress to what might appear to be some kind of name-calling and 'labelling of the argument' (e.g. emotional, 'window dressing', 'logical fallacy', etc.), yes, let's discuss how the process could be made / overhauled into something that doesn't have any real-life stress issues attached to it. I;m all for solutions :o) Pesky (talk) 11:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not you intend to is different from if you are suggesting it. A loaded question doesnt need intent any more then an ergo propter hoc needs the participant to realize theyre using it. I dont know why you put scare quotes around logical fallacy, but we have an article, and a more specific one at formal fallacy, the category the fallacy used falls into. I agree we should look for solutions, there are sections of this talkpage that dont begin with alarmist notations about human rights abuses and wikipedia causing suicides for that. -- ۩ Mask 11:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the section does illustrate how, even in the simplest of conversations, someone can end up feeling as though they are being attacked, even if the alleged attacker did not intend an attack :o) And the quotes were simple that - quotes, as in quoting someone's own words. Pesky (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like you got something useful out of it after all then. The actual content of the first post I've explained my position on, and after your recent explanation I do apologize for my assumption of scare quotes. -- ۩ Mask 11:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No probs! You're (if appropriate!) forgiven! But take a look at this for some possible research material? (Yup, it's going to include a lot of non-hit stuff, too, I know) Pesky (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Want to talk about torture? :D The first hit on that search is one of Danial Brandt's pages, wikipedia-watch, the same domain he had names, ages, locations, contact info and pictures of various wikipedian's posted at, ostensibly for being in a cabal against him and freedom. For like 2 years that was somewhere in the bottom half of the first page on google for searches of either my real name or my user name. Sorry, that was a completely random observation driven by the shock of seeing that site, it was a chuckle and after this brewhaha that first sentence was too good not to use. -- ۩ Mask 12:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Heh, he actually still has the page up at http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/oldhive.html -- ۩ Mask 12:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Brill! That is a good one, lol! Love it! Pesky (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion of mental health problems arising from RFA is an extraordinary one that requires research/evidence to make. A better expression of the question should be "are there any negative real life outcomes from RFA". Ultimately such a problem can be discarded *because* lots of on-wiki stuff causes stress and break downs that transgress to real life, RFA doesn't strike me as the largest source of those (particularly as it is a voluntary process). Putting yourself up for any form of review is always going to be a stressful process because people do not pull punches; sure we should have mechanisms for supporting people who feel upset or distressed by harsh criticism of their actions, and sure we should educate RFA !voters about the effect of their words on candidates, but descriptions of RFA as "massive trauma" don't strike me as overly helpful (rather a dramatic view of things).
Criticism is always, and consistently, a bitch and most peoples ability to take it on the chin is low. So the problem at RFA is not really the level of criticism, but human nature. I think that the RFA essays should strongly highlight how painful criticism can be and counsel that most people will struggle to take it on board. I do think RFA could be replaced with a better system; but one of the best short-term "solutions" to the current process is to deter the more fragile editors from entering the process (one significant part of that could be to push hard with the idea of adminship being no big deal, one of the main issues I think is people looking for it as a "step up" in the community). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This whole conversation is one example of why I will probably only run for adminship if things change quite a bit. First off, right here we have a relatively new and very talented editor making a needed comment with a bit of semi-humorous hyperbole that helps bring home a serious point, but is immediately misunderstood and taken to task by someone who entirely misses that point and takes things way too literally. Then, about the time this debate dies down, the parties having developed some mutual understanding, then someone else shows up, also misses the point, continues the same useless debate all the while suggesting that (my paraphrase and summary follows, it's how I read it) though the system is junk, we humans are just too thin-skinned, can't take criticism, should just suck it up, and anyone too "fragile" to take it just shouldn't participate. What nonsense! That's about like saying Lord of the Flies was just about a bunch of schoolboys getting a little out of hand, and "Piggy" needed to just suck it up! (note, aforementioned literary reference is also used with a metaphorical hyperbole in order to make a point.) The truth is, for most human beings, online life can have an emotional impact similar to that of real life (the kids who completed suicide after being cyber-bullied are cases in point). Wikipedia needs to enforce its own civility code, and especially in places like this where we are actually trying to find the grownups in the room! I am a person who is probably a reasonably tough individual in real life, but I am not about to take the shellacking from a bunch of tendentious, disgruntled idiots that seem to circle like vultures around anyone who has an opinion or two. I've made a few mistakes, I've occasionally been snarky, I've gotten bogged down in arguments I should have avoided, and over the almost-five years I've been here, have had too many wiki wars, useless spats, and have had to deal with some seriously mentally unbalanced individuals. And while I haven't considered suicide over it, I can say that I have definitely had some very strong emotions and wanted to quit several times, with only the enjoyment I take in contributing content and maintaining the areas where I have worked to keep me here. So when Pesky suggests that the RfA process resembles a violation of the Geneva Conventions, I'd say take it seriously, folks. Hyperbole proves a point, and though RfA is not extreme rendition, it's unnecessarily brutal -- the point is people walk away from this sort of wiki-crap feeling depressed, discouraged, and a half-dozen other negative emotions. I am beyond certain that these obnoxious processes can be damn tough on even fairly average people, and if someone is not in a perfectly centered place, it can be just devastating. Imagine not getting a real life job after a grueling interview process that covered several days and involved dozens of people (I was once an interviewer on one branch of a university hiring committee for a director in the student services department, I think they endured something like 8 or 10 interviews with separate departments over the course of several days, that might be close), only with some sort of extreme "combat interview" process. Add to that the need to write and defend a dissertation (i.e. contributions to wikipedia, I've got about 30K now, for example, that's probably more than a dissertation), and maybe, just maybe, you've got the RfA process. Oh yeah, except that about half the interview committee are the kids from Lord of the Flies, still a bit hyped up from their experiences on the island! =:-O OK, that's a rant, but there you have it. Montanabw^(talk) 06:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah! A voice of sanity! Yes, hyperbole - but to make a point which really needs to be made. Constructive criticism leading to improvement, no probs. Unnecessary brutality = cruelty. Pesky (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And the Dark Side ..... I said above: "here's where to wander if you feel like being beaten up some day"; the corollary to that one is, of course "if you're the kind of person who likes to beat people up with impunity, here's where to wait in ambush. A victim will surely come by soon." Pesky (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you don't actually think RFA is torture? --Banana (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I have never been through it, so can't give a truly informed opinion on that. But, as Montana so rightly points out, cyber-bullying can lead to suicide. What I've seen looks pretty barbaric. And 'torture' / cruelty can be emotional and psychological, not just physical. It would have to be a subjective view, from someone who's run the gauntlet, for you to have a real answer on how the 'victim' views it. Pesky (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Adding: different people view the same things in different ways. I have no idea how you personally view snakes, f'rinstance. But I have a pet 7-foot boa, and I love her to bits (despite the fact that she came to me with a couple of 'behavioural issues', for want of a better phrase, lol!) Quite a few people would have no problems at all handling her (despite the occasional possible nip). But how would you, personally, feel if I were to duct-tape you to a chair, get her out of her tank, dump her onto your lap, and then sit back and giggle at your reaction? And how would you mother / granny / partner feel about that experience? Pesky (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If you duct taped me to a chair against my will, I would report you to the police. Assault isn't really the best example of something that people have different views on.
Montanabw said above that you intended your comments in a light-hearted manner and encouraged people to lighten up. Although I fail to understand your snake metaphor, I think you are trying to make a serious point. Perhaps if you use less dramatic wording more people will try and understand your position? --Banana (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Well said Montana. I'm a tough old university administrator and teacher and and industry chief, with 6 years boarding school and 6 years in the army to boot. My recent RfA was the most soul destroying and humiliating event of my long adult life. As a frequent contributor to this page and RfA, I knew about the snake pit I would be stepping into at my recent RfA - and it started very badly. Fortunately at the last minute I passed with an overwhelming majority, but if I were to be objective, my advice to any editor would be: avoid the RfA process like the plague. Problem is, we need admins - and not just anybody, such as people who want to be admins who don't even know how to file the request - so I'm doing my best to help get things changed. Kudpung (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, poo! I hate edit conflicts, lol!) I'm sorry, there's still too much blood in the caffeine-stream just yet! And waaaaaaaaaaaay too much insomnia over the past few weeks, so I'm certainly not at my best (it's those real-life issues, y'know!) But if you'd agreed to be duct-taped to a chair while you met my (unspecified) pet, and then the pet turned out not to be some cute fluffy thing .... The point is that different people have different levels of tolerance for the same stimuli. And I think the 'how thick-skinned are you' test is not necessarily going to pull up the genuinely best candidates for adminship. Dragging up some years-old stupidity (which may have been committed by a 13-year-old), and then haranguing the now-17-year-old, who's already grown out of that, for it - and thus possibly putting off / emotionally damaging someone who could, now, be an excellent candidate, seems possibly counter-productive. There must surely be much better ways of doing this. Non-movable goalposts would be good, and no horrific surprises about something the candidate might even have forgotten about by now, would also be good. And someone keeping a running eye out for those people - if any - who seem to haunt the RfA pages consistently on the 'oppose-with-bitching' side, to rein them in, might be even better. Pesky (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a better point: I think that people who are thin-skinned enough to understand how much someone can be hurt by ill-considered words, because they are like that themselves, may actually make better admins, because they're less likely to forget that there's a real, live, feeling human being on the other end of the computer that they're looking at. It might help overcome the 'Wikipedia is inhabited by Admins with fangs and talons' thing, and replace it with 'Wikipedia is inhabited by Admins who are thoughtful and considerate, while being firm but fair' viewpoint. Not a bad thing, I'd suggest. Pesky (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Montanabw; I got the hyperbole, but I don't think it is at all helpful in discussing the issue (it is a form of rhetoric I find lacking in substance). You are right "hyperbole proves a point"; unfortunately proving a point isn't much use at this stage, any reasonable commenter will agree there are issues at RFA, there is no need to make points about suicide and mental stress. Indeed your description of your own wiki problems supports the point I made; Wikipedia can be stressful, and RFA is definitely not the the cause of most of the stress here. Indeed it could be argued that the sort of stress you can be subjected on RFA here is a good test for how much you let WP affect you in RL. Some RFA's get out of hand and turn into a pile on. Others raise critical points that are harsh, but important; and a candidates ability to deal with that criticism can be an important consideration. I think describing RFA in general as barbaric, torture and throwing out suggestions of suicide levels of stress is unhelpful, wrong, and simply making a POINT. We should instead be having a constructive discussion about how to keep it friendly. The bottom line is that you are going to get criticised in an RFA, that is the whole idea, and if you are unable to cope with that then the process is not for you. We should make that clearer. We should also work to stamp on people who come here to be nasty, pile on or have a grudge. FWIW I have worked with people who have been cyber bullied, and who are suicidal as a result, and what they suffer is nothing like this. It is simply a voluntary level of criticism that can be stressful to deal with. But cyber-bullying? That is more hyperbole and quite an attack on those contributing to the RFA process. As a scientist I am perfectly willing to accept the hypothesis that Wiki stress can have emotional and psychological implications in real life. But as a scientist I'd want to see studies rather than hyperbole before we get too excited about it Pesky; you raise good points about years old mistakes & that is something specific we can work on. Some form of statute of limitations of Wiki-behaviour might work (although limiting editors RFA criteria might be resisted) The POINT I am making is; suggest some solutions. Or do the studies. Drop the hyperbole. :) --Errant ^(chat!) 08:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Different people respond in different ways. You may personally find hyperbole to be a form of rhetoric lacking in substance, but I think sometimes it makes other people take a step back and look at something from a different view. Fair enough - we all see things differently. The only way anyone could 'do the studies' (and this is an excellent idea - doing the studies) would be for someone (maybe the 'crats?) to issue an anonymous-to-non-crats questionnaire to (for example) everyone who's run the RfA gauntlet within the past three years, asking for subjective scores on a number of points. in fact, only by doing something like this, and doing it as an ongoing part of the RfA prcess, can we measure any future improvement. And it has to be measurable. P.S. I certainly had no intention of disruption of any kind - apologies if it came across that way. Pesky (talk) 09:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
FWIW the reason I find hyperbole of little use is because if someone can undermine the extreme example then it starts to come apart. Also; while I was critical of your approach I fully support & approve people working on the process. Anyway, forget that - onto constructive ideas. The way I would do it is to come up with some sort of questionnaire for ex-RFA candidates (both failed and passed) and reach out for participants (I'd be inclined to organise it on-wiki, but host the questionnaire on an of-wiki questionnaire site so as to keep it anonymous). I'd also be inclined to formulate a second questionnaire for regular RFA participants to get their perspective on it. Is it worth creating a working page to set up such a study? I also believe there is WMF support structure to help with such studies (though I can't remember where) so it might be worth exploring that... --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think an RfA-process feedback page - showing just the results - is definitely a very good idea. Maybe one of the questions on the questionnaire should be "was there any particular opposer who you felt was overly-aggressive and / or verging on (or making) personal attacks" (please name them), and if the same names keep coming up, maybe the crats should have a quiet word with people who are subjectively viewed as 'persistent offenders' - and possibly ban them from the RfA process for a while? If those who might fall into that category knew that this was a possible consequence, maybe that alone would be enough to make the whole thing a more constructive experience for everyone involved - and also for everyone reading through the pages. After all, anyone with Wiki access can read through those histories, and they may well not currently be presenting 'the face of WikiPeople' as we'd like Joe Public to see it! Pesky (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Don't you see why that's not helpful though? It amounts to 'if this situation were not the same but instead totally different you'd agree with me'. If RfA were torture, or driving people to suicide, we would all agree with you that this was the main issue. But it's not. And that's the problem with using hyperbole. We're making a monumental change to a long, long-standing process to make it better and you're asking us to take a moment to imagine a set of facts disconnected from reality and draw conclusions from it. I was rather pleased we seemed to have come to understanding yesterday, but this has continued. We need to get RfA working, and that means we have to deal with the actual reality of the situation. -- ۩ Mask 10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I do see your point - but it does come as a little foreign to me. Maybe it's an example of the Brit vs. USA way of drawing parallels? Standard cultural differences? I will try to be less 'culturally-British' if it helps. Pesky (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The kind of Brits I grew up with (maybe not the same as everyone's kind of Brits) would have naturally seen the hyperbole as a way of saying "We're on the thin end of a rather unsavoury wedge. The thick end of it looks like this, guys." Pesky (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Not that it should matter, but my own RfA ended with a visit to the emergency room at the local Veterans hospital where I was treated for anxiety. A treatment I would surely not have needed had I not participated. I do believe someone with less resolve could have considered more drastic resolution. And for the most part, the negativity was not appropriate for the crime of my error. That is just an opinion however. My76Strat (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that input. Maybe we should try asking others for their own input, who have felt the same way? As I've said before, different people respond in different ways to the same stimuli; and (and no, this is not hyperbole, it's genuine honest-to-God personal truth) I found that reading through some of that old history actually made me feel more distressed than the very unpleasant experience of having to restrain an animal with a gaping belly wound, guts showing, for close on an hour waiting till the vet could get there, in order to stop said animal from standing up and trampling on its own innards :-( We react differently, we really do. We have different levels of tolerance for different things. Pesky (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If I may be bold, In reading this discussion, I see repeated statements that reflect that we agree there are problems but no one has suggestions for was to improve. I would differ from that perspective as I have said a few things myself. Some are so easy its hard to understand why there would be a delay. For one example I emphatically state if there was a stage at the end where you asked, as in a survey, how the candidate experienced the RfA, you would not only have a trove of useful information,collected at the freshest point of memory, you would also be empowering the candidate, by implying; here at the end we value your input, to return to regular contributions with a bolstered semblance of self worth. The current method of a boiler message at a designated time does not serve wholesome purpose. How hard would it be to get something like that done? Why would there be an objection? My76Strat (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My76Strat, I agree with you, from my quick research below (I intend to do some more indepth this evening), it appears that the regular editors are the ones who suffer at RfA. NOTNOWs are given a much gentler approach, but reminding regular editors of their worth at the close would be a great idea. I'm not sure about the survey per se, but I don't object to it. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

How broken is RfA?

I read this thread with interest, because in my opinion the unpleasantness at RfA is where the process is "broken". It's something I'd really like to see fixed. But I thought I'd do a little research into how broken the process is - I've seen a lot of "suck it up" comments here, so I had a look into the unsuccessful RfA candidates from this year, and what happened next. User:Worm That Turned/Unsuccessful RFAs shows that many candidates do carry on. However, by my calculations somewhere between 1/5 to 1/4 do not. And unfortunately, I'm not talking about the NOTNOWs - we've lost 4 good editors this year alone and nearly lost 2 others. I believe this ties in very clearly with the feelings of Post-RfA Stress that Pesky described. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that's not the broken-ness but a fix will actually improve that. The problem is RfA is shitty at making good choices. Part of that is reflected in the symptom of nitpicking a user to death, and deeply objecting over inconsequential things but that's just one part of it. A true fix is needed, maybe even a complete remake of how we pick admins. -- ۩ Mask 12:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
If I may also add this perspective: I believe, again as part of the close, the candidate should be assured that disagreements and critiques related to performance during RfA will not carry over to reflect against their character within the Wikipedia community. I am not suggesting if a candidate rises to a level requiring a block or ban that this should be excused. I am saying if they emerge the RfA having not been blocked or banned, then the RfA should be treated like Vegas; What happens there, stays there. Is that reasonable? My76Strat (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Worm, RFAs can be much too unpleasant for my taste. Sometimes I want to step in and ask "would you really say that in real life to someone's face?", but I'm worried it degenerate a into a big fight. Maybe I ought to anyway. :S
That's a fair point '76, and arguably it would be better to have past RFAs hidden, or at least not so prominantly on show on top of the RFA page. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
My experience as someone whose first RFA tanked is that the community does work on a "what happened at RFA stays at RFA basis". If anything the quiet on my talkpage post RFA was disconcerting, and of course the great majority of wikipedians pay no heed to RFA so won't even have noticed you had one. That said I think we could make more use of all the vetting that has gone into an unsuccessful RFA and where a candidate didn't make admin but could uncontroversially be given some other user rights then why not go ahead and grant them? I occasionally do this during or after RFAs, but others might care to join me. I also think it would be much easier to keep candidates who are good experienced editors if in our opposes we make it clear that this is a valued editor who isn't yet ready for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I had observed the gesture you mentioned very recently. I thought it was a nice form of consideration. To the first part, I would like to believe it was true that there was no carry over. But I am currently involved in a discussion to show there is such a potential. More directly that the question was directly asked of AKMask reflects that I know he is aware of the other discussion. But it can happen and has. My76Strat (talk) 13:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Good, good, good stuff. Yes, re-affirm worthiness in as many ways as possible. Yes, reassess the way that admins are chosen altogether. Yes, allow some but not necessarily all tools - as part of a learning process, with mentoring through the use of other tools. And how about some goal-oriented structured learning for those who don't yet make it? Pesky (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

And how about ... all questions have to be posed up-front (like Prime Minister's questions) so the candidate can read through the questions, decide how they feel about them, and then withdraw if they feel like it without answering? Pesky (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that some questions are asked based on new information, or in relation to opposes. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, sometimes the RfA process is iterative - a !voter will point out an area of possible concern, the candidate might reply, then another !voter comes along and probes a related issue... I wouldn't want to weaken that (although it mostly happens in the voting section rather than being explicitly posed as questions at the top of the page), because it's one of the most effective investigative mechanisms. Without that back-and-forth I think it would be harder to get real assurance of the quality of any but the blandest cookie-cutter candidates. bobrayner (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
How about if no new subjects could be brought up which hadn't been mentioned in the first-off questions? That way, hopefully any candidate could think their way through 'which future path might this question lead to?', and having thought five moves ahead, then had the option whether to withdraw or not. Pesky (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
And what about the idea of a probationary period, with response to shortcomings being mentoring rather than striking? Pesky (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Pesky, if you don't mind a little more reading, perhaps I could point you here Worm^TT · (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Worm, m'dear, I is an obsessive-compulsive reader - so no probs :o) I shall trot over there and browse. Pesky (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The complete inability to see the point that has just been exhibited by Errant in the section above and was, to a lesser extent, the initial problem with Mask, is yet another reason I wouldn't go for RfA -- I absolutely am sick and tired of tendentious arguments, abuse of the "I am a scientist" reasoning (I'm a liberal arts sort and feel metaphor reveals a greater truth, so hey, now I have a chance to say "suck it up!"  :-P ) and generally ripping my hair out at concrete, literal-minded people with what appears to be zero sense of humor, fun or creativity, even if, at least, they don't also have the cruel streak. I anticipate that I will run into more of the same, or worse at RfA, so won't go there. I've also survived at least two ANIs and a WQA, all totally exonerating me, and have a completely clean block history, but because I have been pissy, snarky, and occasionally still reserve the right to be that way on occasion, I fully anticipate that I'd be deemed completely unacceptable as an admin, even though I have never abused any of the rights I have been granted (rollback, etc) and would immediately and without hesitation recuse myself from any dispute where I was personally involved. I watch the nightmares that some admins get into when they try to do their jobs, and it's really quite thankless. If you want a solid suggestion for RfA, I'd recommend that only people with some basic set of credentials, perhaps only existing senior editors, experienced admins or something, can approve a new one. At least let the people who do the evaluations be people with something that they themselves could lose if they wanted to be a total jerk. If the rank and file wants to have a way to say, "but what about this crime against wikipedia?" then they can simply submit the diffs as evidence, no commentary. Montanabw^(talk) 23:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? The problem with myself and Errant? Why the need to personally attack another editor? This entire discussion has been about fixing RfA, and my comments are directed at arguments not editors, the way our community norms and policies dictate we do. The times the editor I was engaged with felt they were personally directed at him I was more then happy to clarify to avoid any misunderstanding. We are discussing fundamental changes to a major process, and damn straight I want to make sure we examine the issue clearly. If the government is building a bridge and based design decisions not on the actual situation but instead on a different site with metaphorical and/or exaggerated characteristics some said were similar to the actual site it would never be allowed to go forward. We're doing this to fix the encyclopedia, we have a duty to get it right and not have to do it again later, your labeling of those you disagree with in this discussion as 'problems' is not conducive to that goal. -- ۩ Mask 02:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Your comment is not helpful, Montanabw.--Banana (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Banana, with a remark like that, you would be a third one, Mask, these are not attacks, they are examples of tendentious arguments over nothing, missing the point, plus failing to understand metaphor, deliberate hyperbole, satire and humor -- all of which are reasons why RfA is broken. Literal, unimaginative nitpicking is one of wikipedia's great weaknesses in general, and often comes across as humorless if not cruel. One can have a valid critique and be quite critical, but it can be said without killing people's sprit or just making them want to beat their head against the wall. But then, some people don't understand why Dilbert is funny, either. Maybe it's a fundamental difference between those with a liberal arts education and those who have a more scientific education, I don't know. Maybe it's just personalities with fundamental communication differences. But the three of you have, on this page, demonstrated another problem with the system. The style you exhibit here really does lead folks like me to want to do something more constructive with our time, like ripping our hair out by the roots or pounding our heads against the wall. The saddest thing is that I doubt you can even understand why I'm saying this and will want specific examples. Yet there are others here who are nodding their heads, understanding perfectly. Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I apologise unreservedly for asking whether it is reasonable or helpful to suggest RFA can cause suicide and then entering a constructive discussion where we laid aside the hyperbole and suggested some ideas for progressing. I suppose really I should have come here and moaned about the attitude of other editors. Never mind. FWIW I think the rationale response to someone asking if RFA causes suicide is "got a source"? Don't you? --Errant ^(chat!) 21:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think maybe British is a different language on many levels from American. And I wish I could remember the short name for an argument which undermines the way the other argument was put, rather than seeing to / understanding the foundation of it, but I can't. And I think that hyperbole is the best thing ever. And I'm darned sure that we can all make room for other people's ways of expressing themselves - wouldn't life be terminally dull if we all spoke, thought, and expressed ourselves in exactly the same way? Pesky (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You say tomato, I say tomato; let's call the whole thing off. bobrayner (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Weeeelllll, but 'off' doesn't sound a bit like 'tomato', does it now? Why should we call it that? And anyway, if your tomato is off, you should have kept it in the fridge. Pesky (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

It is wise to do a thorough self assessment. If you lack a requisite admin quality, it is best not to pursue RfA. But the participants must demonstrate exemplary behavior when a well intentioned editor volunteers to serve, but is found lacking. I think I fit the literal meaning of well intentioned. And the attacks against my writing were not conducive of professionalism. If the preferred admin should command a concise vocabulary and manner. I could be told my writing didn't serve the admin trait, but other projects might be happy to work with me where depth is appreciated, most importantly in writing articles in the encyclopedia. Instead I was humiliated with derogatory characterizations; arrogant, condescending, incomprehensible. And I wasn't told, "I came across this way", but rather that "I was". I was called pugnacious, not because I represent my side of debate with zeal, but that I wanted to pick fights. And I even drew criticism for being polite to participants who did oppose with kindness.

Somewhere there should be an element who maintains the requirements of civility for both the candidate and the participants. And a participant who draws too much criticism should be precluded from participating. I approached my RfA expecting this professional conduct, and was let down hard when realizing the participants had free reign to say anything the pleased. Even if it wasn't true. On the other hand, I had to guard my every manner of seeking redress. To the extent there was none. My only hope towards the end was that the closing bureaucrat was going to produce a summery of their observations, and they would be that professional element who put the RfA into a proper perspective. It was another disappointment to find there was no such summary. Just a boiler message saying you did not succeed. And I have already alluded to the impact of empowering the candidate on the way out. Asking a few questions that can provide useful information, while showing the candidate their contributions are still valued. It wouldn't be a waste of resources to commission a professional psychologist to review the practices of RfA for other areas where we may be grossly negligent when administering such a stressful regiment. Just some thoughts, for I have seen better methods. And I think they could improve what we are trying to accomplish here. And that is, to identify quality administrators, while not alienating the contributors who brought themselves forward for consideration. My76Strat (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Strat, some of those problems could have been avoided had you perhaps been more familiar with the process before stepping into the ring. It's the reason why my own list of RfA criteria insists upon ">10 edits to RfA with adequate rationale that demonstrate knowledge of the process". My list was established long before I was persuaded to run for office, and I knew what I was letting myself in for, although I didn't think my RfA would be quite as unpleasant as it turned out to be. Closing 'crats generally only provide a soliloquy in the case of a very close call such as this which was possibly the longest we ever had. What you are doing now is good - it will prepare you well for you next attempt. However, many of the points you bring up are on the list of things to get changed, but when that will be, no one can know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You are entirely correct. I lacked preparation, I am compulsive, quick to act without proper forethought. I do not dispute that I failed the admin criteria, and those are some pretty good reasons why. I just can not see where destroying a persons self worth fits the error of having tried. I wonder if any of it was staged. Did some participants hate me, as they portrayed, or was it for effect. Surely if people were to say, "I played devils advocate and you failed the criteria, but I didn't mean some of the things said", that could heal. And if there is no element of programed stress, the stars themselves aligned against me. So either way the correct result was achieved. Except for the part where I thought I had a mild stroke, and had to have medical intervention to resume normal function. That was more than I bargained for, and is worrisome. I am not a pussy who breaks down every time someone looks at me wrong. And I've been though some pretty stressful events in my life. RfA is totally different than anything I imagined, and most of the things I say are in hopes that a better process can be found. Not for me, but for my colleagues who will themselves volunteer one day. I am not admin material, I do not intend to attempt it again. But if I can help it improve, I will be glad. Where is this list of things to get changed that you alluded to? My76Strat (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Strat; you raise an interesting point somewhere in there - the idea of someone being responsible for civility & RFA progress. We already have clerks for various other aspects - are RFA clerks a useful idea? i.e. a group of volunteers of whom one or two recuse themselves from active participation in each RFA, instead take on a clerking role - sorting votes, nipping drama/civility in the bud and "mentoring" the candidate through the process. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

So, there are lot of interesting suggestions above.. I personally want to pursue the idea of conducting a proper study of the RFA system - especially the idea of a survey. I feel that getting the facts straight and a decent load of options on the table is a good "next step". There are probably two issues here: a full reform of RFA (hard) and tweaks/improvements to streamline the current process (easier...). I started work on some ideas for survey questions, any input & help is gladly received :) --Errant ^(chat!) 22:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Just had a look at those - those are excellent :o) And your idea above is also excellent; it's close to the Town Sheriff/ Page Watchdog role being discussed elsewhere, and a truly constructive and insightful idea. I like that stuff :o) Pesky (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, have started the discussion page over there with a few thoughts. Pesky (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Today isn't the first time I've seen something like this[2]. Someone, I'm sure in good faith, transcluding an RFA for a clear not now editor. This user had only 11 edits. There are several ways to deal with an RFA like this. Transclusion is not one of them. Is there any reason why there shouldn't just be a full prohibition on transcluding an RFA for another user? Even on a valid candidate the transclusion timing should be their call, and for gods sake it would stop the poorly thought transclusions of those who are in the wrong place.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, as I recall, Secret accidentally transcluded mine before I'd signed it. Not a problem in the end, but it does suggest that you might have a point here.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe "knowing how to transclude an RFA" can work as the minimum criterion we've been looking for above. It would rightly count me out for the moment, for a start.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• You should not transclude an RFA unless you are the nominator, the candidate, or have been asked to do so by the candidate. If you are the nominator, you should be sure the candidate is ready before transcluding it. –xeno^talk 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think the candidate should transclude it in most cases. This is usually the first test to see if the candidate has enough clue to transclude the template and properly subst the RfA timer template. If they can't figure that out themselves, they probably don't have any business being here. —SW— ^express 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• To me, the only people who should transclude an RfA is the candidate, or a nominator with the candidate's consent: I see little point in an unrelated user transcluding the RfA (despite, no doubt, them transcluding it in good-faith). Acalamari 17:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• Xeno and Acalamari are correct, AFAIK. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think mandatory self-transclusion could be one of the first tests of knowledge of Wiki technology - I'm a reasonably experienced editor but I was scared stiff I would botch mine. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
• I think before a candidate even fills out the nomination, co nomination if applicable and the 3 basic questions, they should first request to have an RfA in their name. Then the request should go to some reasonably well regarded editors of the highest standing to either approve the request and allow the candidate to proceed, of identify if there is a quick fail criteria which would be better served rejecting the request. I think we have all observed candidates transclude with 2 or 3 months as a wikipedian, and quite frankly that RfA isn't going to pass. Why not filter out most of the NOTNOW candidates without ever transcluding? It is easier on the emotional toll.My76Strat (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think though it's worthy of discussion it's a lot more controversial than what I'm suggesting. It looks like "Keep your hands off untranscluded RFA's unless it's yours or you're the nominator" is fairly uncontroversial. Changing the entire nomination process is another step all together.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, your point is valid. I just wanted to throw an idea out for additional consideration. But it is a separate issue. My76Strat (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the recent RfA for My76Strat (talk · contribs), xe appears to have announced retirement [3].

I will make no comment here other than to say, a) I opposed [4], b) I like to consider him a friend, c) his retirement is a loss to Wiki English.

I'm not posting here for DRAMA; I just thought I'd let people know, who might not otherwise notice. Best,  Chzz  ►  03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tough luck! Monterey Bay (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Excellent prose, but it seems somewhat like a martyrdom to me. Yet it cannot be denied that RfA exacts a toll on its participants. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 03:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who puts themselves forward at RfA must be prepared to take the knocks. It's not nice to be told that you're not trusted, sure, but then just look at who's telling you that and be glad you're not one of them. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)y

"I am proud, having left record of my hand, across Wikipedian. Wishing the very best possible, even imaginable, continence, and peace abundant!" Righto. I'm not convinced this user has retired. Townlake (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I might be if I understood that. But there a few Wikipedians I'd like to leave a "record of my hand" across, that's for sure. Malleus Fatuorum 04:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it unbelievable to anyone that a user retired from Wikipedia due to hostility in their RfA? It's not exactly uncommon, most of the time only a few notice. Swarm ^X 04:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, to me, it is unbelievable. Why would you stop editing articles just because people tell you your style isn't compatible with the style expected of admins? I'm not just exaggerating when I say that I really don't understand why you would walk away after a failed RfA. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Complete and utter emotional discouragement? They no longer feel a desire to contribute to something that has caused them so much pain? Honestly, I've seen it multiple times. Swarm ^X 05:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

After my failed RfAs I simply went on a wikibreak. It's a really good way to recover after the stress of an RfA. Seriously, I swear I only got two hours of sleep in that entire week! I do agree with Qwyrxian though, I joined Wikipedia to improve it. The mop is just another way to assist in that process. Nevertheless, Swarm makes a valid point as well. Many candidates take their failed RfA to mean that the community doesn't value their contributions. Add to that the mental (and sometimes physical) pain of RfA, and you can begin to understand why some users might retire.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, one of the users in my RFA actually said that I "have contributed so little". How's that supposed to make someone feel? I can see why some people would take negative feedback poorly, it seems a simple task to devalue years of hard work with a few sentences. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 16:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I saw that, and was very pleased to see Airplaneman and Swarm jump in and point out how inappropriate that comment was. Hopefully if people continue to challenge those sorts of obnoxious drive-by belittings, there will be less of them in the future. 28bytes (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User_talk:My76Strat#Poll - and if anyone says DIVA, I will personally cut their thingies off with a blunt spoon. This is not about stupid politics; this is about a person. thank you for not shouting at me for this... Chzz  ►  06:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I only got about five hours sleep too, and I was on tenterhooks until the last minute, but that's probably partly the fault of choosing to live in an odd-ball time zone. RfA is the biggest single drama on the whole of Wiki English. Those who get massacred at SPI, COI, or civility investigations have only got themselves to blame, but generally, the respected and experienced editors who run for adminship haven't done much wrong, and most of them have been doing everything fairly well. The editors who leave in disgust or disappointment after a failed RfA are mostly those whose 'oppose' section was full of contrived arguments from past enemies, pile-ons from follow-my-leader (and there are plenty of those in the 'oppose' sections), or sim'ply "I just don't like him/her." This really happens, and all the closing crat can do is count the !votes. I would probably have left the project if my RfA had failed simply because the 'hate' faction had its way - I don't know. I do know, after being promoted in an RfA that remained controversial and contentious until the last 36 hours, that it's totally unnecessary to put volunteers - and we're all volunteers here - under the kind of stress, pressures, and character assassinations that RfA too often is, even for those who don't have cat in hell's chance of succeeding.
And yes, it's a popularity contest - as some of the commentators here know only too well from recent RfAs, a candidate that is so well known they are going to pass anyway, can permit themselves the occasional quip, while those who are not so well known are going to be mercilessly chastised and opposed for displaying the slightest evidence of being human and having a sense of humour. --Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with much of this. The level of scrutiny of admin candidates these days is really pretty ludicrous. I don't think that with my mere 6,525 edits I'd be a credible candidate at all. Ironic really as I've been an admin for 5 years and helped write the original WP:GRFA..... The Land (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I got the shit smacked out of me at my first RFA. It went down in a flaming ruin. I took a day or two off and then went back to what I had been doing before. Freaking out and retiring over it is something I would take as a further indication he was not ready to be an admin. Users yell at you and tell you exactly how much you suck pretty much from day one. You get yelled at for keeping, for deleting, for restoring, for protecting, for not protecting, for blocking, for not blocking, and so on and so forth. You have to be able to take that if you want to be an effective admin. Can't say I didn't see this coming after this [5] odd post apparently constructed using a thesaurus. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• My first RFA was not a pleasant experience, so I have sympathy with anyone who gets upset and feels rejected as a result of RFA comments. I'm a fairly frequent opposer at RFA and I think it is important that when one opposes one tries to make clear that we value them as an editor but don't think they are yet ready for adminship. There is a broader problem here with CSD tagging, many newpage patrollers don't realise that their tagging is below par until they run at RFA. That isn't good for those candidates, for the RFA process or of course for the article creators who get bitten. I think we need to improve the way we give feedback to newpage patrollers so that excessively speedy tagging and incorrect tagging is picked up much earlier in people's wiki careers. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

True. When a speedy is really off base, not just a little wrong, the person declining it should explain why directly to the user who nominated it. Of course I have also seen some NPPers who have "I'm not perfect so don't tell me why you declined my speedy" headers on their talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I honestly would like it if admins patrolling my speedy-tagged articles at C:SD would notify me when they decline the articles I have tagged or delete them under other rationales. However, most do not. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you watch the page after you tag it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a CSD log at User:Reaper Eternal/CSDlog. Actually, I only see one admin-declined speedy and one I removed myself after the author de-spammed the aarticle. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• A few days ago I told My76Strat I hoped he would continue editing, despite the bloodbath that his RfA was. It's nice to see some 30+ editors echoing that sentiment. Perhaps Dusti could use some similar encouragement? His RfA was ten times the bloodbath My76Strat's was, he hasn't edited since, and so far as I can tell, no one's said a single encouraging word to him. 28bytes (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While I personally won't be participating in any of these pity parties that is a damn good point. Funny considering that Strat was so upset with me over remarks I made at Dusti's RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I just hate this type of wp essay; User:Either way/On retiring or rather the fact that WP:RETIRED, just happens to re-direct there, it does not describe what retiring is. Im a firm beliver that a wiki editor knows when the time has come though to hang up the key board. Alot of quality editors though seem to see this to coincide with RFAs though, Its tough when the community is as harsh on someone for essentially volunteering their services for several years often- and making little issues big (the oppose always has more weight than the support too). So much drama, so many rules.... Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The essay is silly. Someone quits, we offer condolence and ask them not to, and they come back... therefore, they didn't intend to quit? Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Chzz  ►  11:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
It would look much nicer with a {{humor}} tag on it. Can we do that to an essay? —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather make decisions on the margin. If we try to say nice things to competent active editors post-bloodbath, they are more likely to continue editing. Hence, saying a couple of nice things will increase the number of competent active editors in the project. My urge to ensure a high-quality cadre of admins is not so strong that I flinch from being nice to somebody who tried and failed. bobrayner (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well said, thank you! There's a big difference between a retirement following something at WP:AN/I and one following a failed RfA, which is a voluntary process. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll start a neutral, informational essay on retiring. Feel free to help. Wiki: Retiring. Swarm ^X 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I think WP:RETIRE is now a decent informational essay. The above users were right, WP:On retiring was not satisfactory as the only essay on retiring. Swarm ^X 01:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My first reaction when I see recently failed RfA candidates retiring is "Well, this proves my/their point". Admins do need to be able to tolerate pretty high levels of stress without breaking, but I think it's a natural part of the sequence of thoughts following a highly discouraging event is to assure yourself you'll never go anywhere near that place again. Few people actually, permanently stop editing after an RfA, although many pledge to, often with every intention of doing so. Of course, Wikipedia is always a click away, and you're always going to log in and check what people are saying, even if you're totally disenchanted. And then you see that there are people who have no problem with you as a person (which is most, if not all, of the editors on the project, even if they opposed you). Juliancolton (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with RfA was, to me, not pleasant (it concluded earlier this month). As it was finishing, I felt discouraged and was preparing for an indefinite wikibreak to cool down after it. When it finished, I managed to convince myself that I wouldn't jump into that pit any time this century, and that a wikibreak isn't necessary. Although I never considered retirement, I was rather shocked by the hostility of so many of the established Wikipedians here, and I know that there are countless RfAs that were worse than mine. The positive comments that I got, although few, were very helpful, although since then I have not returned to CSD tagging and have minimized my vandalism fighting. I also stand by my policy of boycotting other RfAs, as I do not want to be part of such a process that is harmful to Wikipedia by driving away valuable contributors. Even Jimbo Wales recognizes that RfA is broken. Everyone does. However, because of the strong resistance of a determined "core" of established editors, change is blocked time after time. These people are not here to help Wikipedia if they are supporting something that is hurting it. RfA is a perfect example of red tape and bureaucracy, and goes against the fundamental principle of adminship- that it is not a big deal. --Slon02 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The community has decided adminship should not be easy to obtain. Jimbo's nobigdeal quote isn't exactly policy. Townlake (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Slon02 may well be right about a core of established editors, and I think they have made, or try to make adminship difficult to obtain. Fortunately there is a larger core who do good research, discount the minor problems more than 6 months old, and don't !vote out of revenge or just because they like or don't like the candidate. The bar is not too high, but it is set anew for each independent RfA, mainly due to the high percentage of rare names in the !voting sections. Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You realize how backhanded this sounds, of course. Townlake (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Everyone keeps saying RfA is broken but noone can pin-point exactly how it's broken. And that's because it's not broken. It is what it is. It's a tough process, and deservedly so. Jimbo's nobigdeal quote is outdated, Wikipedia is much higher profile now, and admins take on much more responsibility. Up to this date we haven't had any major problems with badly incompetent or rogue admins, a testament that the process works. Just my thoughts, -- œ^™ 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You say that Jimbo's quote is outdated, so here is a more current one;

...and I agree.  Chzz  ►  12:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be widely (not universally) believed that RfA is broken, but we can't all agree on exactly how it's broken, and even if we could, I doubt we'd agree on resolution/mitigation.
We are sailing the wide blue ocean in a wooden galleon. Some of the crew think that the galleon is slowly taking on water. Others argue that the gallon's trim is a normal consequence of wind and waves and ballast. Several crew have volunteered to form bucket-chains - so far, each bucket chain comprises one or two people. A couple of crew have been up in the crow's nest for a long time and they can't agree whether the grey shadow on the horizon is an island or a typhoon. A midshipman once offered to go down into the hold and look for leaks, but nobody really pays attention to him. We just stand on the deck, bickering, and pulling on different ropes, and arguing about whether the galleon is sinking - until one of the crew interrupts: "Forget all that. What I want to know is, why are there weevils on my biscuits?". Then we start all over again. bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
And that is the problem with trying to sail a ship by consensus. There comes a point in any serious enterprise when leadership is required, or else nothing gets done.--Korruski^Talk 14:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
No I don't agree. Because you're ignoring the crewmembers who are actually wandering around swabbing the decks, cooking lunch in the galley, indeed that large contingent who are sat there blowing the sails (depending how far you want to take the metaphor). So whilst there are things that could be improved, like the RfA process (making it less vitriolic would be a start!) I heartily disagree that "nothing" is getting done. I might also point out that there is leadership, and it is pointing in a certain direction, it's just not dictating the "how". Worm^TT · (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but we're talking about 'fixing' (or not fixing) RfA. It's in this context that I am saying nothing gets done. Sure, day-to-day tasks can get done with little or no leadership, the problem Wikipedia has is that it relies on a 'consensus' that is next to impossible to achieve when you are discussing anything that more than a handful of people are interested in. As you say, some things could surely be improved, but all we get is a proposal, counter proposal, argument, subtle variation on original proposal, etc. Each gets some support, and some opposition, and nothing happens. To go back to the sailing metaphor; a group of relatively amiable people can probably manage to keep a ship clean and tidy just by agreeing things betweem them. They might even be able to sail it in calm weather, but once problems start to appear and the solutions aren't obvious, some kind of leadership is needed.--Korruski^Talk 14:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I made an idle remark somewhere recently, to the effect that we could try electing a committee of editors to draft reform proposals, with Arbcom style deliberation and workshopping. Proposals would go out to the community (for amendment, rejection, whatever) and the drafting would still have community input too, but it would filter the initial drafting process in a way that might prevent the endless, endless circles some discussions go in. RFA reform is certainly one of those. Rd232 ^talk 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not as idle as you think, I've been making the same suggestion time and time again. Problem is, you'd need to get a consensus on it... Kudpung (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Well since the proposals wouldn't have any particular authority, it wouldn't really need consensus. It just needs someone brave enough to set the thing in motion and see what happens, in terms of people turning up as candidates and community involvement in the voting. Even if you end up with few candidates and few voters, the resulting committee could still usefully go off and try and do something in terms of coming up with well-thought-out proposals to put out there. Rd232 ^talk 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Within this thread I saw mention of Dusti. First I think it is insensitive to suggest we have a ratings scheme for the degree of bloodbath. But I did witness mistreatment of Dusti the candidate. I attempted to give aid, as he was defending the same emotion I had only days before been enticed to the same defense. And to your woudering if he would return to editing, this is a diff that I was proud to see. Especially because it said email sent, which indicates his valuable knowledge will not slip into oblivion. But he would have been a perfect candidate to have been driven away for the POV of the participants. And I have elsewhere stated that participants at RfA must be exemplary in their own conduct, functioning as cadre for an institutional purpose. In any such setting the candidate should have a right of expectation that the encounters they are to face will not be exaggerations of the reality they thought they knew. My76Strat (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat, I am sorry that the RfA process was discouraging and emotionally draining for you. That being said, I think that anyone who accepts a nomination for RfA (and let's be honest: adminship is not forced upon anyone) should be presented with a big reminder in bold letters: "The RfA process may be difficult for you. Please understand that most people who will comment on your RfA are commenting on your behaviour as it relates to the ability to successfully fulfill duties of a Wikipedia administrator. Do not take these comments personally. Finally, remember that you do not have to be an administrator to be a great asset to Wiki English. Going through the RfA process is your choice. Do not make it lightly". Forgive me if I am out of line with the next comment, but you seem to value feedback. If you choose to run for RfA again many would be happy to support you. However, you have to be sensitive to the process itself. You handled the RfA in a non-traditional manner and that annoyed a lot of people. Sometimes what makes the most sense to someone (such as replying to every !vote) can count against you simply because that's now 'how it's done'. You are a good editor and you clearly have a lot of friends in the project. Count on them to come to your defense, as they certainly will. Good luck, I hope to see you around. DubiousIrony ^yell 08:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If anybody's interested in this, they might like to check out User:Alzarian16/RfA participation by year, which is basically a data collection project I did to see how participation in RfAs has changed over the past seven years. Some stand-out points: the average number of !votes at an unsuccessful RfA has increased from 26 in 2004 to 110 last year; an average successful RfA in 2010 would have needed to generate a minimum of 82 supports, while one in 2004 needed only 16; but there is no direct correlation between level of participation and success. Perhaps this goes some way towards explaining the difficulty of RfA now when compared to earlier times. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! One suggestion would be to include some statistics about how many RfA's were actually closed early, since these RfA's are specifically excluded from the study. Otherwise, it's difficult to determine whether the data in the "% success rate of completed RfAs" is skewed. In other words, the success rate of completed RfA's might be increasing because unsuccessful RfA's are being closed early at a higher frequency then they did a few years ago. —SW— ^gab 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. I ignored them to avoid skewing the average number of !votes, completely forgetting that not including them skewed the success rate. I've now added them (done by subtracting the number that ran the full length from the total failures, hence the speed of completion). What's interesting is that these too have declined significantly since 2006, although less than successes or full-time failures. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. The quantity of RfA's that were closed early has indeed gone down, but so has the quantity of successful RfA's, and by quite a different margin. In 2007, for every successful RfA, there were 0.9 RfA's that were closed early. In 2010, there were 1.8 RfA's closed early for each successful RfA. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The userpage itself is informative, but the statistics quoted in the initial paragraph here are only useful in the context of what was going on around Wiki English. We had ten times as many articles in 2010 compared to 2004, based on a back-of-cigarette-pack calculations from the figures at Category:Milestone Wikipedia articles. Allowing for retirements, it's a fair guess that the number of active editors has increased four or fivefold since 2004, which very much tallies with the increase in RfA participation being suggested. —WFC— 00:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
[6]This seems to say the number of active editors has been falling since 2007, yet the number of voters at RFAs has carried on increasing.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Added to the page for comparison. Good find. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stats, I'd suspected that total participation of !voters in RFA was falling, but thanks for doing the maths to confirm it. I suspect what we are seeing is largely a function of the reduced number of RFAs, much like the question section, so the total number of !votes cast per month has fallen steeply, just not quite as steeply as the number of RFAs (hence the number of !voters per RFA is actually increasing slightly, even though the number of !votes per month is falling). It would be interesting to see some stats on the proportion of RFAs that people take part in over time, or the number of unique Voters per month. Even if you only spend twenty minutes reviewing an RFA candidate it would have been quite time consuming to review every candidate in the days when we usually had a success per day. But nowadays I suspect we have a coterie of editors who normally participate in every RFA. It would be useful to know:

1. How many RFAs active !voters would !vote in during the busy years and how many !voters we now have who take part in multiple RFA discussions per month. That could give us an idea as to whether the fall if RFA !votes per month is simply a product of our decline in RFAs per month or whether we also have fewer active RFA !voters. If the latter then we would have a problem if we were able to fix RFA as we'd have a shortage of potential RFA !voters.
2. Can we identify the things that attract RFA !voters? I'm hoping that the Signpost coverage has an impact, and I'm fairly sure there are a number of editors who are more likely to review candidates who are close calls and don't bother to look at unfamiliar candidates who have >95% support.
3. I have a suspicion that many potential new admins come to RFA and like I did, !vote in a few RFAs before submitting their own RFA. Stats on the number of RFA !votes each successful candidate had made before submitting their own RFA, or the time between first !voting in RFA and submitting their own RFA would be useful. They would give us an interesting test of the theory that the fall in the number of RFAs is itself causing a further fall because potential candidates need more time to find RFAs they can !vote in before they themselves run.

Once again, my thanks to Alzarian for compiling this. ϢereSpielChequers 11:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

How could a comment like this be allowed to stand in an RfA? And close as a counted vote? Even after I rather concisely rebuked its abhorrence? My76Strat (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a genuine opinion. Like saying 'I don't know why people bother to grow sweet peas. Complete waste of time - roses are the only flowers worth growing.'--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I truly believe you are speaking in jest! Would it be different if this person said they opposed because they didn't like Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transvestites, and certainly anyone who didn't apologize for contributing to such articles did not deserve to be an admin? My76Strat (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the term 'transvestite' is outdated and often considered pejorative. Transsexual or transgendered is usually the preferred terminology. Useight (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Transsexual (or transgendered) refers to a person whose sexual identification is with the opposite sex or has undergone a sex change operation. Transvetite refers to someone - generally male - who adopts the dress and/or sexual role of the opposite sex, or in other word, a cross-dresser. The two are quite different. As to whether the term is pejorative, I guess that is a matter of opinion as evidenced by the people at transvestitestoday.com who seem quite happy to use the term in regards to themselves. --ClubOranje^T 10:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've always found cross-dresser to be the preferred term over transvestite in my circles. But, whether or not one considers it pejorative, Strat wasn't referring to the cross-dressing variety but rather those with gender dysphoria, so transvestite wasn't the appropriate term either way. But I digress. Useight (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone would be perfectly entitled to oppose on those grounds; RFAs regularly get opposition on grounds of religion (or lack of it), for instance. RFA is not a vote, and the closing 'crat will likely disregard votes on these grounds, but we wouldn't prevent someone expressing their views providing they did so in a civil and concise manner. – iridescent 23:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did this RfA close with that vote counted? My76Strat (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
And we're not talking about userboxs either. We're talking about an oppose who stated they didn't like the content this user contributed to, and expected an apology. Way out of line! My76Strat (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Read what I said. RFA is not a vote, and those numbers are just a rough guide as to what the result will be, not the final result. RFAs have passed with relatively low levels of support (the lowest is 61%); the closer reads the comments and assesses consensus, they don't do a head-count. There's a good case to be made (and it is, repeatedly) for getting rid of the totals altogether. – iridescent 23:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This is troubling, because if I understand you, I could tell a candidate I oppose their RfA because I don't like Muslims and the are obviously Muslim, or Jew, or anything I damn well want to say and it belongs? I think it doesn't, and I think you can see it bothered the candidate to provide a lengthy reply. This concept needs seriously reconsidered. My76Strat (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearly you are failing to understand Iridescent. Opposing because you don't think a candidate's "finest work" should consist of writing trivia is entirely acceptable, and entirely different from opposing because you disagree with the candidate's religious views. How you can even connect the two is beyond me, and appears to be an over dramatic reaction. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess I do misunderstand that one. My76Strat (talk) 00:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it fair to say I was out of line for chastising the oppose? My76Strat (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the votes, the 'crats will use their best judgments on how they want to wiegh !votes like that. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not quite out of line. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it will be a cold day in hell before any quasi-open society tells someone they cant vote because of the opinion they hold. That's just a modern value held in all liberal democracies. No matter how loathed the British National Party or the National Front (France) is, their supporters still get to vote. We let homophobes and racists vote in every election in America. Thats a long way off from actually giving a crap about their vote, provided they dont account for a significant population. -- ۩ Mask 01:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I simply thought the suggestion had to be bound in policy. There is no policy that says an edit to a porn page has less value than an edit to a religious page. To oppose and say it is because you have a different interest than me is wrong, It is me trying to force my POV on you. We don't allow that in Wikipedia, why RfA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 March 2011
(e.c.)RfA, like many meta portions of the encyclopedia (like ANI, RfC, etc), is an area where emotions can often run on high. People who comment and participate in depth usually have a vested interest in the outcome (ie. strong feeling) and with only a purely written means to express their opinions without the help of verbal inflections and or facial expressions and with few words, it can be often be interpreted or misinterpreted in a number of different ways by different individuals. The trivia related oppose referred to above, depending how written, could come off as a "I don't like what they edit to" or to some that understand that a significant portion of the community does not believe that adding trivia to the encyclopedia is something that should be actively encouraged, listing it as their best work as a project promoting its use as an objection could understandably be considered sound. The participants in a RfA are not a direct correlation to the actual wider community at whole; however, their rationals (depending on how well articulated) might reflect a feeling or point that may represent a unrepresented view. That is the duty of the bureaucrat. To evaluate and separate the curds from the way. Calmer Waters 01:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
You are a voice of reason. I must confess I had worked up my imagination to believe you were going to include a couple or few paragraphs that would clear up much ambiguity. I was disenchanted to see that the closing crat essentially had nothing to say. I will say this: I entered my RfA naive. I thought I could show myself in truth and be acceptable. What I am mostly learning, is if you can hide your character and reflect the expected Cliché, you are more likely to succeed. Guise is my least efficient attribute. I am what I am and what was observed was me. Not the admin we all hoped, but not the guy who costs you lost credibility for talking to. My76Strat (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@ Useight I did not know that nor mean harm. I just think this user who likes contributing to pop culture should be no less protected or no less discriminated against than any other person subject to a hater who express their disdain for the other persons interests. Using the more egregious factors like homophobes, or racism, for strong effect. Any words could substitute and it would never make sense. Oh you edit NASCAR, I hate NASCAR, apologize. You have lots of contributions to interactive gaming, That's terrible, how could you expect to be an admin, well maybe apologize. What shocks me is that I seem to be the only one who sees a problem with it. My76Strat (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, I just like to educate people on a topic that is very important to me personally. Useight (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Saying here - I really do think that a recall or suspension of an admin should be 'no big deal'. If you think about it, issues out there in real life can affect each and every one of us. RL issues spill over into WikiLand, Wiki-Issues spill over into real life (got a source - check other people's stats on losing editors). Sometimes an admin, just like any of us lesser souls, can go through a patch where they are less than tolerant, less than understanding, less than civil, too inclined to zap things / people (possibly in error). It happens, and it would be naive to say that WikiLand was immune to that kind of spill-ver effect. So ... how about when we notice that an admin has become / is becoming less than fully centred and absolutely reasonable, they have a 'holiiday' from admin work (not punitive, just a break, and never meant to be any big deal), and their modes of interaction in discussions such as this are assessed until it's clear that they have got over whatever was causing them to be a bit too trigger-happy, at which point their adminship was given back. We all make mistakes, we all go through bad patches, we all get irritated from time to time at the slightest little thing - such as 'what someone's interests are', 'how someone argues their point'. It's obvious. So how about the idea of a 'compassionate leave break' - no big deal. Pesky (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree with what you are saying in principle but, let's face it, an imposed 'break' (however kindly meant) will never be taken well. If my boss took me to one side and said that he wanted me to take a two week 'holiday', then I think I would probably still be pretty upset about that...
But, regardless of that, I agree that it should be much easier to remove or temporarily suspend administrators, in the same way that it is relatively easy to block a user or impose a temporary ban from certain areas of the project. If the circumstances demand it, of course. Maybe if it became more frequent, it would become less of a big deal though; in the same way that the majority of good-faith users who get a block pick themselves up after it and change their behaviour, without taking it too badly.--Korruski^Talk 08:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
What about a 'task ban' if there's only a problem in one area of their Adminship? Like a page ban kind of thing - allowing them to carry on regardless with their other tools, and (importantly) kept relatively private so nobody else actually really notices that they've stopped using a tool in one particular area? Pesky (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a "Kit-Kat Barnstar"? that could be both nice and subtle --ClubOranje^T 10:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

My76Strat: people are allowed to oppose RFAs for whatever reason they like. I've seen opposes for all sorts of stupid reasons; this one is far from the worst. You say 'but what about if he was being opposed for his religion?', but I have seen users opposed for being atheists (and others for being Christian); I've seen users opposed for their age; I even remember one user being opposed because she was female. All these are permitted in RFA. It's simply up to the closing bureaucrat to decide how much weight to give them. It seems fair to say that completely unjustified opposes will get disregarded by the closing crat, but that's up to them. Maybe that seems unfair, allowing these kinds of opposes to stand, but it's the way we've always done it at RFA; it's a compromise between a pure vote and a discussion. And for all the problems with it, it still seems to work pretty well. Robofish (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Having said that, many users seem to forget that WP:NPA does apply to RFAs (at least in theory). We do seem to allow a level of incivility and personal criticism in comments here that wouldn't be permitted on other talk pages. Maybe that's an inevitable result of a system for evaluating candidates, but it's worth thinking about. Robofish (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
All these votes that are based on race, gender, creed, and residence, are unfortunately the ones that are expressed in the least civil manner. More mildly, what would you do about a situation where a participant votes 'oppose' or 'neutral' because a candidate appears not to write articles on certain topics?: "I'm voting neutral because you are American but you live in Argentina and don't write articles about Argentina, and you don't use your influence to force others to write about Argentina." - We've really had this (names of countries changed). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
@My76Strat, I could be wrong, but I think you might be confused by the meaning behind the oppose vote in question. The oppose was to do with the candidate's work with WikiProject Popular Culture — the project deals not with articles about popular culture, but specifically with "in popular culture" and trivia sections that crop up in all kinds of articles. Starblind wasn't (as far as I can tell) criticising NickPenguin for working on certain types of articles, but for working on trivia. --BelovedFreak 20:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merits of this particular oppose, I want to point out two things: First, it is not uncommon for an RFA to have an oppose that seems a bit strained or even outright loony. I had a couple of dubious opposes in my own RFA (along with several very reasonable opposes that alas did not carry the day). It comes with the territory, and sometimes the candidate's reaction to an oppose comment is more revealing than the comment itself. Second, even if the closing bureaucrat chose to discount this oppose and five of its brothers, there was not enough support in this particular case to justify a "succeeded" close (IMHO as a non-crat). --RL0919 (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite our differences. Or maybe even because of them (important to remember). I know that, among us all, we will be able to come up with some humane workarounds to deal with the fact that humans are -well - human! The vast majority of humans are neither gazetted saints nor consistently the devil from hell. (And if you actually read up on the lives of those who are gazetted saints, it's abundantly clear that most, if not all, of them seem to have gone off the rails from time to time. It's what humans do.)

We have to work with what's actually happening on Planet Earth. And it has to be consistently workable. And (assuming good faith) everyone wants to come up with a vastly improved system which will work well. We need to have faith in our ability to achieve that goal. Pesky (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Pesky, for those inspirational words. I agree completely.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 09:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :o) Thing is, I know we can do this, together. All it needs is a determination not to quit on it. There are now several small groups / task forces working on specific bite-sized chunks of the whole thing - I think maybe our best bet is for each of us to do that follow-the-links thing and discover the group that will bring out the best in us, and work with that group for the greater good. Pesky (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks promising. People are actively contributing there, which is the first step.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 10:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Errant's stuff here is good. And some good thinking going on here with Dank as well. And no doubt in many other places, too. Pesky (talk) 10:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As evidenced in this RfA the minority opinion (in this case, the oppose) is being hounded incessantly to the point that the minority is removing their opposition because they don't want to deal with the WikiDrama. I've seen several off topic nickpickings of opinion take place on several RfAs (both support and oppose). I trust the Bureaucrat corps/Arbitrators are able to read the consensus without cabals attempting to embroider the consensus to their liking. The dog pile opinions are written so poorly that were they on the unpopular side they would be treated with as much or more vehemence. Hasteur (talk) 18:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Strangely, the extent of the badgering of opposes is always inversely proportional to the candidate's chances of failure. There seems to be a view that passing an RfA unanimously or unopposed gives rise to some kind of special status. Surely it doesn't matter how poorly reasoned the lone oppose is (and I'm not making any comments about any current or recent RfAs), if it's a lone oppose it can be left well alone. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that observation. Not defending my rational, taken in context, at the time it was appended it was directly under Fetchcomms support rational. In that context it is a mirror of similar means. One was drawn to support, and I was drawn to oppose. I do know my observation was valid, and I offered to expand at the candidates request. I even offered to expand after the RfA to anyone still interested. But yes, that is a good example where an opposed was hounded out of the process for a suggestion of far less prejudicial discrimination as the example shown in the above thread, which consensus seems to say is proper. But obviously mine was not. It is perplexing. My76Strat (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x3 RfA is a community discussion, it's not a vote. The whole point is that the community discusses the candidate together, to reach a consensus. My76Strat's comments were very poor, clearly missing the entire concept of RfA. The replies, asking him to share his feelings with other users, to allow a more informed conclusion to be made from the RfA, did not amount to hounding, and were perfectly acceptable. They were very simply trying to converse (again, this is the point of RfA), rather than harass. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Kingpin. If you're going to write a comment that doesn't contribute anything remotely useful to the discussion, what's the point in writing it? If you feel strongly enough to oppose somebody, then you should be expected to share the reason why. To not do so is plain uncivil imo. "I don't like you because I just don't" is all that is effectively being said.
I also think that hyperbolic verbs such as "hounding" aren't helpful, considering the nature of the "oppose". There is a difference between questioning the rationale (if there even is one) and hounding someone to change their mind. AD 19:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I began to feel it was turning towards hounding when the comments began to reflect "utterly silly". "this screams to me as a ploy to simply get attention." I felt I had respectfully indicated that I would accept any manner of bureaucratic consideration. But you are fine to believe it was necessary to educate me on how I should think. I prefer to give most weight to Fetchcomms comment, which was also disregarded. So maybe we simply disagree. I'm O.K. with that. My76Strat (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me toss out an analogy here. Suppose you want a fishing license. You go to the office that issues these, fill out the proper form, and the clerk says "no, I don't think so." No reason offered, just "no." What do you do? Nod solemnly and go home? Or ask "why?" It's human nature to ask why you're being stopped from doing something you want to do. RfA norms discourage candidates themselves from asking this, but certainly anyone who supports the candidate is also going to want to know "why" the candidate should be stopped from getting his or her "adminning license" if the opposer doesn't deign to tell us. 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That analogy, like most analogies, doesn't work. There is no clerk in RfA. There are 100-odd !voters. If only one of them says "no" surely it doesn't matter why. And if it does, it only needs one person to comment, not the three, four or five responses to a lone oppose that are often seen. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
If the opposer takes the time out of their day to say "no", then they can take the time to explain their choice. It may be the case that they have a very good reason to oppose - that they ought to share with all the supporters, who are usually happy to reconsider. If they don't have a very good reason, then they shouldn't be opposing. Reasons on RFAs are for the benefit of everyone - not just the candidate or bureaucrat. Important information is often missed, and it is essential information is made clear to everyone who may be interested. AD 19:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Completely agree but you're missing the whole point of this thread. If there's one oppose and 100-odd supports why bother badgering the opposer with any more than one polite question, or badger the opposer at all, for his or her opinion. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a fair enough opinion, but did it really need 7 different people to make that same point? That's why some see it as hounding.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I want to know the reason for their oppose. I may agree with them, that whatever it is, is worthy of opposing. I don't want to support someone who potentially has a problem. It doesn't matter that it's one person - it could still be valuable information others missed. The only reason more than one person has commented is because the opposer has refused to divulge their opinion - which is the point of RFA, to give your opinion. Others clearly want to know too. I really think that voters, opposers in particular, really should think carefully before posting a vote. Had the opposer done his or her research, he would have known that writing a vague, no-reason oppose wasn't going to go down well. AD 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also like to point to this comment. Review the entire extent of the remarks, consider that most of you speaking now were also observant of this, and justify one more time what was wrong with mine. BTW it was here when I first came to believe this form of oppose was acceptable! My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I wrote this out about Fetchcomm's support, but didn't post it, I might as well here as it's relevant: It is generally accepted that support votes without much reasoning are simply concurring with the nomination statement, in addition it is not acceptable to justify your own behaviour simply based on that of others. If you feel that there is a problem with Fetchcomms comment, approach him about it, and I'm sure you'll get a better response than the one you gave (one of the main problems with your comment was your reaction when others raised an issue with it). Now about Salih's comments, they are no more justifiable than your own, the same problems apply, but I don't see a need to write them out "one more time", just read what I said before please. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
...and you need any more than one polite question to try to elicit a response from an opposer because...? You keep missing the point. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've already explained. Sometimes if more than one person suggests something, perhaps in a different way, someone could be persuaded. Anyway, I've seen the context the oppose was written in and it looks like someone trying to make a point about something or other. He was asking for trouble the moment he posted it. Yet another example of how RFA is broken - we allow disruption to happen, and do nothing about it. AD 20:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Having more than one person pressing an opposer with the same point isn't "persuasion", it's likely to be seen by the opposer as "bullying". If we're looking for less disruption at RfA, how about leaving the lone opposers alone. If they truly are after attention or are opposing for an ulterior purpose, as you ABF suggest, then WP:DENY is always the proper approach. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with AD. We allow supporters to disruptively abuse oposers and do nothing about it.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Doesn't that mean you disagree? Or am I being dense?--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe Cube lurker was being ironic. 28bytes (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah. Dense then  --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There's another reason why I'd fully expect, nay, demand, that anyone who opposes needs to actually give their reason. If someone's casting an oppose, and that someone isn't just being a dick or being ironic, it means that someone has found a reason why they feel that an candidate would not make a good administrator. That's what an oppose is after all. Now it could be personally motivated score settling or it could be some fringe criteria no one else respects, but chances are, if someone is going to cast an oppose, especially in this badger friendly environment, it's for a valid reason. Everyone else, who are also vetting that candidate, needs to know that reason in order to make the right choice. It could be that the candidate has a history of bad decisions in an area where only a few editors ever go, it could be that he posted deeply troubling comments, it could be any of several dozen good or maybe not as good but still valid reasons, and only by sharing the rationale can everyone else look at the evidence and decide for themselves. Being afraid to tarnish someone's name or derail their RfA should not come into the equasion if the candidate has dome something that would earn them that tarnish. By opposing without a reason, the opposer is saying "I've found something troubling or dangerous, and I'm not going to tell anyone else what it is." That there is a troubling message in and of itself, and that's why people badger unexplained oppose votes. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that we don't need the Spanish Inquisition to interrogate every last single unpopular viewpoint. I thought that 76Strat's viewpoint was thin, but I immagine that I would have asked him on his talk page about it or trudged through the candidate's corpus to see if I could determine the basis for the complaint. We needn't fill up the RfA page if it's a discussion amongst a subset of editors. Hasteur (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I think your original post in this thread and this follow-up are both quite reasonable, and I think you're absolutely right that we don't need to spin every single oppose into a forty-post threaded discussion. Just as long as that doesn't lead to any request for a rationale or clarification being treated as hounding. As a side note, it seems like a bit of an AGF paradox that the 'crats are expected to assume an oppose without a stated rationale is for a spurious or stupid reason, rather than a good one. 28bytes (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
So how about just one person asks for clarification, and everyone else gives it a while for the person to answer? Maybe they were called away from the computer, maybe they had some kind of unforeseen event meaning they couldn't get back to it for twelve hours, maybe . But if one person has asked the question, there's surely no need for a load of other people to keep asking the same question, too? That's when it begins to look like a pile-on. Pesky (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bot Approvals Group is responsible for reviewing and approving bots on Wiki English. However, for an extended period of time we have been staffed at below the optimal number for reviewing bot requests. Therefore, I am asking experienced members of the community with an interest in reviewing bots to consider submitting themselves for membership at Wiki talk:BAG#Requests for BAG membership. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 02:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I echo this call for applicants, as the number of active BAG members is not sufficient for the current workload. –xeno^talk 15:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll bite, although not sure if I'm quite what you're after ;) EDIT: probably best for me just to keep an eye on BRFA and participate for a bit, to get up to speed :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. Working at BAG is not that much different than closing AFDs - you need to evaluate the proposed task in light of relevant policies, guidelines, and community norms, while ensuring sufficient consensus exists for the task (or make a determination that the lack of objection is sufficient evidence that the task is uncontroversial enough, and desirable, and therefore approval is at least tacitly supported). –xeno^talk 15:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ditto xeno, except one difference is the need for (imo anyhow) at least some technical know-how. Although members of BAG have this in varying degrees. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fed up of trainwrecks at RFA where experienced editors don't discover that their speedy deletion tagging is problematic until they run. I think we can pre-empt some of this by getting more eyes on CSD tagging of candidates at editor review. Would some admins care to join me at Wiki: Editor review/deletion edits review and offer to review newpage patrollers CSD tags in a less confrontational environment and at an earlier stage in their career? I'm not sure this would prevent the most recent example as that related to a question answer. But I'm sure we can all remember RFAs derailed by CSD tagging errors. ϢereSpielChequers 19:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be much easier if any admin refusing to delete a tagged article simply posted a short message on the tagging editor's talk page explaining their reasoning? Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Agree (with WSC). Despite what some think, RFA isn't here for the purpose of flaming people off the project, and something which will quietly warn off unsuitable candidates before they enter the flamepit is a good thing. Re Malleus, ideally yes, although in practice the "declined" edit summaries ought to say why. – iridescent 19:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with WSC as well. Re Malleus: It would but how to make them do so? We are lucky if admins are willing to use reasonings that people can understand at all (there are a number of admins who think "troll", "non-notable", etc. are sufficient reasoning for their actions). Regards SoWhy 20:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, would you say that a good edit summary when removing the tag should be sufficient? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'd be quite happy with that. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

One possibility would be to encourage more people to use these vector.js scripts, which log all the speedies you make, and allow you to very easily check whether your speedy nominations are ending up deleted. I don't know how widespread it is, but I stumbled across it by chance and it's a great learning tool. The log looks like this User:Physics_is_all_gnomes/CSDlog (the comments about mistakes added by me manually).

//TW CSD script, customized to log all CSD noms.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinklespeedy.js');

//TW PROD script, customized to log PRODs and endorsements.

importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/twinkleprod.js');

--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Great, another Twinkle fork that we need to merge into the rewrite! Anymore out there? Whatever gets left behind won't work with the new version and will certainly die when HTML5 gets turned back on. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Although both ER and the above script might be helpful, I don't agree that ER is the main route out of our difficulties, because we've tried ER and all kinds of ways over the years to get people interested in these issues before RFA, and often thought we had something interesting going, and it has always fizzled out. For whatever reason, both the candidates and the voters/reviewers don't get properly serious about reviewing the candidate until around RFA time. Could we get a bot that tells us whenever people create a nomination page, so that well-wishers can drop by before the page is transcluded to look at the candidate's tagging and help them make their case for RFA? There are some possible downsides, but I can think of fixes. Even if the candidate's RFA went up in flames, they would still be getting some support for their work before the RFA. Remember that we all seemed to agree that if you go to take your driver's test and the examiner is criticizing you the whole time you're trying to take the test, that's bad? If we all agreed, why are we still doing it? I think we need to get out of the candidate's face and give them some assistance while they're trying to put their case together, before we start the RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with Malleus on this, Yes we should inform the editors when we decline tags, and some of us have long been doing that - years ago Iridescent declined one of my speedy tags when I first started newpagepatrolling. If more editors can be persuaded to do this there is a nifty script in my monobook, and incorrect speedies don't need an admin to decline them - any editor is welcome to do so. But many common CSD tagging errors involve excess haste, such as A1 or A3 tags in the first minutes of creation. If you are the admin looking at that tag a few hours later and the newbie who submitted the article has been driven off then the tag may have become correct. Also the process of informing a newpage patroller of an incorrect tag won't necessarily pick up whether this is an isolated example by someone who rarely makes mistakes or part of a pattern. Editors at editor review are requesting feedback, often before submitting an RFA I think it would be useful to get more of us involved there. ErikHaugen makes a valid point about edit summaries, and that works for editors who look through their contributions and where tags are declined, but I recently saw an RFA where the candidate was tagging articles as A7 that admins were deleting as G10. A for Dank's point, I can't remember this particular initiative being tried before, and I agree that it might fizzle out, but I can't see it doing harm and I for one intend to put some time into this. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly what we need ... competent, reputable people keeping an eye on it, making sure it's not fizzling out, and dealing with the unintended consequences. I'm still very bothered that we aren't giving the candidate more breathing room and support before RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I didn't realize that so many admins don't provide feedback. I've had several cases of admins leaving detailed messages on my talk page nicely explaining things like that while the article could have been A7 or G11, which I knew, he changed my A7 to G11 because that takes precedence. Good to know. I have the feeling that the admins who don't leave feedback might be the ones who don't fully understand the criteria themselves. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've (almost) always given feedback, sometimes directly or more often by removing a CSD tag with a useful edit summary - ("Does not meet A7 but notability dubious - suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD") etc. Can't see any reason why people would not. I'm not sure what the thrust of this is WSC. Surely we inform editors that they made a "mistake" (I use the word with caution) so they can better work with our policies and guidelines, rather than so they can get admin buttons - particularly as edior review is explicitly not "RFA-lite". This seems a perilous route of glorifying adminship to those that know best - (Admins are editors who know every nuance of policy)) - which in both my tongue-in-cheek paraphrase and reality just ain't so. Pedro :  Chat  20:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It certainly isn't so, as has been amply demonstrated tonight and during this recent RfA. And as for civility blocks .... Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't work in cases when people are opposed for taggings of articles which other admins agreed with and deleted. Numerous times I have seen an oppose with an admin-only link to some article that got tagged and deleted, but was apparently wrongly tagged - even though another admin deleted it. Who is to say what is credible, or what is important? It's vague, and different people interpret it differently. AD 21:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been using User:Ale_jrb/Scripts recently, which assists with leaving a talkpage message on rejecting csd/prodding, and it's working well for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• HUGE issue that needs addressed for sure! Spot on WSC. I was lucky, Pedro actually pointed out some of my CSD work, and then SoWhy worked with me on the understands of the various cats., but there are a ton of folks who show up, have a bad tag mentioned ... and get a huge "Huh?" on their face. Civility? .. we still carry that old monkey around at RfA? ..,., Baaahaahaaa.... hey all. — Ched :  ?  22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't carry that monkey around, never have, and it seems to me that fewer and fewer administrators are being allowed to get away with civility blocks. But that's another story; we're discussing CSD tagging here, and hopefully not just for the benefit of admin wannabes but for the benefit of all editors. Malleus Fatuorum 22:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I was never a big "get rid of it fan" .. but I know people can go months without realizing they are making bad tags, that's for sure. In fact, if you don't go back and check yourself .. you might NEVER know you're doing a piss-poor job with CSD at NPP. — Ched :  ?  22:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I would wish that editors who tag would at least watchlist the tagged pages to see what happens, not that my wishing will make it happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I was suprised the other day to learn that Twinkle doesn't auto-watchlist A7 tags for you. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
The default configuration is to only watch g3, g5, g10, g11 and g12. I suspect the reasoning is that those pages are likely to be recreated. However, I would think that A7 falls into that category as well. It's a simple change to add it if we want. —UncleDouggie (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be beneficial to add that. I personally watchlist anyways, but I'm sure I have forgotten some. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 00:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe as an optional configuration item? I use WP:CSDH for my SD work and that can be configured to do a variety of things, including notifying taggers and keeping track of all declined speedies. Possibly Twinkle can optionally do the same for tagging? Regards SoWhy 09:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
A tracker would be nice. I started CSD-tagging more recently and I watchlist every article I tag. Everytime an article is deleted, I note what the admin deleted it under. That has helped me tag much better. I had one declined recently by an admin who noted on my talk page why. That was also most helpful but I would've seen the edit summary anyway.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Twinkle is already fully customizable. We will also merge the fork that provides the option to keep a CSD log. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought the focus at RFA on speedy deletion is misplaced. If you're a little short of complete knowledge of every facet of the criteria you can just look them up. Closing AFDs is much more challenging and requires much more thought and judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Missing knowledge is usually less of a problem than incorrect knowledge. RFAs that fail due to speedy deletion issues do so because the candidate in question made mistakes that were not due to being "little short of complete knowledge of every facet of the criteria" but because they lack knowledge of fundamental nature, for example what A7 is or is not for. The process WSC proposed can help those editors. Regards SoWhy 21:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't get the CSD-stickling that goes on at nearly every RfA. Deleting an article as an admin is little more dangerous than tagging an article for deletion as anything else. It can be reverted just as easily. As it is, every passerby to an RfA seemingly feels the need to pile on that 43rd oppose hitting home how horrible their answer to a hypothetical question was, which demonstrated a misunderstanding of the monumental difference between A7 and G11. The goal is to let the user know that they might need to review policy if worst comes to worst, not drive them off the project to save someone from the scenario of having their article deleted as A7 instead of G11. Juliancolton (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It stems from the increasing desperation not to piss of the fraction of new users whose first edit is to create an article that is quickly deleted. Your general point is a reasonable one though, and reasonable people can reasonably agree on which is the most appropriate criterion. Earlier today I tagged an article as a G12, but it was deleted as an A7. Does that matter? I don't think so, either would have done equally well IMO, and arguably the deleting administrator was wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how large that "fraction of new users whose first edit is to create an article that is quickly deleted" actually is (Juliancolton is among their number, for instance). A lot of people start off here because they come looking for information about something, can't find it, and decide to create it. How that deletion is handled, and how they're treated during the process, is important in determining whether they stay or not; if the first communication they receive from anyone here is a {{uw-create4im}} warning when all they were doing is trying to help, it's a powerful incentive to say "fuck you then". It's not a secret that we're haemorrhaging writers—we passed through the 1000:1 articles/editors mark in February, compared to 260:1 when you joined—and we can't afford to keep driving people away. – iridescent 23:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
No doubt admins and patrolling new page users need to be able to communicate well and somewhat friendly. I just think the issue of which letter-number moniker was used to categorize the deletion of their article is of little important to new users. Juliancolton (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like an accurate description to me. I know for a fact there's only one way to delete an article, and I'm not really sure why we have such a large directory of rigidly enforced criteria which will do little more than serve as a deletion summary. I know this doesn't really apply to the recent RfA which likely inspired this thread, but as long as an admin candidate generally knows when an article should be deleted, it doesn't matter if they're intimate with the details of which criterion to use. Juliancolton (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason we have that plethora of reasons, and why they're important, is that when articles are tagged using Twinkle (as most of the new-page patrollers do), it determines what messages are automatically left on the talkpage. If an article is tagged using one of the "vandal" deletion criteria, not only does the writer get the snotty "you are being unconstructive" message rather than the "not quite what we're looking for, but welcome" message, they're automatically added to the Huggle blacklist so their future edits jump to the top of the "suspected vandal" queue. – iridescent 23:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
IMO there are far too many CSD options to choose from. They need to be cut down significantly, made much more simple to follow and learn. Many could very easily be merged together (e.g. A7 and A9) so it's less confusing. The criteria should be renamed and reorganised, so they aren't just random letters and numbers which some find hard to follow. There should be two types of warning - bad faith edits, and good faith but inappropriate edits. AD 00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The entire user talk warning system has been overhauled over the last year or so and many of the standard warnings have been re-worded but if you still see problems please bring them up at Wiki talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
My issue is more the fact there are over 40 different CSD criteria. I bet I could cut it down to 10. They are worded in often confusing ways. For example, G1 tells us it does not apply to vandalism, yet makes no mention of G3. G2 only tells us what it isn't, which isn't very helpful. I'm going to work offline at cutting the criteria down - not so any of it is removed, but so it's presented in a much more accessible way. AD 01:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason there are so many different criteria is that speedy deletion has to be as strict as possible and if you "cut down" the criteria, you will have to make their wording more general, thus creating more confusion and mistaggings. I would advice you to check the archives at WT:CSD and discuss your ideas there first before investing time on a proposal that was rejected before. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The current criteria are long, confusing and unwieldy. As I've said there are many different criteria that could easily be merged together, so instead of having to remember 41, we'll only have to remember half of that. My ideas are at this page. AD 14:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it's quite impolite to new users to tag their article with the wrong criterion: given that they get a message explaining the reason, if it's tagged wrong then they'll get a reason that doesn't fit their article at all, and will be thinking "did you even read my work?". Obviously some cases are borderline and some distinctions matter less then others.
Do you think it would help with A7 problems if the description on twinkle said "person with no indication of significance", rather than "unremarkable person"? I realise people using twinkle should know the guidelines already, but in case some don't, it might help to emphasise the point.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 10:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)