Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 179

Archive 175

←

Archive 177

Archive 178

Archive 179

Archive 180

Archive 181

→

Archive 185

Proposal: RFA reform

I have created a proposal for reforming many aspects of RFA, including some new processes, in order to address what I have seen as the major ways in which the process is severely bent if not actually broken.

I have kept this in userspace for now as I feel it would only make sense to put it in projectspace if any parts are generally approved by the community and edited to reflect such possible approval. I would have no objection to the pages being moved out of my userspace if someone else thinks I am mistaken in that. I invite discussion from all sides. Crossposted at WP:VPP, WT:RFA, WP:AN. Please repost if I have missed anywhere. → ROUX ₪ 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A link would be nice. wadester16 06:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• User:Roux/RFA-reform adding link - looks interesting, I'll read through it tomorrow before I comment. — Ched :  ?  06:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wtf... I thought I had done so. Apparently I am a tool. here and talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roux (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you've forgotten to sign your post, too. When will it all end? Reform looks interesting, but I'll need to sleep on it. — Σxplicit 07:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll all end when H͗̈́̒ͮ̈́͏͖̩̱͉̤̞̦E̡̨͕͇̣̟͑͗ͦ̿ ͎̝̣̍̒͆̏̈Ç̯̰̩̯̽́Ơ̷̦͓͗ͫ̓́̚M̍̆̇͏̭̖̳̟͘Ȇ̴̛̪̓ͯ́S̛͎͙̤̠̪͓̳ͪ͗ͯͫ̐͛̕͟.. → ROUX ₪ 07:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• How about Wikipedia:RfA Review? Stifle (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • That explicitly doesn't deal with desysopping, or indeed almost anything else I have proposed. So it seemed the best course was to start something new. → ROUX ₪ 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• I personally would be against any point-scoring system that would make RfA look like a game rather than evaluation of community trust. (Yes, I know that the points wouldn't decide the outcome of the RfA, but it's still a point-scoring system.) No strong opinion on the 1-year terms: it might work, but on the other hand it would create a lot of extra bureaucracy that could simply be avoided by having a working desysopping system. The XFA propocedure seems reasonable, except I don't think #4 is really necessary; I disagree somewhat on your definitions on who may initiate or comment on an XFA, but that's no big deal. I would also prefer that bureaucrats were given desysopping tools instead of bothering the stewards with it every time. I think pretty much everyone agrees that we need a working system for deadminizing (is that a word?) people. I hope that we'll eventually agree on one. Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't think it was worth trying to get people to come to consensus on both a desysopping procedure as well as giving crats the ability to -sysop ;) As for the point system.. sigh... it seems like nobody is reading the footnote there, linking to a professional certification that does the exact same thing. I actually think by requiring candidates to participate in various areas before RFA we will get better candidates. → ROUX ₪ 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, I did read the footnote :) Anyway, the point system doesn't necessarily force people to participate in different areas. Three months of editing and nine DYKs would total 100 points. But that's not even the point. Having a point-scoring system would make admin wannabes to concentrate on scoring points for RfA, rather than improving the encyclopedia. If the whole point of the reform is to make adminship a little less of a big deal (or am I misinterpreting its purpose?), why make it look like a game where you score points in order to "level up"? What RfA should basically be is "I trust the candidate, here's why" - "I don't trust the candidate, here's why", and then the bureaucrat decides whether or not there's consensus to trust the candidate. I don't think candidates submitting RfA's "too early" is really such a big problem that it should be restricted with a point system. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I faded out when I read about the 1 year terms. The thing is, you will not get consensus for that. End of story. And I'm not sure if almost everyone thinks we should have an effective desysoping procedure (whatever that means, Stalin had a very effective procedure for getting rid of Politboro members). I suspect that there are plenty of admins who, while committed to the project, themselves consider adminship "no big deal" and are not willing to go through hell week on an annual basis. JMO.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When I was reading this page, the points system originally sounded like a good idea, and would solve quite a few problems. However, I see two flaws. One flaw is the bureaucracy of it. New users who read it will very likely become confused about it. Established users take to these systems fairly nicely, because we know what everything means, and how it would work anyway (should we call it wiki common sense?). However, new users who are not familiar with the Wikipedian culture will think that it's just a bunch of jargon. It happens with our current RfA, and it'd likely happen more with this system. The other flaw is the occasional exception to the rule. Look at lustiger_seth. During his RfA, he would have had only 80 points. By your system, it was impossible for him to even start an RfA. However, look at our current system. He passed that with only 50 edits, and he has been an absolutely fine admin. Assitionally, I didn't like the idea of annual renewal. I know that there are quite a few admins who would absolutely refuse to go through hell week once a year. There are some who would relinquish their adminship rather than renew it. This goes for the "mandatory relinquishment of adminship" too. I know certain admins who would probably retire if they were to be forcibly desysopped. People whose domain of Wikipedia relies on their adminship. It just doesn't sound like a good idea. (X! · talk)  · @501  ·  11:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I figured the 'points table' would get rewritten to avoid jargon and show people how and where they can help out. And I think the occasional exception to the rule is amply covered by IAR; edge cases make bad law and so on. I'd also respectfully submit that if someone's continued participation in this project is contingent upon them having the extra buttons then they are precisely the wrong people to have them; "If we can't play with me as boss I'm taking my toys and going home," while oversimplifying, is the attitude that comes across there. Additionally, as an opensource project, it is a really bad idea to have critical areas dependent on a single person. Apart from obvious WP:OWN issues, there is no redundancy in case that person cannot get to a computer. When I worked in the corporate world, part of my job function included contingency planning, which we called the 'hit by a bus' scenario. That's something we need a bit more of here. → ROUX ₪ 21:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. I'm saying that there are plenty of admins, committed to the project, who will not care to go through resysoping every year, and will accept relegation to the status of regular user, because they consider admin "no big deal" and consider a week of being racked over the coals a big deal. I'm not saying they'll leave the project, you'll just lose a lot of admins as their terms expire. Most of them will still be on WP. I mean, have you read some of these RFA's? For myself, I was accused of having attitude problems, there were implications I was a bigot, and I was accused of causing someone's serious illness though my edits. Those were the supporters. (well, the opposers actually, I just thought it was funnier to present it that way). Not likely gonna be doing that again, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly my point: the more we make adminship a revolving door, the less motivation people will have for that sort of nitpicky attack behaviour, while still ensuring that true behavioural issues are addressed. If it's easy come-easy go, fewer of the more ...aggressive... opposers will care, because it's not that big a deal. → ROUX ₪ 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and... for the seventh or eighth time: please re-read the proposal, which explicitly states that anyone holding adminship now would not be subject to any of it except on a voluntary basis. → ROUX ₪ 22:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that one of the best things about wikipedia is its RfA system. Questions get asked, there is plenty of discussion, people get sysopped, become admins, and even lose adminship when they lose the trust of the community. It is stressful for the candidate, especially when the percentage of supports begin to decline, but the role of an admin is nowhere defined as well as it is during the RfA process. Seems like a fairly good system to me and I don't see why 'it is broken'. Having terms and voting every year will actually be detrimental to the system because less committed people will bother to run again and again (it is stressful!), we'll build a political class more interested in garnering votes than in encyclopedia building, and will scare away some of our best admins (who also have long lists of enemies). Wikipedia is a consensus based system with a shallow hierarchy which is one of its strengths and it makes little sense to me to do away with this system. The point system is nice as a guideline but it institutionalizes certain things that should not necessarily be institutionalized (DYKs, GAs, FAs, etc.) and encourages gaming, or at least going through the motions necessary to get as high a point score as possible. In the long run, the more the points the more likely someone is to become an admin and that's not necessarily a good thing. Currently, the value of these things are debated in each RfA and sometimes they seem to matter while at other times they don't (disclosure: I'm an admin with exactly one DYK that I got accidentally and, at the time of my RfA, would have had a mere 65 points, with not much more than that five months later). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a great summary, RP. - Dank (push to talk) 21:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and again: current admins would not be required to take part in any of this, due to none of it existing when they were promoted. Your concern about 'the more points needed' is a good one. Perhaps instead of a point system, it should be something like "users wishing to RFA must have done one of these things before applying"? → ROUX ₪ 21:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wish we could set something up where the total % was split 80% vote from the community, and 20% of it from a bureaucrats private vote. They would hold a separate vote, and their total % would combine with the main RfA's total % to form the final %. Confusing? :P iMatthew ^talk at 21:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should a bureaucrat's vote get any more weight than a non-bureaucrat's vote? Timmeh 22:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Timmeh's comment (22:18, 10 July 2009). The greatest virtue of the current RfA system is that all "voters" are equal. OK, a bureaucrat finally gives a formal verdict, but there would be a scandal if that noticeably deviated from the consensus that emoerged during the RfA. A higher-weighted (per person) and secret bureaucrats' vote would introduce a new level of cliqueyness that WP should avoid like the plague. --Philcha (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tech question about the RfA toolbox

For as long as I've been watching RfA, I've noticed that the "Articles created (Escaladix's tool)" link in the RfA toolbox doesn't work correctly. When clicking the link directly, it returns an error message containing

The script can't finished.

Server is probably overloaded.

Please, try again later.

and no way to get back to the entry page. However, going to the tool by simply typing http://toolserver.org/~escaladix/larticles in the URL box and then adding the person's name works perfectly. I would like to see this fixed as I imagine a lot of people don't even realize the tool is still working and simply use the alternative tool (X!'s tool), which maxes out at 100 articles and seems to run a bit slower. Also, the X! link as it is now doesnt filter out redirects, whereas I imagine most people investigating an RfA candidate's edit history probably don't really care much about redirects. So I think both links should be changed, if possible. However the code is transcluded from User:Neurolysis/Counters.js and thus I cannot edit it, and Neurolysis is mostly inactive now. So I am coming here to ask that the changes be made if it is deemed appropriate. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mostly inactive but not totally. Methinks neuro lurks. You may want to drop a note on his talk page. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to User:Neurolysis/Counters, you can thank closedmouth for telling me. Feel free to do whatever. :) — neuro^(talk) 14:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made the edit that I'd wanted to make, so I'd just like someone to look it over and make sure they agree with it, and then if you think it should be moved back to User:Neurolysis/Counters.js to protect against vandals then feel free to do so. (My understanding is that it will work either way because right now one name redirects to the other.) To summarize what I did:

• I fixed the URL on the Escaladix counter, so that it works properly instead of producing an error message. However, there is still no dialog box up top that allows the user to re-enter the information. My guess is that it has always been that way, even before it stopped working, because it runs in a frameset and there is no way to call two URL's from one.
• I also changed the X! script so that it would not include redirects in the output. This is because it seems to truncate input to 100 articles, and for someone who has created a lot of articles but also a lot of redirects, it may give misleading output making it look like they had created nothing but redirects. This is not to say that redirects aren't important, but since they can always be looked at by going to the same page manually and re-enabling redirects, I hope that others can agree that my change is a good idea. If not, feel free to change it back. The main thing I wanted to fix was the link to Escaladix.

-- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Uptick in opposes?

Has anyone else noticed an increase in the average number of opposes lately, both at RfA and RfB? I suppose I should be happy, I've often worried that the pool of people willing to oppose with solid rationales was too small ... but maybe this is creating new problems. Is it? - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. And if it continues, we'll get to a point where we won't be promoting new admins or crats. iMatthew ^talk at 02:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It'll take quite a while to get to that point when we're finding consensus at under 68%. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That closure troubled me. Even if I had supported Dave, it would have troubled me. I'm just waiting for the next crat to blow off a majority against on the grounds that he doesn't like their rationale.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is, instead, an increase in the number of bad candidates? Ottava Rima (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it might not be statistically significant yet. And it might just be that we've got more people who want to say: not yet, do these things first before you pass. Not fatal to RFA/RFB ... but I don't remember seeing a discussion of the practical consequences of this trend, if it's a trend. - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If I'm feeling really bored, this summer, I'd love to dig in to, say, the past six months compared to last year, and crunch the numbers on it. We'll see. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're looking for a higher quality in our admins. I kinda hate to admit this, but I had a discussion with Iridescent a while back where she explained that an administrator should actually demonstrate the abilities rather than just aspire to them. But then again, what would I know - I'm a n00b. ;) — Ched :  ?  07:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA has its fads and fashions, but this has been the first time I can remember when FA writers have been at a disadvantage..... A while ago we realised we had a problem with New page patrollers not discovering their mistakes until they submitted an RFA; This provoked a couple of threads of discussion and quite a bit of work in giving new page patrollers more feedback when they mistagged at CSD. Perhaps part of what we need to do is shift this to FAC, either in terms of raising standards or in altering some people's expectations as to what an FA should denote. ϢereSpielChequers 10:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No matter the standards, FAs will never be able to please everybody. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who does not frequent this page, and simply theorizing off the top of my head without data, if there is indeed an uptick in opposes it could stem largely from an increase in concern about the role of administrators on the project. Though it's not a new issue, there seem to be more complaints of late about bad admin decisions and how many problems those can cause (particularly in terms of time wasted, drama, good contributors run off the project, etc.). There also seem to be a lot more calls for some kind of formal admin recall process—i.e. a way in which we could undo what we did in a successful RfA by +sysoping someone. I'm one admin who fully supports a process like this, though of course there are a lot of objections to it. I think perhaps many of the opposes in RfAs are in the vein of "looks like a good editor, but I have a few concerns and am wary of giving them permanent sysop status [since that's basically what it is], so opposing for now but open to another RfA from this person later." If we had a workable way for the community, rather than ArbCom, to desysop admins who have lost community support, then I think you'd see fewer oppose votes at RfA. If we ever start to feel that not enough editors are making it through RfA successfully, that could serve as a motivation to figure out a way to recall wayward admins without a months long ArbCom case.

There obviously could be (indeed probably are) other reasons for an increase in RfA opposition (some of which might well be unhealthy), but I think it likely that the issue described above plays a role. It's something we could partially address if we ever figure out a workable way to give the community a -sysop button, so to speak. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. A robust desysop process will mean a lower level of opposes, because it won't be for life anymore. → ROUX ₪ 18:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a "trial period" for bots, but none for admins. Plastikspork (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a trial period, say a candidate gets X amount of supports, the RfA is then put on hold to allow for X amount of admin actions, then when those are done people have some kind of sample of what the candidate can do as an admin.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with a trial period is that it is trivially gamed and/or means we would get only the most superficial actions from that admin during the period. → ROUX ₪ 19:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) But then what? That's a really quick way to end up with a requirement to jump through 2 (or 1.5) RfAs. If the final, full confirmation wasn't community driven but rather sysop or bureaucrat driven, then you've essentially opened the door for a full-fledged desysopping procedure. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

@Amory: Then, the regular "discussion" by the community re-begins. With a trial period we can avoid too many questions and !voters disecting the candidates FAs and GAs.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of probationary administrators has been proposed a few times before, and has been rejected each time. It is possible that consensus has changed since the last time, but I don't think so. Chillum 19:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there are three ways a user is banned. 1) Arbcom, 2) Jimbo, 3) Community discussion on ANI. There are 2 ways that a user is desysopped. 1) Arbcom, 2)Jimbo. I'm wondering what's wrong with doing "comminuty desysops" on ANI. It would make sense, wouldn't it? (X! · talk)  · @850  ·  19:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin can be community banned just like anyone else. Chillum 20:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Stewards can also desysop in the case of an emergency. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

AN/I as a desysop venue would be excellent for my sideline in torches and pitchforks, but bad for the community. Now instead of a thousand unfounded claims of admin abuse, we'd have calls for desysopping, with the usual suspects weighing in. No, what we need is a robust process similar to RFA, that is very hard to game. Oh look, I have proposed such a thing... ;) → ROUX ₪ 19:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think RfA is a fine place to reconfirm the community's trust personally, but there's little or no precedent for that. I agree in principle that we need some sort of reconfirmation/desysop process. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no danger. Upon seeing that no administrators are being promoted, people would adjust their criteria. The same thing happened with RFB. None were promoted for a long time, and then people lowered their criteria. Sure, that took about a year, but there was no massive shortage of bureaucrats. If there was a massive shortage of admins, things would sort themselves out. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And if there was an emergency, a few admins could be emergency promoted by Stewards or Jimbo.

The thing is, do people realize that even though there is an uptick is opposers, there's also an uptick in supporters? Has it been considered that more people are simply !voting? (X! · talk)  · @745  ·  16:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo, perhaps, but not the Stewards; they'd be grossly overstepping their bounds if they made any promotions around here (although this is a somewhat dystopian "there are no more admins" what-if scenario). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

If we had a dearth of admins to a point of danger to the wiki, we would be classified as small wiki and be helped by the m:Small Wiki Monitoring Team of m:Meta, also under our global rights policy, stewards may use their global admin bit if no local user is available, "to protect the best interests of Wikipedia." So I think we are pretty well covered. MBisanz ^talk 16:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it a difficult thought experiment to picture en.wikipedia classified as a "small wiki"... Jafeluv (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Votes

Within a lot of RfA's there are often specific !votes that seem to change the course of the RfA. Sometimes, they might save the RfA and other times, they doom the candidate. In Pastor Theo's we had a Neutral Vote that, IMO, was arguably the most influencial !vote of the RfA.

Majorly cast his vote as Neutral while raising an issue he felt was important enough to bring to the discussion, but feeling that if he did anything more, that it might be deemed as retailiation/tit-for-tat. As such, he raised an issue that was serious enough that it sparked 20 or so opposes for the candidate. But as a Neutral, I think it might have saved the candidacy. Let me posit this fact, Majorly cast his neutral vote. Shortly thereafter there were seven other neutral votes and only one oppose. It wasn't until Irredescent cast her !vote that people started to oppose.

Now think about it this way, and this is how fickle RfA can be, imagine if Majorly had cast his !vote as an oppose instead of a neutral. How many of those people who followed Majorly's neutral would have instead voted "Oppose?" Let's assume that half of them might have opposed instead of voting neutral. Suddenly, there would have been 5 opposes when Irridescent cast her vote. The RfA is no longer as solid looking. People who might have opposed, but remained silent because the RfA was going to pass might have become involved. Heck, some of the people who supported possibly would have been swayed to oppose or remain silent.

In short, if Majorly had cast his !vote in the oppose, I could see Theo's RfA failing!

On the other hand, suppose Majorly didn't !vote at all and decided that if he got involved that it would seem like retailiation? In that case, the incident Majorly brought up might never have come to light, and Irredescent's !vote might have remained in the Support column. Not only that, but others might not have opposed and the difference of passing would have been greater.

In other words, this was by far and away the most influencial Neutral !vote I've ever seen at RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, and this brings up another issue as well: the bandwagon effect. I know this has been discussed a million and one times here, but it's something we still need to consider IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral !votes can sway a RFA in this way and in other ways. I've seen them sway the crat's decision on determining close call RFA's. The fact that a user is neutral often means they bring very important information and viewpoints to the table. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen them where they've been important/meaningful, but this is the first time where I would absolutely say that a specific neutral vote was the most important/meaningful !vote in an RfA. It was very interesting.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; statements as to why an editor remains on the fence can often be more influential in guiding the community discussion than the "Support/Oppose per so-and-so" and it remains a valuable part of the process. -- Avi (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No more !vote. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why RfA is one of Wikipedia's most interesting and unique aspects. (X! · talk)  · @200  ·  03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are correct, Balloonman, in writing that the mentioned contributions "seem to change the course of the RfA" (my emphasis). We often see a big initial wave of supports in RFAs — maybe because supporters familiar with the candidate were aware and in anticipation of the RFA, because we are more accepting of supports without rationale (interpreting them as "per nom", I guess). In many, if not most cases, the opposes and opposing rationales come later — maybe also because it takes time to find relevant diffs and phrase an argument, maybe because some of us are generally a bit more careful and reluctant when posting unfavorable things regarding a candidate's suitability (I know I am). I'm not saying the dynamics you are seeing aren't there, and I'm sure you've spent far more time analysing the course of RFAs, but I would like to point out the possibly fallacious assumption of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Even if some votes lead to a wave of others, Juliancolton, I don't think the bandwagon effect is an accurate metaphor here. Reading condensed reasonings (and corresponding diffs) takes less time than thoroughly vetting a candidate, so it is to be expected that some people will wait and see and check which arguments are put forth before making up their mind. I see an "oppose per diffs presented by xyz" as a result of a rational and independent decision, not as opportunism. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to contradict you, Mr. B., but my RfA passed by a not-slender margin. Whatever value Majorly intended in his commentary was ruined by those who took his banner and ran with it to the Oppose section. Unlike Majorly, who stated his case with maturity, too many of those who were swayed by his diffs engaged in childish sarcasm and pathetic jingoism that had no bearing whatsoever on my record or on the answers I provided in the RfA. Some people openly stated their disappointment in such foolishness, and I suspect others felt that way but decided not to say anything in order to prevent badgering from the Oppose side -- and that did happen at one point. Majorly's input may have attracted some concern, but the antics of many of his too-ardent followers actually did me more good than harm. Pastor Theo (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of RfA where you often get judged more on the isolated incident than the total body of one's work. That being said, and how do I word this with a person that I just helped obtain the bit, belittling their input in this manner does not speak well of you. I know that some of their comments probably stung and you probably felt as if they were unjustified, BUT this response probably has some of them thinking, "OMG I was right!" Calling the people who took his dif "too-ardent followers" is not a valid point. I know that many of the people involved would scoff at the notion that they are followers of Majorly (who generally lives more in the support column than others.) Anyways, the point of my original post was how simple decisions could have profound effects.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't following any "bandwagon", and Pastor Theo has indeed confirmed me in my opinion of his holier than though attitude to civility. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I never used the word bandwagon, and wouldn't (especially with you ;-) ). I find RfA's interesting because of the social dynamics involved... in this particular case, I found it intriguing because *I* found Majorly's !vote to be the pivital !vote and it came in the Neutral Section---we often talk about the value of the Neutral Votes, and I think this !vote puts to rest the question of the value of the Neutral Section. Which I guess is the real reason I started this discussion... because it clearly shows the value of the Neutral !vote.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. B., the comments in question did not sting. I found them rather funny -- trust me, I've been called much worse in real life. All told, it was an entertaining RfA for me and I learned a great deal from it. Thanks! :) Pastor Theo (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some neutrals are genuinely neutral. But many of them, if you just read them and don't worry about which column they're in, are clearly opposes. Now I don't know that any crat has ever been brave enough to count them as opposes, but they really should, in many cases. I think some people just put their oppose in the neutral column out of some misguided notion that it's "mean" to oppose someone. People should stop worrying so much about being nice and focus on actually evaluating of the candidate. We even occasionally see this problem in the support column- I remember seeing supports that said things like "Yes, I share the maturity concerns of some of those who are opposing, but I'm going to support anyway." This should be counted as an oppose, but I imagine people would bite the head off any crat who did it that way. Maybe we should do away with grouping the votes together entirely, and not have different columns for different votes. Friday (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

People are allowed to support with misgivings, Friday. RfX is not a doctoral thesis, it is where the community gets together and discusses candidates. Why should someone who says that are supporting with misgivings be counted as an oppose?! -- Avi (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to practice democracy. We're here to make the right decision. So, when someone votes "poor candidate but I want him to win", the closing crats should give more weight to the "poor candidate" part than the "but I want him to win" part. On AFD we come right out and admit that the discussion should be closed based on the weight of the arguments. Why are we so resistant to applying this same useful concept to RFA? Friday (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The community is here to make the right decision; the bureaucrats are here to identify the community's voice over the din that is RfA (I like that analogy). You may think that the editor who supported with misgivings made the wrong decision, but it is his or her decision to make. It is your job as an RfX participant to make the strongest case for what you believe is the /right/ decision and convince as many people as possible to agree with you. It is the bureaucrats' job to identify what the community decided - be it right or wrong in any one set of editors' eyes. -- Avi (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also supported but included some concerns to be taken aboard, hoping the candidates would take them to heart and thus perhaps make even better admins than if they ignored my concerns. Typically, in such examples my concerns aren't strong enough to oppose, so I'd support one way or the other. RFA is also an opportunity to give candidates some feedback and advice, no matter whether you're supporting or opposing (or neutral). ---Sluzzelin talk 15:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The individual has the ability to evaluate the candidates strengths/weaknesses. A lot of people may look at the opposes and say, "I see the merits of the opposes, but on a whole I still support the candidate." I'm certain that these !votes do have a bearing on how 'crats read the !votes. There have been numerous closures wherein the 'crat writes something to the effect that "Even some of the supporters voiced concerns" or "Many of the opposers acknowledged..." Thus, to an extent, the qualifiers used in one's support/oppose certainly has some bearing how it is read.

But going even further than that, people can weight the pros and cons themselves and 'crats should not assume that a specific !vote is the exact opposite of what was said. I mean, Friday, would you want a 'crat to read the !vote, "Oppose, while I am sure you are a qualified candidate, you're not 18" as a support? Or "I know that you are a great person, but I just don't like you."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's why I suggested doing away with the separate columns, and encouraging people to write a sentence or two explaining their opinion of the candidate. Forget simple one-word answers. Real life is more nuanced than that. Friday (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. The current structure of the requests whereby little justification is needed for comments and threaded discussion is not only the exception but at times actively discouraged, guarantees that the process is to a large degree a popularity contest. Doing away with the subsections would allow all the same behaviour as present, but radically alter the incentives to contribute substantial analysis and interaction. It's time RfA grew up and started to take itself seriously as consensus decision-making.  Skomorokh  15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If I can chip in: I see your viewpoint, Friday, but the location of a user's comment is of substance in of itself. If a given participant supports, but expresses hesitancy, this should be interpreted as, "There are problems A,B, and C, but I'm willing to overlook them and support since I think the positives outweigh the negatives." People strike neutral for a reason – they're on the fence, but wish to make a remark anyway. A good neutral presents intelligent commentary on the reasons for their fence-sitting: the reasons for and the reasons against. I won't comment on the possibility of people going neutral because they find outright opposition nasty – while it's certainly possible, the possibility can't be quantified or non-speculatively analysed, and so could never be a factor with true merit. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone says "There are problems A,B, and C, but I'm willing to overlook them and support since I think the positives outweigh the negatives.", that is an excellent, well-explained vote. That's what we should be looking for. I guess my problem is, I don't tend to assume that is what people really mean, if they say something fairly stupid-sounding. To my ear, something like "Yes, there are maturity concerns, but he's a good editor who deserves the tools" is a very stupid-sounding vote, and nothing at all like the excellent vote you described above. Friday (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is actually history to look back at for this, though I wish a more experienced user had tried it instead of a user with 700 edits. If anyone is seriously thinking about running for adminship soon, perhaps they would be enticed to trying this format out? Who knows? It might work well or it might just flop. But we won't really know until we try. NW (Talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That just makes it really hard to count the !vo... Oh, right. Jafeluv (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Econ. In my opinion it is a discussion and then a vote. I would appreciate it if you would link me up to one situation where any of these situations you mention has arisen. Good and bad admins get promoted now. Do you know how many situations have arisen in the last couple of years where the vote was not decided on a headcount and where the crat made the choice? Not many. There could be a request for comment if people thought that there was suspicious voting and that could be looked at by the crats in a group. This decision is being investigated by a craggle of crats.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

"Craggle"? I thought we crats were not herd animals. When we do travel in packs, however, it's called a "disaster of 'crats" -- Avi (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

List of collective nouns by collective term L-Z has "a shuffle of bureaucrats", which might point to the random aspect, though it could also refer to "now take it kinda slow with a whole lot of soul". ---Sluzzelin talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion process is not a vote

This discussion process is not a vote is near the top of the RFA page, discussing the process. Here's the problem. Too many people hold the belief that candidates should not have the right to speak on themselves. Responses, regardless of how polite, information, clarifying, whatever, are labeled as "badgering". This is a detriment to the process and the project.

This needs to be addressed in the text of WP:RFA one way or the other. RFA is a clusterfuck almost every time. I think the community pretty well agrees on that at this point. While I know that every proposal to hit this page in the past three years has been archived after ridicule, it's time to start slapping some Bondo on this cracked process. It needs to be in writing one way or the other. Either candidates are strongly encouraged not to participate in the discussion about them or they are encouraged to, so that one way or the other, there's text to direct people to.

The propensity for infighting over ambiguous matters needs to be curbed. This is a good start. لennavecia 18:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Rulescreep. Opinion is divided; it is not necessary nor desirable to codify this. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Either it's a discussion or a vote, and we need to define which. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a discussion not a vote, which has, nonetheless, some aspects of voting. If you feel that is ill defined, feel free to suggest alternate phrasing, but Jennavecia is talking about somethign else, I believe. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. It's a vote. If it weren't, there wouldn't be numbered votes. It would merely be a week-long discussion, and a crat would wade through it at the end. We really need to stop pretending otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 18:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They do have room for discretion, which makes it not a strightforward "count heads" type vote. Hence my casting it as a discussion with aspects of a vote, but your view that its a vote (with some aspects of a discussion?) might well be the case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is the case. It is straightforward headcounting, it's just that some heads may be discounted by the counter. → ROUX ₪ 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux demonstrates, yet again, a worrying lack of understanding of core wiki policies. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who you really are, little troll? That I refuse to ignore the elephant in the room doesn't mean I don't understand policies. Far from it in fact; I am well aware of what we say, but it is what we do that actually defines what is going on. As it is, RFA is very much a vote. There is a percentage under which someone cannot pass, and over which they are guaranteed to pass. In between is up to the closing crat, who effectively discounts votes in order to arrive at a decision on one side or the other. → ROUX ₪ 00:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder who you really are, little troll? - Roux demonstates, yet again, a worrying lack of understanding of core wiki policies. I agree with you - what 'you' do often does not match with what policy says we do. Feel free to edit the RfA policy page to say it is mostly voting, with a teeny bit of 'crat scrutiny to remove irrelevant stuff. Might be a bit pointy but I'd be interested to see just how many minutes the revised version would last. (Don't actually do this, the pitchforkers would want your head on a stick). 87.113.86.207 (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a better idea. Why don't you go here, fill in your username and password, and come back to comment? There's a good lad. → ROUX ₪ 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that you agreeing that changing the written policy to match what actually happens would not achieve consensus? Or are you really saying that IPs are not allowed to comment on talk pages? 87.113.86.207 (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, would you two go find something productive to do? Or at least take it to your talk pages. iMatthew ^talk at 01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Roux declines to discuss anything with IP editors, anywhere. but, since you asked so nicely, this is the LAST COMMENT FROM ME ABOUT THIS HERE. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not in fact the case. What I will not listen to is lecturing and harassment from someone who won't back up their statements by logging in--as you are very clearly a user with a regular account. → ROUX ₪ 01:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It has elements of both, that is clear - but it definitely leans towards a vote - tallying, mathematics, terse rationales, and discouraging protracted discussion all point to a bureaucratic vote. . Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Responding to "Oppose" comments involves a trade-off. Some people will be put off or see it as badgering. Others will see it as a reasonable part of the process, and perhaps be convinced by the candidate's responses. You can't please everyone - and trying to do exactly that is half the problem at RfA. Besides, I'm actually interested to see how candidates handle the matter. It's a sensitive, ambiguous issue without an easy "right" answer, where tact and judgment (or their lack) are on display. In other words, it's an excellent way to evaluate the sort of qualities that come in handy for admins. My 2 cents, anyway. MastCell ^Talk 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's widespread consensus that RfX is indeed a discussion (of sorts with vote-elements), so there is nothing that needs to be changed. What is disputed though (as Julian's RFB shows) is how much the candidate should participate in this discussion. Some see RfX a discussion about the candidate by the community. This is further confirmed by the fact that in RfX, unlike RFCs for example, candidates cannot !vote on themselves, i.e. are as such somewhat excluded from the discussion about them. On the other hand, some regard RfX as a discussion that includes the candidate and thus the candidate should be allowed to discuss with the participants of said discussion. But as KC mentions above, there is no consensus on the exact nature of the discussion RfX includes and as such there is no consensus to codify any "right" way for candidates to behave in said requests. I'm looking forward to any suggestion on how to add anything related to this but I cannot think of anything except "There is no consensus on whether candidates should participate in said discussion". Regards SoWhy 18:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I was criticized on my RFA for responding to some of my opposes. "This user is coming off with a very combative attitude in this RFA, and dismisses all constructive criticism from others." I treated this in a bit more detail here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• On my Rfa, I sat on my hands and ignored a clear misunderstanding; I had commented in an Rfc and said that yes, the person in question was clearly being uncivil, but that I didn't think the Rfc was merited - and the first oppose completely misread me and said I didn't think the edit was incivility! I did not correct, because IMO that is highly inappropriate. Editors must feel free to voice their oppose views without worry they'll be pulled in front of the Inquisition, and thus the candidate should refrain from argument. That's my view, which I applied to myself; as I note above, opinions are widely divided here. I think MastCell's points are excellent, in that its not so much whether you respond, but how, and as you discovered, how much. I certainly have supported candidates who responded to oppose views, but their manner and approach mattered. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• "On my Rfa, I sat on my hands and ignored a clear misunderstanding." That statement is very odd, IMO, because your next statement went on to clear up the aforementioned 'misunderstanding.' Why should your conduct during an RfA be any different than on any other occasion? Surely you do not sit on your hands all of the time. Do you advocate that one should be on their 'best behavior' during Hell Week because it increases one's odds of passing? There seems to be this horrible evolution where opposing voters feel that their comments are not open for scrutiny. RfA should be the time where the candidate addresses these concerns directly, as opposed to staying mute. Law _{type! snype?} 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• No, I think that to challenge opposes during an Rfa generally shows poor form, overt defensiveness, and can lead to a chilling effect in which editors may feel intimidated into not voicing their concerns. Your comparison is specious. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Clearly sitting on your hands is not something you practice now. Hands instead seem to be wrapped tightly around a stick instead. Regardless, I don't think we should be encouraging candidates to let false statements and misconceptions sit without clarification. That's ridiculous. لennavecia 19:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot relate to that comment at all. You are concerned about intimidation of the voters? What about the candidate? No self-respecting person should allow those that oppose them to get away with murder just because addressing opposers can be seen as 'poor form.' Law _{type! snype?} 19:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• We disagree. I do not call a mistaken assumption "murder" - that is rather extreme hyperbole - and IMO if a candidate cannot either patiently wait, or tactfully address, legitimate concerns without arousing concerns of badgering or hounding they are ill suited and as MastCell and Looie have noted, this is valuable information. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Tactfully addressing concerns should be completely appropriate. That's the problem, though. Too many tactful comments, or even one that someone chooses to take offense to, and the oppose pile-ons begin. لennavecia 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• My attitude is that the way a candidate responds to criticism during the RFA says a lot about the way the candidate will respond to criticism of admin actions. Often the best response is silence -- a candidate who feels compelled to respond to every criticism and get the last word will probably end up generating a lot of wearisome discussion threads. Looie496 (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• On the other hand, sometimes people question why a candidate doesn't respond. Just saying. — Ched :  ?  19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, that wasn't people wondering why you didn't respond to the opposes, it was people wondering why you didn't rein in your over-enthusiastic supporters, who were taking on the cause of badgering your opposes, if you'll forgive the phrasing. If you check Sarek's linked discussion, he did precisely that, moving such "discussion resulting from an oppose" to the Rfc talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, and I caught hell for that, too. It was one of Kurt Weber's self-nom opposes -- I moved the discussion off the page, because it wasn't terribly relevant to the RFA. Most of my opposes were based on a perceived misunderstanding of WP:CRYSTAL. I didn't dispute them, because it had been well-covered elsewhere. However, when somebody called my comments to someone with whom I had a substantial off-wiki history WP:BITE-y, that I clarified, because there was no on-wiki evidence that we had known each other for quite a few years at that point. I also discussed a questionable PROD, explaining what I was thinking at the time, and why I thought it wasn't an incorrect decision, but pointing out some aspects that I should have picked up on. In KC's misunderstanding above, I think I would have spoken up.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Did you?! I generally approve of moving complex disputes to the talk page; even simple ones in many cases. Yet another example of how this is too complex to be codified. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I guess it's a The Lady, or the Tiger? kind of problem with no right answer. Comment too much on !votes and you will called a badgerer, comment too little and people will call you unresponsive, unflexible or failing to address concerns. From personal experience: I had decided at my own rfa to keep it to a minimum and still I got 1-2 opposes for commenting/addressing concerns. If any concerns of any sort arise, it's a matter of walking a very fine line for the candidates to walk when deciding whether and how to respond to them. I don't think there can be any general rule we can write down to address this... Regards SoWhy 19:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is hypersensitive people taking any response as "badgering". This crap has gone on for years. I got the same opposes in my RFA almost two years ago. There needs to be a clear definition of what badgering is, and there needs to be unambiguous wording that candidates are free, if they so choose, to respond to opposers. If their responses are, in fact, badgering, then let people oppose at will. But for the delicate little tulips and drama-mongerers that want to complain about the candidates responding at all, there should be some text to direct them to so that their vote can be clearly void and that fact known to them from the start. لennavecia 19:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed and well said. I would strongly support the addition somewhere of a solid definition of badgering and when responding to opposes is appropriate and inappropriate. Timmeh 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec X 2) I wasn't referring to any individual RfX (other than my own), merely saying that it is often a case of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". People approach the RfX with all different expectations, and when there is ambiguity, or any type of "wiggle-room" left to the process, then you're simply not going to please all the people .. all the time. For myself? I'd have preferred that my supporters were less vocal, sure. But, I had read some advice (I think it was a "No September" page IIRC), and believed it was best to let the community decide the situation. I also believe that the RfX talk pages are OFTEN under-utilized. It's a place where things can be discussed, but it doesn't interfere with the process. Then again, I think it's likely that a great number of people cast their lot, and never return to see if anything should be addressed or reconsidered. Hope that clears up my OTOH comment. — Ched :  ?  19:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I misunderstood you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been my observation that attempting to clarify a situation brought up by the opposition is not viewed as problematic, but when that attempt becomes either flatly dismissive of the opposition or sounds too much like an attempt to convert the opposers that it can be viewed as badgering. There is not, and there should not be, a specific definition as to what is an appropriate level of response verus badgering. It is up to the candidate themselves to draw the line between what they consider a reasonable level of response and excessive badgering, and it should be up to the participants to gauge the candidate's reactions acordingly. Shereth 19:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said! Precisely! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is precisely part the misconception I'm talking about. The number of responses is irrelevant. Badgering is to harass or urge persistently; pester; nag. If a candidate responds to eight out of ten opposes, for example, and brings up valid points or makes legitimate clarifications, that is not badgering in and of itself. Tone can lend to badgering, but the actual number of responses does not. Now, that's speaking individual responses. Regarding threaded responses under a single oppose, as long as the discussion remains productive, that should not be considered badgering either. If, however, the opposer has made it clear that they are not going to be swayed and the candidate then persists to comment further, would there be reason to label it as badgering. "Excessive badgering" is a whole other issue. لennavecia 21:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe I mentioned "number of responses" at all? I agree with you that the number of individual responses is (largely) irrelevant as well, but I can see a case where a response to the same comment from different editors could come across as somewhat tendentious. Shereth 21:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I misinterpreted your meaning with "a reasonable level of response and excessive badgering," then. I took "level" to be representative of the number of responses being made. Apologies. Lara 18:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No harm done, no offense taken :) Shereth 18:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping in late... but I don't see the problem being discussed above. If it were true that every attempt to "discuss" things at RfA were labeled "badgering" then there would be a problem... but from my [albeit limited] experience at RfA, people, even nominees, have been able to discuss issues raised (esp. in the Neutral section) without it being considered badgering. It all depends on how you word your "discussion". If people keep accusing you of badgering then, well, maybe you really were badgering a little bit? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to see the discussion happen in the "Discussion" section, not in the "Support" and "Oppose" sections. The RfA pages are set up to separate discussion and voting. I think that is good, and I think all discussion should be moved out of the voting sections to the discussion section. That would allow for a far less combative discussion atmosphere than challenging oppose or support votes. Kusma (talk) 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  I strongly support that suggestion (separating discussion and vote). It might help get rid of reasonings such as "I like him" or "ugh". It would also direct the focus away from who said something to what was said. Contributors whose reasoning gets challenged wouldn't need to feel singled out or badgered, and it would allow for more in-depth argumentation without the fear of cluttering up the votes section or turning it into a dramatic dialogue, or whatever other scruples might stop people from presenting their arguments and concerns. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vote vs discussion

• It is neither. Voters and Crats alike rarely seem to measure people against a true understanding of policy and ability to use the tools. When people are challenged, they either fail to address the pertinent points or are unwilling to talk at all. In essence, only 20 or so of the votes per time really deal with RfA. So, I stand by the idea that RfA and RfB are basically off-topic in general, which means that neither vote nor discussion are pertinent answers. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• Ceci n'est pas un vote. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• The whole debate of "vote or discussion" is pointless. I personally see it as both. It's a vote, but discussion goes on during the voting period. If it was not a vote, we wouldn't use the percentages to determine whether or not the candidate is promoted. If it was not a vote, the support/oppose sections wouldn't exist. It's also meant to be a discussion though, and like Jennavecia said, "I don't think we should be encouraging candidates to let false statements and misconceptions sit without clarification. That's ridiculous." We all know about bandwagon voting, and if we let false statements sit without clarification, we'd be allowing bandwagon voters to vote based on those false statements. From [1], the definition of badgering is "to harass or annoy persistently." As long as the replies to oppose votes aren't harassing or annoying the voter to withdraw their vote, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to discuss it. iMatthew ^talk at 23:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never understood why RFA not fitting neatly into the category of straight vote or pure discussion causes such psychic discomfort for so many editors. As if a discussion having elements of a vote or a vote having elements of a discussion would be some sort of miscegenation at which the mind recoils. In fact, RFA most closely resembles a caucus process. So RFA is a caucus. But who cares? RFA is RFA and there's nothing wrong with creating a system that defies really straightforward categorization. More to the matter at hand, I agree with Jennavecia that editors who start moaning the moment they're asked to justify themselves are tedious and not really getting into the spirit of things. Part of the problem is that to the candidate it's all so arbitrary. Perhaps a proactive idea would be some sort of pledge that editors can elect to sign: "RFA candidates and other editors are encouraged to challenge the views of the undersigned editors. The undersigned editors believe they are reasonable people with reasonable opinions and thus do not feel threatened or intimidated when asked to explain themselves." Of course some people will sign the pledge and still whinge when challenged, but with a pledge at least the candidates would know that there are some editors they may feel more comfortable questioning. A sort of Socratic creed: I won't always agree with you and I won't always back down from my views, but I'll always make an effort to explain myself and won't hold it against you if you challenge my views. --JayHenry (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't what's being discussed.

That's why it's good to read the body, not just the header. If it really is a discussion, which it clearly is, should the candidate be able to participate? That's what's being discussed. Lara 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Of course it's a dang vote. If you get 80% support, you pass. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • We have plenty of RFAs that succeeded below this level, Dave's recent one at 68% for example. So it's not that vote-y, is it? Regards SoWhy 09:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Has anyone failed with >80% support, though? Stifle does have a point. (By the way, saying "If X then Y" doesn't necessarily imply "Y only if X".) Jafeluv (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• EC.If we were to see a rise in the questioning of the support votes it would start to get very messy indeed. I am of the opinion that it is a vote and that good faith should be enjoyed by all. make your case and let the voters vote, don't question them or say to them, no we are not counting your vote as we think it is not a worthy vote. The last crat to close a RFA said that the burden of proof was on the opposer and that he counted each and every support vote even if it was only a signature with no explanation at all. So the support section is according to that rational a vote. This is unfair to the opposes. The rational for both opinions needs to be the same. (Off2riorob (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC))
• Support its a vote with a small amount of discretion given to the crats. Not too much mind you, or we wouldnt have had the shitstorm about that recent one passing at 67%. Viridae^Talk 09:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you supporting? Lara 18:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently, it's treated as a vote, whether or not we actually acknowledge that. If you have enough support, you're automatically passing, even if there is a little bit of wiggle room, and the same goes for failing. I also echo what Roux said above: "It is straightforward headcounting, it's just that some heads may be discounted by the counter". It's pretty much currently treated a vote unless it falls into a certain discretionary range, and then they weigh the arguments. hmwithτ 14:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be counted as a vote but it is not treated as one because people give reasons for their !votes on both the oppose and support sides. If it were a pure vote counting process, no reasons would be given. Whether these reasons are taken into account by bureaucrats is one thing but it is quite clear that they affect the votes of others and the success or failure of a particular RfA often depends on what goes on in the oppose section. If it became an acknowledged vote counting process (like the arbcom elections) the quality of the votes would decline and RfA would become more of a popularity contest. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If the end result is determined primarily by "headcounting", then it surely is being "treated" as a vote. I'm not sure how one separates "counting" and "treating". It's best to reconcile the conflict as a process that allows for explicated votes that may be weighted differently. There is also variability in how each section is treated which lends itself to the problem. Currently the support column is a terse headcount. The oppose section is a challengeable (albeit in moderation) forum for drama and analytics. The neutral column is a useless weak oppose section that likely comes into closures only rarely. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)(ec)Because the people voting give detailed reasons for their vote they don't appear to treat it as a simple support/oppose vote. Irrespective of what happens when a bureaucrat closes the RfA (and we know now that it's not always as simple as vote counting!), the process is guided by the discussion that goes on (especially in the oppose section). That would not happen if it were being treated as a simple yes/no sort of thing by the people voting. Think of an RfA as containing two distinct processes: one of which is the process of voting that involves individual editors reading the threads in the RfA and researching the editor's history or just saying great guy; and the other that occurs when a bureaucrat closes it. Irrespective of what the bureaucrat does (counts, reads, whatever), the first process is being guided by the fact that some (not all, obviously) editors feel that what they say matters more than how they voted. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

EC. I like the aspect of discussion and people moving and commenting this adds value to the process. And then..it should be clear that people have though about it and voted in good faith and the heads should be counted and over 75 is a pass and under 75 is a fail..exactly 75 is promotion to the new powerless commitee. After seeing the situation the other day, imo it is better to take the flexibility out of the story, it is messy..at the end of the day if someone almost passes they keep their head down for a few months and they pass then..easy. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

So we can replace the crats with a bot? What about an RFA with 50% opposes that consist of "I don't like him"? What about one with a lot of SPAs !voting? By your logic we would promote bad admins and don't promote good ones just because of arbitrary numbers. Making something a vote that should be a discussion removes the most important reason we use consensus instead of democracy: That arguments decide an issue, not the number of people participating. Regards SoWhy 15:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's the discussion element of it. If it was a straight vote, with no regard to who said what, there could be an AdminPromotionBot. But RFA, in its current form, requires a closer look than bots could provide. Useight (talk) 15:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Econ. In my opinion it is a discussion and then a vote. I would appreciate it if you would link me up to one situation where any of these situations you mention has arisen. Good and bad admins get promoted now. Do you know how many situations have arisen in the last couple of years where the vote was not decided on a headcount and where the crat made the choice? Not many. There could be a request for comment if people thought that there was suspicious voting and that could be looked at by the crats in a group. This decision is being investigated by a craggle of crats.(Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

"Craggle"? I thought we crats were not herd animals. When we do travel in packs, however, it's called a "disaster of 'crats" -- User:Avraham|Avi 15:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC).

The way I see it, it is almost always a vote. I did a quick crunching of the numbers since January 2008, looking at RfA's that went the full length (I did not count SNOW closures or withdrawn requests). In this time period there were 371 requests that went full term. Of them, no RfA with greather than 75% support failed. No RfA with less than 63% support passed (and only 2 with less than 70% passed - the recent one and the somewhat infamous ^demon RfA). With the "discretionary" range at 70-75%, it can be safely said that only 18 of the last 371 requests required any kind of "discretion" - in essence, 95% of the time no discretion is required and the RfA may be treated as a strict vote. However, given that 5% still fall within the discretionary range, we still cannot claim the process is merely "counting the numbers". The majority of the time it may be "safe" to treat one's participation as a vote, but leaving a vote sans discussion may mean that one's voice is lost in the smaller percentage of cases that fall in that small discretionary range. Shereth 16:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for the figures. and I am sure the discression from the crats has always been in an upward direction? What percentage of the discretionary crat decisions have pushed the vote to fail when in the zone(Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

5 in the 70-75% range passed (plus the two below 70%), 11 failed. Shereth 16:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that is a kind of neutral, balanced figure. So seven out of 371 were promoted from the zone by the closer, the rest went the way of a vote. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

No, 7 of 371 were passed via discretion of the 'crat, 11 were failed via the discretion of the crat. The only way that you can exclude the 11 that failed that fell in the 70-75% range is if your assumption is that 75% is a failed RfA. The rest, went the way of the !vote.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct balloonman, I was adding my assumption. I have one of the discretionary passes, coulld , perhaps, Shereth, provide me with a link to the other six so I can have a look at the closing comments? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Replying on your talk page - if others are curious I'll post here but I don't want to bog the page down with links. Shereth 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

(<-)I think it is reasonable to say that community consensus is highly correlated with the opinions posted on the discussion page, so I would expect the vote and the decision to closely follow one another. It is the times when the opinions are not indicative of the consensus that are rare; but do exist. It is a bit of an oversimplification to say that most of the time crats follow the vote. Rather say, most of the time, the vote follows consensus. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, very correct too, so we have only two disputed promotions. The recent one one and the other famous one. Two disputed out of 371. How rare is that. Where is the other one to look at .. the demon? Any one got a link? (Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Here is another one...Oreon0, closed by Rdsmith4 at 68percent. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/oren0 (Off2riorob (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Er, that one is at 76% ... Shereth 17:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

67 support and 21 opposes, 67 divided by 98 ..is...68? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

And 67 divided by 88 is 76. Seriously, enough of this idiocy. – iridescent 17:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob made a simple mistake; you miss-calculated 67 + 21. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I will have a quiet look through them later. Idiocy..is something else. Enough for today. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

Consensus is not determined by numbers; stop focusing on them, please. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a nice ideal, Julian, but it's simply not true in reality. → ROUX ₪ 17:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Econ. Consensus, yes. Excuse my idiocy. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC))

From my RFA page: Carnildo_3 (61%), ^demon_3 (63%), Krimpet (67%), Danny (68%), Davemeistermoab (68%), Ryulong_3 (69%) - the only RfAs I'm aware of that passed with less than 70%. - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My rather exhaustive study of RFA confirms that Dank. MBisanz ^talk 18:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I probably got most of that from you, Matt. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I got them from Jake, but they're the same. -- Avi (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jake stole them from me :P MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That the decision to promote appears to largely rest on the numbers is clearly apparent, however, it is also important for the process that it is known discretion is involved. The affect of making something a definitive in/out would make gamesmanship much more likely (and there is probably enough of that as it stands). Though it may appear largely symbolic, I like it that a crat could in theory promote someone at 50% or choose not to promote at 85%. That this pretty much never happens is a sign of the strength of the process not a weakness. (Though no doubt there will be lots of people who think there have been lots of incorrect decisions, but you can't please everyone). Quantpole (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• I can't help but feel that unless we ever have an RfA pass under 50%, it's a discussion-pending vote. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• The only way I can see that happening is if the candidacy was affected by extreme levels of canvassing and/or SPAs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • What about a really odd, rare, never-gonna-happen scenario where all the supports are fantastically written, conclusive and by high standing editors, but about double that in opposes with either no explanation or reasons like "age is the issue". Would that RfA pass? I'd say it should, but it probably still wouldn't because it'd only be, what, 25% in support? It's a vote with some discussion, but mostly just people voting "per above" or "no complaints". I'm guilty of that, too, though. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  21:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
      • That cannot be answered in theory, in my opinion. There are too many other variables. Did the opposes or supports come in first; is there a reason why this person may be the subject of negative canvassing; has this person developed a disgruntled group of "enemies" on wiki for reasons unrelated to behavior (imagine the Danny issue squared); there are so many external and internal factors that may contribute to the decision that "what if" analysis, although interesting, cannot really be answered, at least IMO, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You see, for once in my life I'm not going to be a cynical bastard. That these sort of occurrences don't come up does give an indication of the strength of the process. In that scenario though there would be some serious ramifications to the whole project, as it would basically mean the whole consensus approach is crocked. Whilst I think there are certainly misgivings about how consensus works, the general attitude seems to be that that is how we want to run things. Quantpole (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AND ANOTHER THING one or two IP editors make very many good quality contributions to articles, yet they are forbidden to make any comments in 'support' / 'oppose'. Yet IP editors are also seen as problematic, vandals, new, inexperienced - in other words - exactly the type of editor that will get much Admin attention.
Someone who's had greater than 2,000 solid contribs to articles should be able to have some kind of say. Someone with an edit history like mine - EVEN IF I WERE LOGGED IN - should stay away from RfA comment sections. And don't tell me that the 'crats will give my boded notvote less weight because I have a low edit count. We all know that's horseshit. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Blanking

A kind reminder that when an RFA is {{courtesy blanked}} it should still be categorized using the normal system. This helps us keep track of new nonsense pages created in the RFA-space and also helps with longterm success/fail trend analysis. Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 01:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Academic Research Study on the Request for Adminship (RfA) Process

As part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science we are conducting a survey of anyone who has participated in the Request for Adminship (RfA) process, either commenting (discussing) or as a candidate.

The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research, are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 14:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I only got as far as "WebSort requires the Flash 9 player. If you have Firefox, beware the Adblock might be causing problems!". But I might try on another PC. But I'm delighted that someone is researching this rather unusual process. ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that this site also asks for personal information. I tucked my tail and ran when the first thing that popped up was it asking for my email address; the site that the survey is on is not affiliated with Carnegie Mellon. It may well be legitimate, just a heads up. Shereth 14:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says email address or any unique username, which could be, say, your Wikipedia username, or, say, "12345". It can be something completely unrelated to you. wadester16 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It also asks for your username and email at the end, but that's completely optional. wadester16 15:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Wadester16 correct, you need not supply any identifying information, in the first box put any text you would like. This survey is indeed associated with Carnegie Mellon, and yes we are using externally developed survey applications because they do exactly what we want, so why reinvent the wheel? The principle investigator for this study is Professor Robert Kraut, a veteran researcher in online communities. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Also be aware that the underage are unable to participate in more than 17% of the proceedings; the rest is restricted to those "18 years or older". A shame, given that a cross-section of the regulars at RfA do not meet this requirement. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point Anonymous Dissident, it is hard to estimate what portion of the WP population is underage, but due to Internal Review Board issues, it is quite difficult to get clearance if your participants are under 18. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea, although I think Carnegie Mellon should have used OTRS or similar to confirm that this is indeed an official survey by them. I guess many people will be somewhat skeptical like Shereth is. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to do it mainly because I'm curious what kind of questions are asked but looks like the study is closed.--Giants27 (c|s) 15:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies Giants27, the study is NOT closed, we hit a brief technological snag this afternoon, but all is well and please check it out if you get a chance! Thank you! -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually a tad concerned that consent is requested after you've completed the first part. I'm presuming that it stored the data from stage one, but hopefully it won't be used without the consent in part two, given CMUs policy on data collection from minors. In which case either it isn't worth doing the first part if you are under 18, or I'd like to know how they can use that data without consent. That aside, the first part is an interesting methodology - hopefully it will give interesting and useful results. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I'd lean towards the data from the first part not being used unless you provide consent, as it is probably only meaningful in conjunction with the survey data. - Bilby (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Who is this?

So who, exactly, is conducting this study? I see no names whatsoever, whether grad student, doctoral candidate, principal investigator, or faculty advisor. And the outside website used for gathering data -- I would have thought Carnegie-Mellon, of all places, might have the ability to pull together a functional webpage -- gives me enormous pause. I still remember Marty Rimm, after all. --Calton | Talk 17:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

About your comment on using an outside website for the survey, did you have any trouble with the functionality of the webpage? I'm just curious if there is a reason you suggested we should have created it in-house. As for who is conducting the study, the principle investigator for this study is Robert Kraut, he is full professor in Human Computer Interaction. Other team members include professor Niki Kittur who has published several papers on Wikipedia, and a graduate student Moira Burke who has also published research on Wikipedia and is a graduate student in HCI. Lastly, myself, Ben Collier, a PhD student. -CMUResearcher (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want credibility, I suggest that the CMU computer science official website should link to the webpage. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this survey goes better than CMU's past foreys into the world of online habits - see Rimm, Marty and Sirbu, Martin [2]. Hopefully the IRB took a good look over this survey before letting it out there. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I could send an email out from OTRS to verify this, perhaps. Stifle (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please

Interesting and thought provoking survey - good luck with that. Please let us know when you publish the results - it would be nice to see it on a userpage or... Thanks - Williamborg (Bill) 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I heart surveymonkey. Previous surveys have had some trouble on the mailing lists, but it's definitely worth a shot! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)