Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 188

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 185

Archive 186

Archive 187

→

My hypothetical situation

I tried a little experiment asking four candidates to respond to a hypothetical complaint on AN/I, and it seems to have gone well. Since all the candidates have now answered, I thought it would be appropriate to discuss my intent, my view on how we should vote on RfAs, and my views on the specific problem. I've posted it below for ease:

A hypothetical: A post on ANI catches your attention. An IP editor (IP 555.555.555.1) claims that he is part of Sarah Palin's family, and that redlinked user:neutral editor is a democratic staffer vandalizing the article. A check of the history shows these two were edit warring over whether or not to include the line "Sarah Palin quit from the position of governor, giving her a world wide reputation as a quitter"(several cites to blogs and op eds) in the lede of the article. 555.555.555.1 has been reverting with the edit summary "rv:trolling vandal libeler" and user:neutral editor has not used edit summaries at all. In addition, three other users have commented on the ANI thread like so:

Alaskan's can't write, ignore him.--User:A

Block 555.555.555.1, WP:COI. --User:B

Block both of the fuckers. --User:C

No one else has responded to the thread in 48 hours. What do you do?

The purpose of this hypothetical situation was to present a complicated and fairly realistic situation in dispute resolution. This is a situation where administrators regularly do the most good, and the most harm, in large part because they are expected by the community and outsiders to deal with the situation. While I appreciate the desires to reward content contribution, vandal fighters, and so on, the critical administrative task is in this sort of problem solving, and I believe an admin candidate should rise or fall on how we think they will handle these situations, even if they state they are not interested in them, because eventually, they will come to you. In addition, administrators require good judgment, and the intellectual and personality traits that allow them to see nuances and pitfalls with little or no help from "the community." The hypothetical accordingly dealt with balancing competing concerns and a nearly useless peanut gallery. As with all such problems, I consider there to be no right answers, just wrong answers and better answers.

In this case, I have presented a biography of living person problem (and attendant reliable sources problem entangled with edit warring a possible misuse of legal terminology, poor use of edit summaries, significant incivility including a naked personal attack, supposed conflict of interest, and the difficulty in establishing real life identities. All of this was coupled with a stale report. As is often the case, one of the parties acting most egregiously had a valid point. I looked for answers that examined as much of the problem as possible, appropriately prioritized the BLP issue, and dealt with poor conduct by not only the two conflicting parties, but also the problems represented by users A. (inappropriate use of humor) B. (ultimately unhelpful response) and C (unnecessary and distracting vulgarity and attacks). The best answers are ones that dealt with conduct in such a way that directed the situation towards good content.

Hopefully, this was illuminating to people besides myself, and if there is no objection, I'd like to start making such hypothetical problems a regular features of RfAs.--Tznkai (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, and I fully agree with your thinking here. Just for the heck of it, I've decided to provide my own answer (without having looked at the current candidates' responses). I already passed, so what have I got to lose? :)

As there are several issues at hand here, I would take it bit-by-bit. First, I would address the edit warring issue; presumably the edit warring was several days ago since the ANI thread was so stale, so page protection does not seem necessary. I would then respectfully request that the anon confirm their identity via OTRS, as this is crucial to understanding the dispute. If it is confirmed that 555.555.555.1 is indeed part of Sarah Palin's family, I would leave an in-depth explanation of the situation on their talk page, and give them some ideas for moving forward, and a polite warning for COI editing as they were without doubt contributing with good intentions. Barring official confirmation, I would invoke AGF to assume they are who they say. I would then review the contributions of Neutral editor (talk · contribs) and determine if any further action is necessary. Judging by your description, one can assume this user is a SPA with a mission to push a point of view; if this is the case, a block may be in order. I would then review the article in question to determine what, if any, editorial actions need to be taken to bring the page in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Of course, blogs are usually not reliable sources for controversial information, so the offending sentence would have to be removed. Once the main issues are resolved, it would be necessary to warn A (talk · contribs) and C (talk · contribs) for incivility. Lastly, I would leave a detailed recap of my actions on the ANI thread.

Again, excellent idea. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea to bring up these kinds of questions at RFA, and any full answer like the one Julian gave would be great. However, as a voter, I would also be quite happy with an answer such as: "I would of course deal with the BLP issue [along the lines that Julian suggests] since every editor has an obligation to deal with BLP issues when they see them, but I would also make a statement asking for someone else to handle the potential block who knows more about civility blocking issues than I do." I don't need every admin to know (or pretend to know) everything, only the most important things, such as BLP. It's more important to me that candidates show that they know how to do some admin chore that needs doing, and that they're dedicated, trustworthy and civil. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That is perfectly fair. In fact, I fully encourage people to take even insufficient answers to hypos and support anyway if they believe the candidate will learn quickly. The benefit of hypothetical is the lack of simple yes know answers give multiple voters relevant information to make their decision.--Tznkai (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I often find these questions really hard to use as a gauge of a candidate's suitability for adminship. My own editing (and admin-ing) style is such that if I don't have a certain level of interest in a subject, I'm simply going to move along and find something that I have a higher interest level in. As a real-world example, I often skip deleting musical artists and groups because it's not always easy to determine notability. In fact, after >3100 deletions (with only one CSD overturned, and I still think it doesn't belong), I still watch-list articles rather than delete or even tag, just to see how others are adjudicating them. (In the not-too-distant past, it was much harder to get a stub in about a specific episode of a television show, for example, than it is today. Ditto for local roads; it seems mere mention in a newspaper is enough to belay CSD, at least. That's all fine, but my point is that it changes over time.)

I'm not suggesting such a question be dumped, but I caution against attaching too much significance to its answer. I think what we want most of all in this project - admin or otherwise - are people who demonstrate that they can find the right answer when they need to, not people who pretend they already know all the right answers. It's really hard to do that in this context, because the real-world answer we might choose is "no action", and that might be a perfectly legitimate response. RfA too often doesn't make allowance for that, instead labeling it as a sign of lack of experience, making a candidate unworthy. Frank | talk 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for involving me in the experiment. I did notice the same question had been posed to other candidates but did not base my answer on their replies. I don't think User:A was uncivil and would have just ignored User:B's comment. I don't see the need for any action against either of them. User:C on the other hand would warrant a warning. Mjroots (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

One word of caution I would have is that if these sorts of questions are to be used effectively, they are going to need to be refreshed and substantially altered frequently because they are very easy for the types of candidates we don't want passing (power-hungry MMORPGists) to learn the answer to and parrot it back. Skomorokh 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing is a risk, but I think a smaller risk with open ended questions than the typical q&a involved in. As things progress, I would like to have a large number of available hypos balancing different concerns available so every candidate gets a new one, but for right now, poor old me can only write so much so quickly. I wouldn't mind getting a lot of input and/or help on creating them however.--Tznkai (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, to deal with Frank's very legitimate concern, I think "do nothing" "ask for help" and similar responses can be excellent ones if well supported and would vote appropriately, although I am aware that many would look dimly on it. Would be admins need to get used to the idea of making a decision and explaining their thinking, even at the risk of disagreement. My hope that is that I can create questions that weigh in favor of the thoughtful admin, whatever their answer. In the end, we can't run scared from unreasonable voters, and we have to make sure that good information is out there for those who want it.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised at one of Juliancolton's points, and the lack of any comment on it, leaving the impression it was correct. I'm a big fan of AGF—one of the better policies here, but I don't interpret AGF as saying I have to take someone's word about who they claim to be. I read it as more related to motivation of actions—that we ought to attempt, even strain to interpret the actions in the best possible light. Maybe that revert was in error. Maybe the editor really thinks that edit improves the text, etc. But when it comes to assertions about oneself, especially ones that assert some expertise or special knowledge about a situation, I thought we were supposed to be more skeptical. Not combative, but more along the lines of "until and unless you use OTRS, we are going to assume you are just another editor, just like the rest of us, which means you need RS to add something, or good reason to revert something." Am I offbase here?--SPhilbrick T 21:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you can easily do both. Assuming that 555.555.555.1 in the hypo above was a relative of Sarah Palin doesn't mean you have to let their behavior go, it just adds information as you try to understand and solve the situation. The assumption of good faith is not , and never has been a suicide pact - for example, does not go as far as potential copyright infringement.--Tznkai (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In this example it doesn't matter if the person is a relative or not - they want to remove something they see as libel. Removing stuff for BLP is fine, unless there's good sources for it to go into the article. Letting them know about otrs, and mgodwin, is probably helpful. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, the first thing I thought of was "Hey, that's not a valid IP address." Aside from that, though, be aware that with hypothetical questions you'll get subjective answers. Obviously you could decide how much stock to put in the candidate's response, but I'm betting it will vary a lot, both in content and length. Other the other hand, though, subjective answers are (usually) far better and give much better insight than the near cookie-cutter answers to questions like the infamous block vs. ban. I prefer questions like this, but I'd also recommend a caveat of asking it selectively. If the candidate does not mention ANI in their answer to Q1, you might get an answer of "I have no intention of working at ANI." Useight (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Subjective answers give a lot more insight - and I personally couldn't care less about discussions on blocks versus bans, I think its a little bit of self indulgent process wonkery that smells too much of ideology and not enough of practicality. As to the specific issue of "I have no intention to work at ANI" my answer to that is going to be "too bad." Promises given at RfA are unenforceable, and when you sign up for the tools, you get the whole package. I expect DR skills out of every person handed the bit, and if they defer every request in the future, thats fine, but I operate under the assumption they are likely to end up in the thick of it.--Tznkai (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Useight...that was exactly my first thought, too, but I didn't want to look smart-allecky. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the IP address, you might be amused by 555 (telephone number). Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That was in fact, the point.--Tznkai (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Block the edit warriors indefinitely, with an assignment to read the policies about personal attacks and reliable sources, and to write a short paragraph summarizing what they read. If they get it, consider unblocking. If not, they stay blocked until they get it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need more questions at RfA and I strongly object to this proposal for more templated questions that are asked at every single RfA. No matter how interesting your hypothetical scenarios may be, more questions will simply bog down the process of RfA and discourage applicants. We obviously can't stop you, but it is a terrible idea to add more questions. The only reason you should be asking a question is if you have a specific concern about a specific candidate. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this a "templated" question, and to the rest of your concerns, I have a very specific concern about every admin - how likely is it they are going to muck up a bad situation in the future? DR is the defining characteristic of administration now - perhaps it should not be, but it is. It is where admins do the most damage, and the most good. Anyone who shies away because of a difficult hypothetical should not be running - anyone who admits upfront that they don't want to answer it will not recieve a support from me, but will be giving vital information to many other !voters. --Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So find a diff from that candidate's contriutions and ask a specific question - "Why did you do this?" "What would you do differently in future?" "Were you happy with the outcome?". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the most defining characteristic of admins? Are you serious? Maybe for the drama-hounds among us, but most admins stay the heck away from it as much possible. Dispute resolution is the purview of the community as a whole. Admins are simply given tools to enforce the community's consensus. They should have good judgment, sure, but that will come out in any reasonably-sized edit history naturally. I would also like to add that inaction is not a crime. I would MUCH RATHER have an admin who didn't do something because he or she was not confident in his or her judgment, than a thick-headed admin who decided to barrel on ahead believing in his or her infallibility. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In action is not a crime no - and sometimes is the best action, certainly - but that doesn't really link to your other point. When someone gets the admin bit, they gain the ability to protect pages and block accounts, and the gravitas, deserved or otherwise, that comes with that. It is where they do the most good, and most damage, and there is no telling where they will end up.--Tznkai (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is that you should be able to tell that overboldness/poor conflict skills/incivility/whatever in their edit history, without asking a detailed hypothetical. Past behavior is a much better predictor of what they will do in the future, I think, than what they say they'll do at RfA. I agree that my two points don't link up rather well. It feel like it was in response to some other comment in this thread, but I'm not seeing what I was specifically responding to anymore. Perhaps a lack of sufficient sleep. :) IronGargoyle (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial" questions
Is it really necessary to ask questions like this? (No offense NW, I just want to know what people think :)) I'm not criticizing this question in particular, but I'm taking it as an example of what something like that can lead to. This AFD was a very controversial one, and the whole community was pretty much divided in opinion over it. IMHO, the candidate will get opposes for his answer to this question whether he decides it's a keep or a delete. We do need to get an idea about the candidate's judgment and how he weighs each argument, but can't we use an example that is less controversial? I feel it would be a good idea to consider how someone with strong views about the given example would react (an !voter I mean; the candidate should nevertheless assess it carefully and neutrally) before asking a question at RfA, particularly since this is a place where personal opinions often count a lot. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You have a point: If a question is guaranteed to give 50% oppose votes regardless of the reply, then it would torpedo any candidacy, given that more than 50% support is needed for a candidacy to succeed. On the other hand, I don't want to start the slippery slope of censoring questions. I would hope that candidates are wise enough to make that judgment call for themselves. If i encountered such a controversial question, I would probably decline a reply with the above words. Now, I have to hope that voters are mature enough to accept that argument ... — Sebastian 08:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have an idea: How about if we left the question, but allowed other editors to add a one line comment just saying "This is a controversial question. Per Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#"Controversial" questions, the candidate is advised to decline a reply."? ~~I'll be bold and try it out.~~ : Never mind; candidate already replied. — Sebastian 08:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The question is fine. Suitable answers include "woah, that looks tricky. I'd leave it alone until I go a lot more experience." or "a controversial article. I'd make sure I'd read and understood all comments. I'd re-read policy o be sure. I'd close as X because of 1,2,3. And I'd make sure to be available for possible reviews and appeals. I might post to Noticeboard for a sanity check." NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that answering questions about controversial AFDs would automatically give the candidate opposes and supports. King of Hearts asked about a controverisal AFD, then noted his personal differing opinion about the answer, and supported. If anything, the 'controversial' questions are easier to answer because everyone reviewing the answer knows that it's easy to go either way on them. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Admins have another option when it comes to closing controversial discussions such as this one. They can look at it, decide that it's above their heads, move on without closing and pretend they didn't see it. While no admin candidate would admit that they would do something like that, I am sure many administrators have cherished that possibility. (For the record, I think both numbers (~70-20 for deletion) and the strength of arguments were on the side for deletion on that one.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think those sorts of questions that are based on real situations are more useful than most, actually (ie. "What's the difference between a block and a ban?"). It gives the candidate an opportunity to demonstrate their judgment under stress, knowing that there are potential consequences. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the more "pushy" the question is, the more useful it is, as it reveals character, or more to the point, it suggests how he would behave as an admin, when confronted by an uncivil user, for example. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Juliancolton: you mean "e.g.", not "i.e." Keepscases (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
More questions are a terrible idea (as I've said before), and these are particularly bad as they have a high potential to polarize the !voters, no matter which way the answer goes. I'm not going to dispute that some of the answers given above would be "good answers". Congrats folks, you are intelligent and have learned to play the RfA game well. I also agree with Sebastian that we shouldn't be censoring people. People should be censoring themselves and not asking questions unless it is specifically relevant to the candidate in question. I would also like to thank Sjakkalle for pointing out that there are no sins associated with not pressing that button. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Quote " While no admin candidate would admit that they would do something like that, I am sure many administrators have cherished that possibility."
Exactly, and therein lies the problem, They probably shouldn't answer either way, do to negative votes based ONLY on the answer to a question(and not their viability as an administrator), and they cant admit to being willing to request assistance or leave it to a more experienced admin. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The core problem is not the list of questions, it's that RfA is a popularity contest. A number of users are RfA hobbyists who will try to defeat any prospective admin that isn't a personal buddy of theirs or who might actually try to enforce the rules. Until you fix that problem, the process will remain broken. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you name a person who passed RFA because they were popular who wasn't trustworthy, dedicated or civil? I can't think of any. - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
In my experience it is not a popularity contest. I have !voted on RFAs for candidates who I had never heard of before they submitted their RFAs and many !voted in my RFAs were editors who I had not heard of before my RFAs. My belief is that !voters evaluate RFA candidates based on their contributions - in most cases what else do we have to go on? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, userboxes, for one. Tan | 39 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
"Popularity contest" is a pejorative that is frequently thrown out about RfA, but I don't see the truth in that term at all. Unless you mean that popular editors tend to be civil, thoughtful, intelligent and hard-working. Then rooting for the popular editors seems like a good thing. I think Wikipedians value these qualities more than some more vapid quality. I don't see any cliquishness in the RfA discussions themselves. The closest you get to that may be some overdeletionism/overinclusionism !votes, but even there you can argue both positions (being extreme) are not in line with general community consensus and can rightly be opposed. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
First the top question of should so-called "controversial" questions be asked. Of course they should. Adminship involves making decisions. In fact that's pretty much all it is. If a candidate can't make a decision and act on it, they aren't qualified to be an admin. If they can't even answer a question about how they would make a decision, they really aren't qualified. As to the "popularity contest" sometimes that is true, when RFA gamers come along and play the system to get the tools, but it's certainly not always the case. In fact I'm quite certain it wasn't the case at either of my RFAs. No offense to my fellow Wikipedians, but my friends are all in the real world, I'm pretty much a solo act on Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that, as we've seen twice in very recent history, some people can successfully game the system using simple observation of how you have to act to pass and playing to that, or by having admin friends who are willing to lend their names to boost the candidates credibility, but these folks seem to always make some mistake that reveals their deception and they get desysopped. The problem is that everyone seems to think they know what is wrong with RFA, but nobody seems to have an actual workable plan for a better system. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the controversial issues this year has been flagged revisions, and you might think it wasn't wise of me to submit an RFA whilst I had a banner on my page declaring my position on one side of that debate. Of course I got a question on it, but I don't think it damaged my RFA, people here know that the community is divided on many things and admins are not appointed as policy makers. But I disagree with you re workable plans for better systems, I think that there are loads of workable plans that have been suggested here, the problem is getting consensus for change. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawal by ZooFari
As per this, does anyone want to do the honours ... the piling on since the withdrawal is unfortunate! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
...and/or at least show me the process (or point me to a script if we have one) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
HI BW - User:EVula/admin#RfA_closure covers it neatly! Jamie has done this one. Pedro : Chat 21:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Got it - better to ask than to eff it up :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Pulling out
How do I pull out of RfA, I wish to pull out. 95jb14 18:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95jb14 (talk • contribs)
I have done the first step of the closing, so people won't add further comments. Hopefully someone else will complete the procedure. decltype (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, 95jb14 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC).

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Julian. decltype (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to help. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Gaps between RFAs
One problem at RFA is the widely varying standards that !voters have. If we were an interview panel we would take some time to discuss and try to synchronise our standards; I appreciate that the analogy is not perfect and it would be futile to try and completely synchronise standards at RFA, but I think it worth at least discussing some of the standards that we have, one of which is how long should one wait before rerunning?.
Currently I don't think we have any guidance on this for candidates, and I suggest that it would be useful to mention this in Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. I thought there was something of an unwritten rule that three months was a minimum gap, and I waited four before mine. However I also see an argument that knowledge can be picked up with experience and reading the policies, but judgement, clue and behavioural issues, take longer to acquire or change. As for trust issues, perhaps 12 months good editing would be a more appropriate gap after a block. Also should the gap between your support percentage and the normal success level make a difference, with a candidate who got 30% support needing to wait longer than one who got 65%?
Unlike normal Talk:RFA threads I can promise that this one will make a difference, if only to my own RFA !voting criteria which will be getting an overdue update. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think a hard and fast rule is helpful. There are so many variables. Timmeh may get away with a new RfA after a briefer gap than I think he should have, but that is his business. I would leave it in the judgment of the candidate, who has to keep in mind that a loss may reset the clock and also many people won't vote for a fourth or fifth RfA on general principles, so there is a limit.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes there are many variables, which is one reason why I thought it worth discussing the principle here. It does come up in an awful lot of RFAs, including both that are currently running, but rather than discussing it in relation to current or possible future RFAs can I suggest we use examples that are now academic? For example my second RFA was just four months after my first and I don't think anyone opposed as too soon. In hindsight how small a gap could I have left before people would have opposed for not waiting longer? Ϣere SpielChequers 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clearly a "case-by-case" issue. Poor old Porchcrop's RfA really isn't going down the shitter because he didn't wait long enough since his last attempt, rather it's because clearly he's not a suitable candidate. There will be other cases (and I'm sure there have been) where a short gap between an unsuccessful attempt and a successful attempt will be quite brief and that's just fine. Crafty (talk) 13:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Adding synchronized standards, no matter where you add it, is setting a bar for admission. We've already hashed this out above. I don't think we need to rehash it again. Wikipedia:PEREN#Prerequisites_for_adminship applies. That's not to say there may be a reason to create a bar in the future, but there's no evidence to suggest a bar would be helpful now. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Synchronising or at least discussing our standards is not about setting a bar for adminship; it is about discussing what criteria different !voters use and why. In a way its an opportunity for those who hold strong opinions as to a particular RFA criteria to argue their case in the abstract rather than in the context of a particular candidate. I've been following this page for quite a while and I can't remember a previous discussion as to how long candidates should leave between RFAs, and I'd be interested in learning how other editors decide whether a previous run is too recent (fairly full disclosure - I'm considering nominating another candidate at some point and I'd like to get the comunities views on gaps between RFA candidates before I advise them when to run). Ϣere SpielChequers 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Maybe what's needed are some different RFA parties (each agreeing certain criteria) editors can join, and whose policies they would broadly agree to mostly follow. Editors can then gravitate to whatever party suits them (or start a new one), and maybe more consistency will emerge that way (and debate be easier as taking place in smaller groups). Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh good god no. The bloody stupid inclusionist/deletionist crap is bad enough. The last thing we need is even more formalized division. → ROUX ₪ 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion. But to answer your point, inclusionist/deletionist is a pointlessly broad marker, and the meanings have no organising processes to define them. Self-organising parties would be collaboratively developing agreed criteria. (Call them WikiProjects if it makes you more comfortable.) Rd232 ^talk 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want candidates who know the idiosyncracies of RFA, I want candidates who know Wikipedia. That suggests we should put things in the Guide that people can't be expected to know, but OTOH, if we write current preferences into the Guide, that kind of writes them in stone and makes them harder to change. On this issue, I lean in the direction of putting it in the Guide. RFA voters virtually always reject candidates who reapply in less than 3 months. (The only two exceptions that come to mind are Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nja247_2, where the nominator counted the months wrong and there was discussion in the prior RFA about coming back early, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/FlyingToaster_2, which blew up immediately after it succeeded.) Some voters have said that this 3-month rule isn't just about what the candidate can or can't do in 3 months, it's also motivated by a sense of fairness: "This is a lot of work and it's not your turn yet, give other people a chance". It seems unlikely to me that this preference will change, and it seems unfair not to warn candidates about this preference of the voters. - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This thread was probably started in part because of comments I made on a current RfA so I'll weigh in here. As someone who hardly ever !votes in RfA (I think about a dozen times in over 3 years) and who does not frequent this talk page, I think the idea that it's okay to run for RfA 3 months after a failed one is a bit insane. This is partially a question of Wikitime vs. "real" time. In Wikitime three months can feel like an eternity, but in real life it's not very long at all (except for the very young, and I say this as someone who is barely in my thirties, which I guess makes me a young person in my society but on the verge of qualifying for Medicare on Wikipedia). A three-month gap gives me the impression of racing back to RfA as soon as possible, whereas I'd prefer a failed candidate to go at least three months without even thinking about returning to RfA. There is absolutely no harm in waiting longer, and I think it shows greater respect for the community judgment in the failed RfA to do so. Personally I would say 6 months is pretty much an absolute minimum (of course there might be exceptions, as with anything), but really I'd prefer longer than that. A good rule of thumb might be, "if you even have a small doubt that it might be too soon after your last RfA, then it probably is." But I don't frequent these pages so my opinion might be atypical and thus not particularly important. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Depends on why the RfA failed in the first place... if it failed due to personality or judgment calls, then I agree 3 months is probably not enough time for most people. If the first RfA was close, and failed primarily due to a lack of experience, 3 months might be more than enough time. (After all, on a close RfA, the person was probably close to having the desired experience to begin with.) So a hard fast rule is impossible. How close was the RfA and why did it fail? Those are going to be the factors that determine how long somebody should wait.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Ballonman hit the nail on the head. If you failed because the community didn't see enough evidence of your judgment, three more months may be enough to show sufficient evidence. If you failed because the community did see enough evidence of your judgment, and found it wanting, the community wants far more than three months of evidence that you've changed.--SPhilbrick T 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. An RfA that closes do to inadequate experience can (IMO) effectively be ignored when considering when to run again. That is, if I expect a 6 month tenure with 5000 edits (for clarity, I don't personally have a number in mind when evaluating people) and someone runs at 4 months and 4000 edits and fails due to inadequate experience but no other major issue, a run again in 2 months might be OK.

However, if someone with a year of experience and 10000 edits runs and fails due to judgment/personality problems, I would expect them to "start over on the clock". That is wait long enough that I can judge them solely based on their new edits and reach a confident conclusion, or using my example another 6 months and 5000 edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
This seems to be asking people with poor judgement to have good judgement about when to run again. I can see the problem there. Personally, I want bad candidates for admin to keep applying to RfA every eight weeks. They'll be told, usually politely, that they're not ready and they need more experience in some area, and they'll not get the tools. That's a good thing. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Your first two sentences made me laugh (excellent point, BTW) but I definitely don't agree with the rest of your statement. If people are coming to RfA every two months ad nauseum, that is not a good thing. One, it means then that the RfA process is failing to give them appropriate feedback. I don't think anyone here is mean enough to say "Do this for two months then come back so I can tell you you fail for other reasons." We should just give constructive feed back - "Do A, B, and C for a while, then come back in a while." Ideally nobody should need more than 2 RfAs. One to try and, failing that, a second to show they took all the input into consideration and made changes over a period of time. Anything else should be exceptional cases (under-a-cloud resysoping, specific incidents, etc.) or the candidate not doing something. And two, it makes sysopship a goal and the sole point of the candidate's presence here. That leaves them bitter during the process and with a chip on their shoulder if/when they get the bit, which does not a good sysop make. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 23:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I think as much as we howl and complain here, a pretty strong and consistent expectation of "6 months" is developing out in the trenches. Good bad or indifferent, it is occurring. Protonk (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Why should we accept that? People here are talking as if they have no control over these trends but RfA regulars can make a difference. There used to be a consistent "doesn't need the tools" trend and people fought it. People fought against editcountitis. I ran four months after a failed RfA and nobody suggested I was two months early. These arbitrary standards encourage the unfortunate laziness of some RfA participants. It's easier to find a nice reason to oppose than to delve into the contribs and evaluate the pros and cons. Timmeh not only failed this RfA, he has probably lost any opportunity to be an admin in the future because we all know that the "too many RfAs" oppose will sink the next one. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I think Timmeh as one more chance. If he waits six months, and if there are no more issues, I think he will pass in a landslide. If he jumps the gun again, well, that's life.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Accept it or don't accept it. I also am not terribly sure that editcountitis has been fought back, but that depends on where the goalposts are. I'm just suggesting that a lot of the talk on this page is gonna be surplus to requirements. Protonk (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest that there appears to be a scale: 3 months between first and second, 6 months between second and third. Although, by that reckoning I should have gone through again it months ago :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What's odd is that I was told by a few editors that 3 months would be a good amount of time to wait before running for a third time, and those who didn't specify the minimum amount of time I should have waited then opposed me for not waiting long enough. After enduring three failed RfAs and learning a lot in the process, I think the general thinking around here is that if the last RfA failed due to concerns about temperament or judgment, the minimum waiting time should be 6 months, as opposed to 3 months for experience and knowledge concerns. Tim meh 21:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, damned if we do, damned it we don't, right? I do hope you saw my note on your talk, by the way. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I did, and I'm glad you at least didn't oppose. Hopefully, you'll be able to trust me when/if I ever run again. Three RfAs have left me with a bitter taste in my mouth, and that's an understatement; I'm really sick of this place, and for now I'd just like to get back to doing article work and stay away from this infernal place. Tim meh 22:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Timmeh, I didn't look at your RfA, but my general sense is that if you failed 3 RfA's you REALLY want to put a lot of distance before you run for the fourth... the 3/6 month guideline works for first attempts... after 3 failed attempts, I would suggest waiting a year. And this has NOTHING to do with you personally, but my sense of how the community responds to 4th or greater RfA's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Balloonman but that's just nuts. First of all, "the community" is not some abstract entity: it's you, me and the very limited handful of editors who actually participate at RfA with any sort of regularity. The fact is that RfA changes when we do. We don't deliberately seek that control over RfA but we have it for all practical purposes. There's no 3/6 month guideline, there never has been. It only takes a few individuals to transform an 80% passed RfA to a 70% failed one. Once we have seen close RfAs fail with some mentions of, say, 3 months, we begin to equate "less than 3 months" with "likely failure" and perpetuate that standard. I had my own reservations about Timmeh but I'd like to note the following absurdity. If he had waited until January, he'd have gotten less oppose and might have swayed a couple of neutrals. Most likely, that small change would have been sufficient. But now he's gone through RfA again so an RfA in January is in your mind out of the question. That doesn't make sense. He can either do the job or he can't. And if he can, I'd rather have the extra hand in January 2010 and not January 2011. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
He's free to run whenever he wants... I personally don't put much weight in the time frames... but after two years of watching this page, I can tell you that people who run for a fourth or more time will garner some auto opposes (which I think is unfair, but it happens.) I can also tell you that people who run more than 3 times in a year have been labelled with wanting the tools too bad (again, an oppose rationale that I don't agree with.) Between those two facts, people who have failed 3 times, generally should put distance between their future RfA and past ones. Again, this is not advice based upon my personal biases, but rather from watching and observing RfA's for 2 years.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum, I've just done some research. There ar very few people who have passed after 3 failed RfA's. I could only find 4, but there might be more (namely if they ran under different names.) Cool3 ran 6 weeks after withdrawing, but had waited over a year prior running for his 3rd. Geni also had a gap of several years between 2nd and 3rd attempts. Werdna waited 13 months before passing with almost 200 supports... Hdt83 was the real exception. He had 5 RfAs in an 8 month period, but he passed almost two years ago. 5 RfA's in 8 months would never fly in today's environment. While there are only four who have passed, there are more who have failed, and those who fail often have opposes based in part upon the number of RfA's. He waited 8 months and failed... waited seven months and prior RfA's listed as reason for opposes... Waited 3 years, but number of previous RfA's listed as reason for opposes... Waited 9 months, but a lot of politics involved...18 months, but number of RfA's >=4 listed as reason for oppose... There were two that were closed within a day of opening, both of whom waited over a year. One had numerous references to the number of failed RfA's. Again, if somebody wants to run, they are free to do so, but from my observation of the community, you get two free failed RfA's. After the second failed RfA, it starts to become a stigma. My advice, is not to run until you are fairly certain that you'd pass... or put a good amount of time between attempts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The funny thing is, there are some people who will always oppose: I expect that if I do run myself through RfA again, one specific editor will come back and say "he told me to fuck off once" again, even though they withdrew it last time. Next time, they'll bring friends. If it looks like I'm close to being successful, then they'll bring more friends. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my talkpage to figure out what to do with this "admin barnstar" someone awarded me today because they think I'm an admin already. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Better to be thought an administrator than to actually be one. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Each RfA is different and should be treated as such. There should be as few rules as possible in this process. A consensus of interested peers at the time of the RfA is what counts. What needs work is developing ways to reduce the drama. Kingturtle (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
To reduce the drama you'd have to change the mentality and society of English-speaking people, which is a difficult endeavor in itself. @harej 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Talk page didn't work
I had to do some manual work to adjust my nominator's RFA form (he's travelling, so he couldn't fix it himself), and now the talk page didn't show up properly. Can anyone that knows what to do help with that?—Kww(talk) 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Doing... –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.—Kww(talk) 23:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:FPPR
There are technical details to be worked out on how we select reviewers for the version of Flagged Revisions that's being tested here. My understanding is that it's a done deal that we'll start doing this on a trial basis sometime soon on en.wp; if this is not a done deal ... well, I don't want to tell anyone what WT:RFA should or shouldn't be used for, I'll continue the discussion somewhere in my user space if it looks like the discussion here is getting sidetracked by the eternal "FR rules! FR sucks!" debate. So: WP:VETTING obviously didn't work, I was the only reviewer other than the guy who set the page up, and if individuals don't want to take the risk of privately reviewing people for adminship, they probably won't want to take the greater risk of making the call on Reviewership, since anyone who hands out the privilege is going to catch flak if the reviewer turns out to be uncivil, untrustworthy or not competent in the role. The question of whether it would work in theory isn't important if we can't find the people who will get it done. We don't seem to have trouble getting people to !vote on these things, though, so where would that happen, and how do we figure out who would make a good Reviewer? - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I can break out my handy graph, illustrating the FR rules! FR Sucks! debate along with a metric on what flagged revisions means to many people if anyone likes .... Pedro : Chat 13:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
For people who didn't participate in the latest FPPR poll and might not be up on this, WP:FPPR is intended, at a minimum, to stop public-relations disasters such as this in BLP articles. (Again, not trying to start up debate again ... there were more than 300 votes in that poll, and that was the 6th poll, I believe.) It probably won't do any good to debate how serious "Requests for Reviewership" should be; it will be serious if people take it seriously, we'll just have to see. But I can't see how it could be anything like RFA when no admin userrights are at stake and it only involves one job. OTOH, it's got to be more serious than PERM, because the Reviewers need to be competent and trustworthy or FPPR will fail spectacularly ... we're not talking about rollback here. FPPR is supposed to screen out the worst offenses ... analogous to WP:CSD#G3, WP:CSD#G10, WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12, except for all edits instead of just newpages, on some set of BLP pages. So if we've got to guess who would make a good reviewer, I would think competence in CSD work would be a big plus. Some level of trustworthiness is important, otherwise people will apply for Reviewership to help them get their way on their favorite articles. - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There should probably be an essay on granting this access. Will administrators be the ones who can do this? Any way, the roll backers, many of the vandal fighters, and some of the failed candidates here would qualify. Also those working on WP:Biography or its subprojects may be interested. What I am more worried about is a lack of interest in doing this work. Leading to a very long queue. We should have a page to request the Reviewership flag. Also we can hop that the vandals will give up! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not optimistic that individual admins will want to do the vetting; would you want to be the guy who promotes the reviewer who's responsible for the next "Wikipedia says Senators Kennedy and Byrd are dead" story? And if even if we did get a handful of admins to make these calls solo, there would be the usual criticisms about gate-keeping and inbreeding, since three months of reviewing is likely to be very appealing to RFA voters. I agree with you that we probably need a page, and I'd be surprised if we can't attract a lot of candidates and at least 10 or 20 conscientious voters for each candidate. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This is why firing squads exist(ed) - so no single person took the blame for an execution. Maybe we should take a leaf from that book, and grant permission if three permission-granters say OK. Yes, that would need more permission-granters and slow things down, BUT it would make being a permission-granter less daunting, so you might get more. You could even combine the two - allow permission-granters to grant full permission straight away if they think it justified, or 1/3 of the permission if they're fairly sure but don't want to stick their neck out. Rd232 ^talk 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You let them do it. You say that some things will lead to instant revoking of the tool, and other things cumulatively lead to loss of the tool. This loss is usually not permanent, and want-to-be reviewers can re-apply after, say, a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
But how does it help us with the workload, if we have to check everything they're doing to see if they get it right? I understand people are worried that we won't have enough workers, but I think you'll get more people interested in doing the job if the job carries some respect and a vote of confidence from the community. - Dank (push to talk) 00:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not as if admins need to check. If there are any big famous mistakes that will become known to many. Smaller ones discovered early may result in a vandalism warning by anyone who spots dodgy contributions. Perhaps we can encourage the presence of a bot stop button (button to block) if something goes wrong. Or perhaps we should trust the Reviewers more. I am sure the Reviewer will get the blame if they vandalize, not the admin who gave them the Reviewer bit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add Reviewer to the Wikipedia:Requests for permissions page and build up a pool of people ready to take on the job when it comes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ugh. Extrapolating from the lack of responses in this thread and in previous FPPR threads, my uneducated guess is that FPPR will be perceived as a failure ... basically because the role of reviewer will be attractive to POV-pushers and vandals, and even the reviewers who have the right attitude will have a hard time with it, because it's not a trivial job to learn how to make CSD-type judgment calls, and there doesn't seem to be much interest from the community in the necessary training and vetting. My strategy at this point is to let the matter rest, wait until FPPR goes FUBAR, and then start a discussion about how to learn from the mistakes we made. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I may be off-based, but I see "reviewer" as "not a big deal" (in the actual sense of that phrase as it is used in the real-world). There is absolutely nothing challenging about filtering out "Celebrity X likes to have sex with Y" edits. Reviewership is not intended to be tight editorial control (which is to say that it shouldn't concern itself with POV issues or verifiability). It's really something that any rollbacker could be trusted to do (and I think the bar might even be a bit lower). As for the admin who granted reviewership taking the fall if a reviewer goes wrong, that's bull $&^%. After an admin flames out and get desysopped no one comes after the promoting 'crat or the RfA participants. Similarly, I've never seen an admin get into hot water over giving out rollback, NPP, etc. Obviously, if some administrator is in the habit of granting reviewership to people who shouldn't have it over and over again, then that's behavior that should be discussed. 14:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.214.112 (talk)
Well, I should apologize for the "FUBAR" tone, I've just realized I've been in a bad mood. The current version of the Wikipedia:Reviewing guideline says:
A revision should not be patrolled if it :
conflicts with the Biographies of Living People policy

contains vandalism or patent nonsense

contains copyright violations

contains legal threats, personal attacks or libel.
Reviewers are not required to thoroughly check for original research, neutrality, and verifiability compliance, but egregious violations of those policies should better not be patrolled.
Clear promotionalism would be considered an "egregious" violation of NPOV, I would think, so we're talking here about being able to distinguish WP:CSD G1, G3, G10, G11, G12 for new pages, plus violations of BLP policy, and extending this to individual edits on existing pages. The vigorous discussions in the past two years of RFAs suggest to me that CSD is not trivial to learn, even for people who see themselves on an admin track, and it might be a good idea to lower our expectations of FPPR. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's a couple of ideas tossed out, in no particular order.

Reviewers could be:
Wikipedians in good standing with at least 3 month of editing and 500 edits

Who have been active in BLP, RCP or NPP areas and haven't had any worrying amount of negative feedback of their activities (beyond normal learning curve and the occasional honest mistake)

Demonstrated ability in proper sourcing of material is an asset

Reviever flag is granted as follows:
Requests are evaluated by a group comprised of admins and reviewers with 3 months of good tenure

Reviewer hopefuls are being vetted by 3 to 4 members of the group, must have three net yes votes

Request for reviewer tools run for 72 hours, if unsuccessful, another request cannot be placed before 60 days. If incomplete, the request can either be extended or closed without prejudice to re-running at any time.

Misuse of the tool due to cluelesness can lead to removal without prejudice to reobtaining them later on

Malicious misuse of the tool will lead to removal, appropriate sanctions, and a 1 year minimum probation before seeking them again.

Last but not least, not sure if this is technically feasible at all but it may be a good idea to check with Coren if CorenSearchBot can re-scan all patrolled pages for copyvio issues. MLauba (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Goodpoint about copyvios, the other three are easily picked up by looking at the article, but copy vio is a different kettle of fish, even if we got people to check each article against its sources that wouldn't necessarily deal with copy vio. If we could take that out of the process then I'd say that recent changes patrollers who've made good calls at AIV would be logical candidates, as would anyone who has been using rollback for a while. I'm also reluctant to go for a two month gap between applications, that is way too close to an RFA standard. Is it worth asking the Germans how they chose reviewers? Ϣere SpielChequers 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Duh, how obvious. Here are the German criteria:

Editors may request the rights on a special page, they will normally be attributed if the user is eligible for voting (it isn't immediately clear if this means WMF-style votes or is a local voting right).

In addition to the manual process, any editor gets reviewer rights automatically, once all of the following conditions are fulfilled:
The account is at least 60 days old

300 contribs in article space OR 200 patrolled contribs in article, file or template namespace, excluding deleted contribs

empty block log

At least 15 contribs that have been made in a timespan of more than 72 hours within each other (huh?)

5 contribs to the article namespace within the last 7 days

Contribs in article namespace are to 12 or more distinct articles

At least 30 edits must have edit summaries

No more than 5 edits have been reverted by users with the autoreviewer flag.

That's how they do it. MLauba (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The part about being eligible for voting is their local rules. User must be registered, have been editing for at least two months and contributed at least 200 edits to the article namespace. And for that matter, voting rights are required for voting in RFC, RfA, RfB, CU and Oversight elections, RfDA and community-requested blocks. MLauba (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
These requirements translate to: "harmless newbie that few people care about" (specifically, <5 reverts). What's good for a small village (say, direct election at a town meeting) does not scale up to a larger community. Yes, we will all be happy to see harmless newbies policing every step of Gianos and Ottavas, but there are hardly enough such volunteers to begin with. NVO (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Well, de is still the second largest project, I wouldn't exactly call it a small village. That being said, the reviewers for the pilot phase should definitely be chosen on strict criteria IMO, we perhaps should tap into senior editors from the BLP wikiproject, as well as GA / FA reviewers more than vandalism fighters during the trial. For the long run, though, we will need many, many reviewers, possibly more than what a purely manual selection can handle (and this contradicts my ideas from above). On a different note, Coren said he'd be looking into how difficult it would be to expand CSB's scope to newly patrolled revisions, and that will certainly help (except for the backlog at WP:SCV but I digress).
German-language environment is fairly homogenous and does not need to deal with as many problems as the "main" wikipedia. They cannot escape Eastern Europe and Turkish-Armenian saber-rattling, but otherwise it's a safe haven. NVO (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Expanding CorenSerarchBot would be an excellent idea, Ideally I'd like to see that do the copy vio part of patrolling as I see that as a different job to reviewing - alternatively we need to train people in checking for copyvio. As for "harmless newbie that few people care about" I'd phrase that as "uncontroversial newbie who hasn't yet offended anyone" and yes thats who we are looking for here, they aren't being asked either to weigh consensus or to understand the privileged status of certain vested contributors, nor in this role would they need to. Of course once we have some people doing this we can expand both critical groups here, the reviewers and just as importantly those whose edits are "trusted" and don't need checking. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Noindexing
The discussion at Wikipedia:VPT#Noindex question suggests that RFAs are indexed (picked up by Google) for as long as they run, and not indexed after that (although what's on the Internet tends to stay on the Internet). All the deletion discussion pages are automatically noindexed (see MediaWiki:Robots.txt) because it wouldn't make sense to argue that material shouldn't be transmitted ... and push it up in Google searches just by arguing about it. The same argument applies to some RFAs, I would think, where we're discussing material that got deleted for good reasons. Would you guys prefer for all RFAs to be noindex'd? Would you prefer that we mention in the Guide that it's okay to add {{noindex}} to an RFA if it contains a discussion of deleted material? - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It has been noindexed since bugzilla:11261 I think. MBisanz ^talk 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. The RfA subpages are all noindexed, but RfA itself is not. So anything transcluded on WP:RFA (i.e. active RfAs) is indexed. See this Village Pump thread. Shubinator (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

~~I don't think a transcluded noindex will be effective in preventing a version-in-time of WP:RFA from being indexed, and~~ I would oppose noindexing of WP:RFA proper. –xeno^talk 14:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to no index RFAs if that means they are less likely to appear in google searches. I would hope that if we made this change then candidates who edit in their own name might be slightly less reticent to run through the hazing ceremony that RFA sometimes degenerates into. A lot of our candidates are of working age or will be at some point in the future, and I think that no index will reduce the number of times a future prospective employer looks at someone's RFA. However I may have missed something and I'd be interested in knowing what advantage Xeno sees in having RFA indexed. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Xeno) Then that's a bug that needs fixing, otherwise people will be afraid to talk about the sensitive material that often needs to be discussed openly in RFA, including G10 material that was deleted for a reason and that could hurt both Wikipedia and the subjects of the attacks if it were picked up on Google. Until the bug is fixed and we can noindex individual RFAs as needed, then per policy (WP:Libel, WP:NPA, G10, etc) and per analogy to deletion discussion pages, which are noindexed, I believe WP:RFA needs to be noindexed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(re WSP) Individual RFAs are already noindexed. Dank is talking about the indexing of WP:RFA on the day an RFA is occuring where there is content that ought be no-indexed.

I was mistaken above, transcluded no-indexing should work fine. So, 1) noindex any contentious RFAs individually and Google will not index WP:RFA whilst they are transcluded.

Alternatively, 2) we could add Noindex to every RFA, which would of course be redundant to the settings in robots.txt, and allow WP:RFA to only be indexed on those rare days where it is empty. I prefer (1). –xeno^talk 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, that works for me. I'd be in favor of adding a recommendation to the RFA Guide along these lines. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Retention
I think its a bit silly how we browse wikipedia looking for new editors to promote on a daily basis. Instead we ought to focus on admin retention and keeping the admins we already have with incentives and perks. South Bay (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
$$$$---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Do the admins that go inactive keep editing, or do they disappear of Wikipedia altogether? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Why would I ever want an incentive or perk? Even in Reinforcement as it relates to certain therapies, the giving of candy or desired objects as a positive external reinforcer eventually gives way to the "satisfaction of a job well done" being the self-reinforcing feeling. Most people don't want to be abused in their bill-paying jobs, so being abused in a volunteer position burns them out. At some point, the balance between "job well done" and "stop f'ing attacking me" goes out of whack. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it varies Graeme. I can think of admins who did both anyway. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 12:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
So perhaps we need a lobby and encourage, and not a name and shame. Perhaps we need someway to detect that an admin is getting close to burn out. Are there any clues in talk back or edit summaries? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I would assume that there would be a substantial decline in admin actions and/or edits. If there was a decline of more than a standard deviation or two, they might be on their way out. Useight (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I gave the first indications of retirement back in December when I ran for 'crat. It's taken 10 months to reach the point where I am basically serving a watchkeeper role only (Eg I check a slimmed down version of my watchlist only---I removed 80% of the pages I used to watch.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some continue to edit on occassion. I still log in, but I know that others have just edited anonymously and I suspect that some have taken on Socks and started editing under a new name. I also suspect that some disappear completely. (My wife has probably only made a handful of edits in the past year.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly my point, most of them stopped editing completely and some have established a new account. South Bay (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Personally, after I sold Boomis, and founded Wikipedia, I took some time off from the project while letting various members continue to use my old name. Truth be told, even I wasn't the first Dread Pirate Roberts, but then... that's a much longer story. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The perks as far as I can see are the abilities to make Wikipedia cleaner and to reduce activities that take users away from time on articles. Kingturtle (talk) 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Trying to detect people close to burnout reminds me of something Esperanza once did. They had an editor alerts page for people who were high in stress. I once added my name on that page, and within minutes I got inundated with template messages asking me to stay around. The attention felt kind of good, but really, it was really trivial. My point is that if we find a means of keeping tabs on admins who are approaching burnout, we have to make sure our reaction isn't cheap. @harej 02:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really browse around Wikipedia looking for editors to promote on a daily basis? I gotta say I've been here for years and was never aware of that. Who does that? Equazcion (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that people have started to do that since we are running an admin deficit. @harej 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Check the recent archives of this page, there were numerous threads discussing the "search" and who might be qualified. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Not so radical idea for RfA reform
So, RfA seems to have gotten a bit contentious lately, and many would say that it's gotten out of hand. I propose a small semantic change to the process: All threaded discussion on an RfA is confined to the talk page. Every user is permitted to register their support/oppose/neutral comment, with as lengthy of an explanation as they desire. No user, however, is permitted to reply to that comment outside of their own vote, or on the talk page. This doesn't eliminate the vitriol, but rather sweeps it under the rug. I'd wager, though, that much of the grandstanding that goes on would be quickly curtailed if it were just a little more hidden. HiDrNick! 02:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it's a good idea to foster dialog. I think this workaround could repress that. I think it's a good tool to have to be able to say "I don't agree with this as an oppose rationale, here's why". I don't think making the discussion more pleasant is worth the loss of that. delldot ∇. 02:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I've rarely seen something good come out of this kind of dialog. From what I've seen, most of the time it just degenerates into petty bickering. I've proposed similar in the past, discussion is allowed, but only between the person who cast the vote, and the nominee.Dave (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, presumably the point of such discussion is to further understand a particular comment in a way that will enlighten others; things that get too far afield and stop being helpful get moved to the talkpage. If you don't think responding to a particular support or oppose !vote will help anyone else (other voters, passersby, 'crats, etc.) then it should really just be on a talkpage, whether RfA or user. The problem with threaded discussions is that they often stop affecting the outcome and just become two or three editors going back and forth. People just need to keep things (mostly) relevant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be admitting that RFA is now a vote and we might as well do away with explanations of votes (if you can't point out that a comment is nonsense, then you can't trust the comments and might as well ignore them [unless they actually include evidence]). Perhaps it is time to do that (with a discussion period before the vote - hopefully that discussion would be more amicable, only one way to find out). --Tango (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Your heart is in the right place, but eliminating discussion (or shifting it) won't help the situation. I'm uncomfortable with turning RfAs into, more or less, a straight vote. Among other things, this would possibly enable someone to make bogus claims that would go unaddressed, which could get picked up by subsequent participants that, perhaps, aren't as interested in full investigations as others. (as much as we'd like to pretend that it doesn't happen, let's be real) That makes me even more uncomfortable than turning it into a straight vote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
There are still occasions where people change their !vote as a result of discussion. It doesn't happen often enough but to my mind that isn't a reason to end the practice. I can think of one recent one where factual errors were pointed out in some of the oppose !votes. To my mind whilst there are several reasons why I believe RFA to be broken, the last vestiges of civil discussion are not among them. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have been persuaded in the course of several RfAs to switch from oppose to neutral or even to support and at least once to switch out of support. Discussion is a good thing and even when we support someone, we should say why. I always try to take into account multiple aspects of a candidate and even when supporting as I did with 3/4 of the current candidates, I at least want to show what I all looked at, why I think they are positives, and also just to provide the candidate with an encouraging message as here, here, and [1]. I plan to resist interacting too much otherwise and will now only reply to other editors once someone has commented on my stance either directly as in a reply to my stance or indirectly as in one of those blanket comments about supports or opposes. If no one directly or indirectly challenges me, I would rather say my peace and move on, but anyway, I do encourage editors to consider going beyond a simple support, because even if everyone has already noted the positives, it only takes a minute or two to still leave an encouraging message for the candidate or something. Anyway, I need to have some oatmeal and tea, so take care! Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I think this is just trying to avoid the problem ("sweep it under the rug", as you wrote above). I think it would be better to try to fix the problem itself. If someone is becoming overly contentious, then they should be warned about it on their talk page, same as in any other discussion anywhere else on the site. WP:CIVIL applies sitewide. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with the idea, but it would at least be necessary to allow the candidate to respond in order to correct errors of fact, and probably good to allow the !voter to add followups. I wouldn't object to pushing discussion by other editors to the talk page. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I guess I need to be more clear: I have no problem with discussions taking place within the !voting sections provided they remain civil. If people become incivil, then they need to be warned about it. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I was actually intending to respond to the original post -- indentation is always a problem in long threads. Looie496 (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem might not be with the system but with some individuals. No matter what system we devise, particular individuals will figure out ways to game it. I'd like to consider ways to change the behavior of said individuals, not through sanctions, but through some sort of good-willed effort to bring them into the fold. Sounds idealistic, and might be extremely difficult to do in an online environment, but until we address the behavior of said individuals, no systemic change will really help. Kingturtle (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You lost me with the opening line: "RfA seems to have gotten a bit contentious lately." This is by no means a recent phenomenon. As to the idea that we move to a "discussion first, voting later" model, I'm afraid that has been tried. I always thought it was a shame that it wasn't given more of a chance, only one "test RFA" was run under that model, but the community (or maybe it was just the RFA regulars) hated it and it was never tried again. (Sorry I don't remember who the poor user was who volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb). Beeblebrox (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 may be the one you are thinking of.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. That wold be the one all right. Funny how it worked out, he answered nearly 50 questions, yet actual voting was kind of light. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There would be the practical consideration of managing this. It's ok to say don't do something, but that doesn't prevent the practice. Who's going to start moving stuff, telling people that stuff's been moved, handling the fall out disputes. Clerks are already stretched. Leaky Caldron 20:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
vote or !vote
Em.. if RFA is not a vote rather than a !vote, why do we keep such a close eye on the percentages? It clearly *is* a vote and say anything else is frankly deluded. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
The trite answer would be that this is one of our sacred cows and failure to pay obsequeince to it will lose you votes at an RFA or RFB. A psephological answer is that calling it a vote would then raise the question of why oppose votes are worth almost three times as much as a support vote, and why crats have discretion and have appointed candidates with as little as 69% and could in theory fail someone with as much as 75% (though I've no idea how long it is since someone with more than 74% was not promoted). But the answer I prefer is that this is supposed to be a discussion not a popularity contest; Which is why opposers are supposed to give logical reasons why they think the candidate should not be appointed at this time; Voters are supposed to follow the subsequent discussion and if their point has been rebutted be prepared to reconsider their position; and last but by no means least, unlike in normal voting, voters can alter their position during the seven days. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(though I've no idea how long it is since someone with more than 74% was not promoted) anyone? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As WSC alludes to, and this I think is the main reason, voting generally doesn't involve providing valid reasoning, nor responding thoughtfully to the concerns of others. It's not called a vote because there's really no word for the kind of process we have here. It is a choice, but not a vote, because voting means merely stating what your choice is, and nothing else. The point of saying it's not a vote isn't to say the tally isn't crucial, but rather to say that the tally isn't all there is to consider. Equazcion (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
But both of your answers suggest that although there are exceptions that generally it's carried by straight vote? Is that fair? So the day to day practice of RFA *is* a vote but exceptions occur if someone powerful takes an interest ? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Bureacrats are human editors, with discretion on their decisions. They do take note of the total numbers of editors expressing for and against opinions, but also take note of the rationale expressed with these opinions. And weigh both in coming to their final yeah or nay. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, it's not about power. Well, it's not supposed to be, anyway. I'm sure the more reputable editors are subconsciously given more weight than the lesser-known ones; crats are human too. But no, what I meant was that the voters' reasonings need to be checked over. If a lot of the votes putting someone into the passing percentage turn out to be accompanied by weak reasoning, the RfA could then be failed, regardless of the tally. The tally is what's looked at first, and then the actual votes are checked, to make sure they contain some acceptable reasoning. It's about the substance of the arguments, not power. Equazcion (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
So who has failed above 70% because the arguments were weak for promote? --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be an interesting question for an RFB, except that it would be rather unfair on the editors involved to go through those who so narrowly missed promotion, and try to decide which ones failed because the support included some weak supports and which failed because the opposes while barely more than 25% were all well thought out and none were self declaredly weak. To expand slightly on my initial statement, to my mind some supports are votes as they simply support the nomination without elaborating on it. The Opposes and of course the neutrals are or should be !votes because they need a rationale as to why they disagree with the nomination. The influence that certain editors have on the process is that there are people out there who are known for their judgement on various matters. For example there are certain editors who I believe to have very good judgement about speedy deletion and if one of them were to say in an RFA that they have checked the candidates speedy deletion tagging and support or oppose on that basis then I would give that a lot of weight in deciding how I was going to !vote. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I gave this hypothetical situation a few weeks back. I'm certain that reputable editors hold more weight here than newly registered editors here, regardless of whether it's subconscious or not. Though I can't think of any fix to this issue, seeing as we're all human and prone to influence. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 01:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they do in deciding how to vote but if nobody fails above a certain percentage, then the outcome is a vote. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure offhand whether there are examples of failures above a certain percentage, but even if there aren't, that's not necessarily evidence of causality. If it rained last night then my car got wet, but just because my car is wet doesn't necessarily mean it rained last night. Similarly if RfAs have turned out to never fail above a certain percentage of support, that doesn't necessarily mean they are judged based purely on their tally. Besides which, what exactly is the point you hope to arrive at here? Are you advocating some change to the RfA page? Or what? Equazcion (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating for any change, I just think it a bit of a sham to pretend this is a !vote rather than a Vote. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As long as there are elements of debate, and people switching sides, and crats making judgement calls on RFAs in or near the discretionary zone; I would consider it a bit of a sham to call the process a vote instead of a !vote, and a total sham to call an RFA a vote if the result wound up in the discretionary zone and subject to crat decision. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting but entirely academic debate. The recording of votes is in a reality an opinion poll/popularity/beauty contest. The decision maker in practice isn’t bound by it. The fact that few rejects occur above 70% is a consequence of the process used by the decision maker in generally taking account of the oppose comments to a greater extent than the support comments. Hopefully the decision maker disregards the foolish, banal or otherwise pointless comments and focuses on the substance of concerns and issues raised. Even so, the process offers no guarantees. Decision makers have to take much of what is said by applicants and their supports at face value and we have seen recently the level of clever subterfuge used to gain adminship. More thorough questioning and an enhanced recall process are needed. If I was a decision maker for example, I would reject any applicant who refused to enhance their recall criteria to the standard now being adopted by many. I would do that at 80%, 90% or any percent! Leaky Caldron 10:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If that's your stated criteria, then you'd never become a decision maker. The bureaucrat who decides on the outcome of RfAs is supposed to judge the consensus of the community, rather than impose his own opinion of the candidate. If he has an opinion that conflicts with consensus, he is supposed to cast a vote, rather than close based on his opinion. Equazcion (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I’m not an administrator and have absolutely no desire to be. I was expressing an opinion in an ironic way. Leaky Caldron 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Understood :) Equazcion (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be a brave crat who closed an RFA as fail when the !vote was 85%, especially if they did so without a crat chat (I'm sure there are scenarios where after a crat chat such a decision could be made). As for recall criteria, I thought the community had got beyond that and was looking for a proper desysopping procedure? (Especially as one of the most commonly cited ones includes the "only exercisable in the event of an abuse of admin tools" clause). Ϣere SpielChequers 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)