Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 214

Archive 210

←

Archive 212

Archive 213

Archive 214

Archive 215

Archive 216

→

Archive 220

You can fix it too, you know!

Just FYI, SoxBot had some downtime this morning, and I fixed it immediately. If this happens in the future, just make sure all 3 sections have a # in them. 99.99% of the times it goes down is because the formatting is messed up on one of the open RFAs. It can usually be traced to a single edit. Sure enough, at the exact time it went down, I found this edit that caused the whole thing. I'm pretty inactive now, and don't see these things. Trying to fix them before coming to me would help. Thanks! Now I retreat into my wikibreak. (X! · talk)  · @291  ·  05:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You know, that's maybe an error in the code you might be able to fix. — Joseph Fox 06:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Active administrator stats (2007–present)

Average number of administrators considered active by Rick Bot per month (September 2007 – present):
	January	February	March	April	May	June	July	August	September	October	November	December
2007	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	922	929 (+7)	952 (+23)	993 (+41)
2008	1,011 (+18)	1,016 (+5)	1,006 (-10)	989 (-17)	986 (-3)	990 (+4)	986 (-4)	966 (-20)	974 (+8)	966 (-8)	951 (-15)	951 (0)
2009	942 (-9)	938 (-4)	929 (-9)	918 (-11)	922 (+4)	918 (-4)	916 (-2)	906 (-10)	896 (-10)	880 (-16)	862 (-18)	865 (+3)
2010	882 (+17)	885 (+3)	859 (-26)	843 (-16)	841 (-2)	838 (-2)	817 (-21)	800 (-17)	805 (+5)	796 (-9)	785 (-11)	777 (-8)
2011	765 (-12)	778 (+13)	777 (-1)	771 (-6)	764 (-7)	760 (-4)	765 (+5)	746 (-19)	730 (-16)	723 (-7)	729 (+6)	?

I saw the history of Wikipedia:List of administrators (history) and noticed the bot for number of active administrators being updated daily. Since I've seen a lot of conversation lately about there not being enough administrators, I wanted to see an average of how many administrators we are losing in reality, and this seemed like a good way. I took the daily number provided by the bot, and averaged it for a month from September 2007 up to now. As always, Rick Bot defines "activity" as 30 or more edits during the last two months. Just thought I'd share, it was for my own personal use. — Moe ε 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I did something similar a little while back and created a graph to match :) It's not pretty, I must say. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I avoided the line graph at all costs to avoid the straight downward line we all now RFA is heading (well, it actually looks like more of a worm :p), but that works too for this.— Moe ε 12:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It was painful enough that I didn't really fancy showing it off, but your distinctly red mood chart does that too. The number of admins are headed downwards. But interestingly, so is the number of editors... there are many factors at work here. Worm^TT · (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC).

Interestingly, 2011 is actually progressing at such a slow rate of going downwards that if we promoted a few new administrators those red boxes would probably actually be green. I could be wrong, and I have been before, I believe that once we actually dip into the 600s, it will stagnant to the point where it will just be a natural up and down from new administrators and administrators leaving. I think with the popularity of Wikipedia on the rise back a few years ago, we had more active editors (and a few more administrators as a result). Now the editors who aren't really as interested or busy and unable to come back have reduced the numbers dramatically, for both editors and admins. — Moe ε 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• In this discussion, I respectfully submit that the logic is Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Whilst the number of active administrators has been in decline, this is not unexpected. Less people are becoming sysops, due to the unappealing RFA process. By comparison, the number of active editors is broadly static; and even if it were declining, that too is expected, because the nature of contributing to Wikipedia has changed. Previously, the implicit emphasis was on asking new editors to create articles (it's easy to create a page and write a stub). Today, we have articles on most subjects, and so new editors are asked to refine and expand existing entries (a more difficult task). We could certainly use more admins, but the job isn't as time-intensive as it was, thanks to ClueBot and the other handy reporting and reversion tools. I also heard it said once, although I forget where, that a workload will expand exponentially so as to always match or exceed the size of a bureaucracy. Our admin backlogs are ridiculous in some cases, but conversely they also aren't high-priority; typically, most things that are urgent will get dealt with in a few minutes (and really, how many things are real emergencies?). I don't think we should dismiss the need for new sysops, but I also don't think we should fret endlessly about it. However, for whatever it's worth: as I said above, and as with most adminship-related things, the crux of the problem doesn't seem to be that the userbase is shrinking or unwilling to take on the admin tools - but that the RFA process is about as pleasant as anaesthetic-less toenail removal. AGK [•] 13:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not quite true: it's not just the number of people seeking adminship that's declining, but the number of people who will go on to become very active editors. You can see that decline (which is most precipitous for the most active editor classes) in the graph below. I think the decline in RfA is simply one visible indicator of this very alarming trend. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

EN Wikipedians who will go on to make x number of edits in their first year, log scale

• Yes— now we're at the point where we could use more admins. What about the future, though? We have an continuously expanding number of articles and a continuously declining number of active admins. If the trend continues, it's not going to be "we could use more admins" but "we desperately need more admins". Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that while the backlogs can be "ridiculous", it's not a big deal. They're not "high-priority". I totally disagree with this. Why should a vandal be allowed to vandalize 15 more pages from the time he's reported at AIV to the time he's blocked, because there are no admins around? Why should a good faith editor have to wait six hours for an uncontroversial but important protected edit request? Why the hell do we allow tagged copyright violations to pile up and sit for hours? I could not disagree more with the "no big deal" attitude when it comes to the admin backlog. Swarm ^X 18:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Is it perhaps because the world doesn't end just because something in the wiki isn't right, right now? Seems to me there is much more value in arguing the positive aspects of having more admins. 59.33.45.224 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with Maryana - The problem with RfA is the same problem with Wikipedia in general. It boils down to this... Wikipedia is hostile. There have been multiple studies on this and the media has written about it for years. A handful of people have mentioned this fact in threads here and at WP:BN, but they seem to go unnoticed. I Am the Night—Color Me Black springs to mind, though I'm not sure that metaphor would be understood by anybody except for the more elderly... ahem... senior editors here. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Isn't 729 = 723 + 6 ? Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• My bad, I got tired by the time I was finishing :P — Moe ε 06:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• I won't make any grand proclamations, but I wish more RfAs would go like mine has. I'm not saying all of them will or should, but I must say it's been rather refreshing to see one go smoothly, as opposed to the mess that's occurred at MichaelQSchmidt's in the last day or so. Even though his will clearly pass, that's the kind of ridiculousness that should be (and in this case, rightfully was) dealt with. I was very nervous that something would blow up at my RfA (though I can't think of any skeletons in my closet, I've seen people latch onto things I saw as innocuous and refuse to let go; examples can be provided if necessary), and only seriously calmed down about it after a few days. If I wasn't so concerned about it, I probably would have run when I was initially asked in September (off-wiki). In my case, that was because I wanted to be 100% sure I had enough time to handle any fallout from a major explosion, as I'm not one to be offended if someone tells me I'm a grossly incompetent retard in slightly more civilized language; however, most people can't handle comments like that. It's not so much about eliminating opposes as it is requiring some standard of decency when discussing a candidate. With the blowup at MichaelQSchmidt's RfA, we've proven that there is some limit to what we'll tolerate, but the same type of toxicity exists even without such egregious comments. Potter Stewart's words on obscenity also apply here; eliminating toxicity requires knowing it when we see it. How to go about that is a discussion that probably belongs here, though, so I'll say no more. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blade, have you read my essay on RfA voting etiquette? It contains information about both good and bad etiquette on RfA and what one should and should not do when voting in support or in opposition of an RfA candidate. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Just as trees take time to bear fruit, it'll be a while before the effects of editor retention reflect on RfA as new editors seeking adminship. Of course if massive deforestation (loss of editors, in this case) continue there'll always be a shortage of fruits (or admins). We can't expect to plant something today and expect it to grow into a tree and bear fruit tomorrow. - Mailer Diablo 18:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Growing good fruit is especially difficult when the soil (Wikipedia) is full of clay (RFA Process). --Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• YEAH Hydroxonium re "The problem with RfA is the same problem with Wikipedia in general." I said before here the that RFA isn't the problem wiki is; that RFA is just a symptom and I was pooh-poohed. Glad some others see it my way. I'll even say the wiki model is fundamentally flawed. There are darn few quiet spots on wiki. What's so amazing is that so many put up with wiki crap.PumpkinSky talk 15:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see there are others who have realized the true nature of the beast, but history shows it is futile. Year after year, people come to this talk page to discuss the fact that RfA is "broken", and to what resolution? I've said it before, and I'll say it again — it's not the process that's broken, it's the mindset of the community that makes this place such a toxic environment. Every single time I come here and watch a candidate submit an ill-fated RfA, I'm compelled to read through the oppose comments. And with every negative analysis, every sarcastic jibe, every trivial oppose, I feel as if it were my request for adminship going up in flames; that it was me being scrutinized; that I'm the one being rejected by the community. When a well-intentioned and experienced Wikipedian applies for adminship and they get opposed for things like "maturity concerns" or "lack of clue", my feelings get hurt as if those comments were directed at me. Does anyone who participates in RfA ever stop to think how they would feel if someone dealt them such harsh words? Sometimes I even find myself cringing at the vitriol I see here. I have absolutely no confidence that I could ever pass an RfA were I to submit one, no matter what sort of experience I acquire beforehand (although I'm still undecided over whether I'd like to be an admin or not). And if I feel discouraged, I imagine many others do as well.

This goes beyond RfA — this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the very spirit of WP:CIVIL, the concept of being nice to people. A comment doesn't have to be a personal attack to be uncivil. Incivility is simply the complete and utter disregard for the feelings and dispositions of others. It does not involve bending over backwards trying to be politically correct, nor does it imply that people should spare others difficult introspection at the expense of honest sentiment. But the bare minimum people should be expected to do is to think of everyone else as a fellow human being with opinions and emotions, who deserves better than to be patronized like a less intelligent being, and who should be treated with basic dignity and respect. If this were expected of everyone, these discussions wouldn't be necessary; RfA wouldn't need any "fixing". Master&Expert (Talk) 12:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This was kind of the point that my essay on RfA voting etiquette was trying to address; that the main problem with RfA was the attitudes of voters, both opposers and supporters who berate the opposers. We need to come up with an outline on RfA voting etiquette. I know it will be difficult, if not impossible, to completely enforce, but it's worth a try, and it's better than sitting around and watching perfectly good-faithed candidates fail due to the failure of opposers to assume good faith. I understand that there are some genuine people out there, who oppose for genuine reasons, but RfA has become overrun with those people wishing to use RfA as a venue to bully and insult people that they would leave alone under normal circumstances. Both of my RfAs failed, probably for the best, but the beration I received from my second RfA has made me think twice about running a third time until something is done about the cruel process. My essay has been called a "good start", and I wish to expand this idea; however, I'll need the full support and assistance of the community if I expect this to at least partially succeed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a great start. But as I'm sure you've already realized, it's not just something that can be altered by setting it in stone — altering the toxicity of RfA will be a very gradual process. By that I mean, it'll take years for RfA to fully recover from its current dark phase. It's going to be a commitment on the part of those who want to "fix" RfA. We can do it, but it'll take time and effort. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not years, but it will take a long time for RfA to recover. But as long as good-faithed editors are no longer severely insulted by voters, it's worth the time and effort. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to resolve this problem; I know what it's like to be insulted by RfA voters, and I don't want anything like that to happen to anyone else. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This will be for the benefit of Wikipedia as a whole. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment posted recently and am stuck between two positions. On the one hand, I completely agree that the nature of RfA comments are a problem - being called immature, inexperienced, clueless, etc is disheartening to RfA candidates, the majority of whom apply in good faith. On the other hand, many candidates who apply in good faith are immature, inexperienced or clueless, which is a very strong reason to oppose such a candidacy. If a candidate has exhibited immaturity, we do not want them given a position in which that could cause problems. Oppose voters need to express this concern for their votes to be taken considered - they cannot just leave out the reason because it might offend or dishearten the candidate. In some cases, these legitimate oppose votes could be better worded; in many more, I don't think they could. If you have an immature candidate, you can't get around using the word immature on your oppose. Any guidelines would either be too restrictive, not allowing reasonable opposes to be properly voiced, or would be too liberal, allowing people to say what they like. Yes, RfA would be improved if people opposed candidates in a nicer way; however, if we take it too far that way, we make opposing a candidate even harder than it already is. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we completely eliminate oppose rationales (although I must point out that at some point the elimination of rationales was offered as a suggestion for improvement), all I'm saying is opposers need to state their opinions in nicer ways. On my second RfA, many users did point out their concerns regarding my maturity and experience in a civilized way, but some, and I'm not going to name names, pointed out their concerns rudely and could've easily worded them to be less demeaning. I wasn't particularly torn after that RfA failed; in fact, it couldn't have been more of a blessing, as it helped me realize my true place here on Wikipedia. However, other candidates that failed the same way I did may not see it that way. We've seen many respectable and qualified admin candidates retire from Wikipedia because of their failed RfAs, and while some have returned, others haven't, and probably never will. Like I said, we won't be able to completely change the mindset of RfA voters, but it's worth a try, and it's better than standing around while qualified candidates get butchered. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a slightly different problem here: If you're too thin-skinned to make it through criticism at RfA, how were you expecting to hold up to the barrages you draw being an admin? --erachima talk 19:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Criticism is not the problem. Admin candidates are expected to be able to deal with criticism calmly, if they start arguing endlessly with every !oppose or start attacking the !opposers, they do not deserve to obtain the privilege. The problem is in the unfair criticism, outright attacks, and criticism that can't be addressed. Things like "sure he's done everything right but I think he's just faking it" or comments that need to be oversighted. Bog-standard robust criticism is part of the position, it is the over-the-top stuff that makes RFA a toxic environment. Franamax (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, by my observations, I believe the rude comments are possibly a test towards an admin candidate to see how s/he responds to it as stated by User:Franamax. If they are calm, it shows they are able to keep their cool in a demanding or stressful situation. If they get agitated, it shows that the candidate cannot keep their cool and may lose focus or judgement when they lose their cool. If that is the case, I would place an oppose on that candidate as well.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that some of the incivil opposes may be to test candidates, but I don't think that all of the incivil opposes are made to test candidates. Even if it is a test, it's still incivil, and it still should stop. Insulting an RfA candidate is one of the worst ways to test a candidate's civility. And a lot of the time, it's not the candidate's fault that they fail due to an incivil oppose; often, these incivil opposes create pile-ons that fail RfAs. It's not always the candidate's responses to incivil opposes that kill the RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, ideally, oppose rationales should be made civility, kindly & politely. As we have seen, this does not happen. No amount of guidelines or legislation will fix this - people who are rude at RfA are generally the people who have problems with civility anyway. The problem is not going to be fixed with a new policy, but with a new atmosphere and attitude towards RfA. All we can really do is ignore the rudeness (which we should be doing anyway) and get on with it. The only real problem I see is the "I don't like this user" or "this user reported me once" rationale which, though less common, is damaging. I think, however, we trust bureaucrats not to take into account these rationales when closing RfAs - they may be disruptive to the process but do not affect the end result. In the end, there's nothing we can really do, aside from ignore anyone being rude (which a good admin candidate should be doing anyway). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the "I don't like them" !votes is indeed not the oppose itself, it is the sometimes hysterical responses which cast a pall over the whole affair - recall the responses to "too many admins already" and "self-nom is prima facie evidence of hunger for power". It would help if the 'crats would establish a list of !oppose reasons (or lack thereof) which they are likely to discount, so fewer editors would feel the need to leap into arguments and rebuttals. I think though you are discounting the problem with the "all-out attack" style !opposes where someone has decided for whatever reason to sink a candidate by any means possible, including attacking their very character. MichaelQSchmidt's first candidacy is a perfect example, IMO that was a case of "ZOMG inclusionist! must destroy!". That is where the serious derailment happens, as reasonable editors just get a bad feeling about the whole brouhaha. It is very difficult (and IMO wrong) to let blatant character attacks stand unchallenged, yet challenging them just raises the noise level, accomplishing what the toxic particpants wanted all along. Perhaps forcible refactoring is going to be needed as an option in those circumstances. Franamax (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure why I am bothering to comment as nothing ever comes from these discussions, but as an active admin for the last two years I can tell you that despite the decline in number of admins there is no shortage. CSD backlogs have been way down the last few months, almost all AFDs are closed on time, AIV is rarely backlogged, etc. Where backlogs are still a regular problem are generally places that are a bit more backwater, such as WP:STD (no it's not a venereal disease you get from Wikipedia) where a backlog is not critical. This isn't a problem with the number of admins, it is a problem with nobody caring about such areas. Participation in discussions is low, admin involvement is low right along with it. I've adopted WP:UAA/HP as thw backwater that I tend to. Other users and admins pile stuff in there and forget about it. Over the last three months I am pretty much the only person who has brought any of these cases to a close. If you have never participated in a CFD or STD or whatever it's hard to feel like you are the person to be making a close. Although these are admin tasks, nobody ever asks about them at RFA, suggesting the community as a whole doesn't really care too much about these venues either. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

@Franamax It would help if the 'crats would establish a list of !oppose reasons (or lack thereof) which they are likely to discount, so fewer editors would feel the need to leap into arguments and rebuttals. I see it differently. I'm not a 'crat, but were I one, I would not put much weight on the "too many admins" argument, but I do not encourage the 'crats to make such a list. Because if an editor wants to oppose at an RfA because there are too many admins, but has read that such an argument will be discounted, then they will be incented to dream up a different excuse, one which won't be discounted the project is better off if the oppose argument contains that argument, and is discoursed. On the other hand, I agree with the sentiment that some personal comments are hurtful and would like to see those comments reduced, but that isn't a 'crat discussion, it is a community discussion.--SPhilbrickT 21:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment and an perfectly happy to allow the bureaucrats to determine what rationales should and should not be counted when determining the result of an RfA. Any guidelines seems unnecessarily bureaucratic and, as Sphilbrick noted, could cause more problems. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So if you were a 'crat, you would discount the oppose but would never ever say you had done so? I don't follow that reasoning and it runs counter to our goal of transparency. More to the point, it leaves us stuck in the same cycle of frivolous oppose - earnest rebuttal - nothing says I can't oppose for that reason - 25 people jumping in to say THIS is why RFA is broken - breaking one person's RFA in the process. If everyone knew what a "good" or "bad" !oppose rationale was, fewer people would feel the urge to create drama over !votes that won't count anyway. We have "arguments to avoid" for deletion discussions, admins regularly outline xFD closing rationales, why wouldn't 'crats do the same? They are after all chosen from the pool of admins who make sound and well-explained discussion closes. Not to diss our 'crats, I think they do a great job individually and as a whole - but I think acting as inscrutable oracles in closing RFAs runs counter to transparency and unintentionally causes active harm in some individual cases. As far as inventing other reasons to !oppose, that's fine with me - bring it out onto ground that can be discussed rationally, I have no problem with that. Franamax (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aaaaahhh. We should just have a set system with set requirements and rules about what you can and cannot do in a nomination.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, why don't you push that forward on your own? I'll assume you're not trying to trivialize my own comments with a reductio ad absurdum which does not reflect my own views and actually have some ideas on how to improve the RFA environment. After all, you're not just sniping from the sidelines - are you? Franamax (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of that comment was not to offend, be random, or make fun of any body. I say there should be a set of rules of what voters can and cannot do at RfA's what the minimum requirements should be in order to even be nominated as to reduce the amount of WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW. Basically, set basic guidelines that don't restrict voters or nominees but prevents the !voters from creating non-sense questions or support decisions or restrict nominees that just created an account and prevent them from immediately nominating themselves. That is my proposal.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your initial comment was almost indistinguihable from dismissive sarcasm, so it's good to know you are acting in good faith. :) Snows and notnows are handled pretty well IMO, they are not too bruising and we don't want to get in the way of editor aspirations, rather educate them reasonably nicely. Plus it has proved impossible to set generally accepted minimum standards. I'm more concerned with behaviour at the RFAs of established ediors who have a decent shot but have a shit-stirrer or personal enemy come along and attempt to totally derail their candidacy. Set rules won't work in those cases, but some basic guidelines from the 'crats on what they do or do not consider significant opposition would help editors who genuinely believe a good candidate is standing, when they see frivolous (or attacking) opposes, decide what is the best course of action. To rebut or not to rebut - if we all knew that certain types of opposition will be discounted in any event, none of us would feel obliged to jump in with passionate debate on that RFA page. That is why I favour more guidance from the 'crats who will be closing, rather than up-front quidelines on "what is permitted". Franamax (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Somehow, I think that if I were to run for adminship, I will get hammered in the near future.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Previous Section Continued

I broke up the section because that was beginning to be a bother. I would also have to say though that we shouldn't have RfA's from contributors from account only days old like our most recent one. This user is going offline hence the red signature.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and in response to your comment regarding a set of guidelines about RfA voting, I created a starting point here a while ago. Any comments are welcome. Regards, The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly what sould be moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Does and Don'ts.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 15:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I don't think it's ready for a move just yet. In my opinion, there are still some things that need to be worked out, since not everyone is in favor of setting up an RfA voting guideline. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned trusting bureaucrats earlier and I stand by that - they close discussions well and are capable of disregarding certain arguments. If communication is a problem, then I would not be opposed to encouraging 'crats to let people know what kinds of arguments were dismissed when the closed it, providing a longer summary. For example: "I did not take into account the votes based on not liking the user because...". That is more immediate and visible to people, as they do not have to navigate to a guideline page to read them. As I said before, why are people so confident that the editors who make the "I don't like him" votes are going to read a guideline we produce anyway? Generally, those who are likely to make unhelpful oppose votes are the ones who would not be swayed by a guideline. Changing the attitude and education people within the system will be more effective; plus, we will always have to deal with disruptive people, whatever we do. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

But some of the most problematic opposes are the legitimate ones that are put in an incivil and unacceptable way. Evidence of this can be seen in my second RfA. I know I've referenced my second RfA many times already, but it's a prime example of what should and what should not be done when opposing an RfA. Many of those opposes were completely legitimate, but they were put in a way that could have damaged my self-esteem. Many other opposes were put kindly, in a sort of "let you down gently" kind of way. In my opinion, editors should be blunt, but not rude, when opposing an RfA or when responding to someone who opposes an RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 20:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing a set of guidlelines for voters would be futile. Those who make inappropriate votes or comments are fully aware that they are not playing a clean game, just as every motorist who breaks the speed limit knows full well that he is doing wrong. The difference is that speeding drivers will get warned and eventually banned, while at RfA, blatant PA, incivility, and deceitful rationales, whether aimed at the candidate or at the other voters, is considered some kind of Kavaliersdelikt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Utahraptor, I'm wondering what you think any new policy or guideline will actually achieve? As I and Kudpung have said, users who are uncivil (or worse) at RfA are already violating Wikipedia policies (regarding incivility, even personal attacks some times) - why would they be any more inclined to follow a new guideline? I don't disagree that there is a problem, but I am not convinced that this is the answer. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that another page for miscreants to not read will not help much, unless it is given the force of a policy designation. My suggestion for 'crats to be more explicit is for those others (sometimes including myself) who do actually read things. They would be better able to ignore "bad" votes, knowing that the !vote will be discounted anyway, they would also be able to quiet outbreaks of argument over bad votes by just saying "don't worry about it, doesn't count anyway". That doesn't help with the rudeness part, which is a separate track, but would help to lower the noise level over invalid opposes. Franamax (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I respect Utahraptor very much, but...

• Any binding rule on how people comment at RfA will be bitterly opposed by people who - not unreasonably - want to be able to comment on a candidate (and on the RfA) however they see best; so it would not be possible to get a consensus to implement this rule.
• Any non-binding rule on how people comment at RfA will be ignored by people who - not unreasonably - want to be able to comment on a candidate (and on the RfA) however they see best; so it wouldn't matter whether there's a consensus to implement this rule.

There may well be ways to improve how RfA works, but ones outside (IE. changes to who needs the mop, how hard it is to remove the mop, &c) are more likely to succeed than ones inside, I feel. bobrayner (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

So what about a five-person committee empowered to modify comments? I could easily come up with a list of 5 names, Dank and WSC would be on it. They would have to decide whether to participate or adjudicate, and recuse when "friends" show up, but I think there are enough solid and respected participants here to select a short-list that the entire community could live with. Franamax (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by any suggestion regarding modifying/deleting comments at RfA. Firstly, I think many people will want to be able to comment in any way they please, considering a lot of trust is endowed in a successful RfA candidate. This is especially pertinent with those who may make civil and reasonable comments which are critical and could be interpreted as incivil 0 the line is hard to draw. I am also not convinced that any damage could be reversed by this. If someone runs a discussion off-course, removing the content will not resolve the disruption already caused, nor will it help the candidate who has probably already read the offensive content. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been silent because I've been...thinking. Many times before, the thought of "you won't be able to change people's personality" has crossed my mind, and this thought, combined with everyone's past comments, has made me reconsider the guideline proposal. Now, I'm not sure if it will even slightly work. The best the guideline can do is encourage people to be civil, but there's no way it can actually make them be civil. But I do want to see RfA changed in some way. I hate how people are torn apart by incivil opposers, and how most of them feel so bad as to permanently leave Wikipedia afterward. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to fix RfA, but it doesn't look like we all agree on what should be done. In fact the only thing we can agree on is that something needs to be done. A compromise is probably the best way to fix RfA, one that encompasses concepts from some of the better RfA reform proposals, but how would one go about creating one? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Franamax's 5- person committee is basically a concept that is being discussed at WP:RFA/C, but the question remains: Who would appoint the committee and how?

Unfortunately, there are no bright lines for civility - everyone has their own threshold. Around the site, some genuinely polite good faith comments are often interpreted as being patronizing or condescending. In fact some would consider 'Please stay of my talk page' to be uncivil, while some perceived incivility is retorted in clearly unacceptable tones. There appear to be users who possibly oppose at RfA for questionable reasons - far more sinister than civility issues are the votes that are inappropriate, deceitful, or even founded on untruths or systemic bias. Such voters do not apparently realise that they are the ones who have largely contributed to the process being broken, and they ripost with righteous indignation when challenged. Here, something could be done, and especially as all kinds of unfair commenting and voting can ause unreflected pile-ons that should then also be withdrawn. The 'crats however do not necessary see it within their remit to police the process, and for fear of being labelled a cabal, even admins are also reluctant to intervene. The ball is squarely back in the court of other members of the community - with or without the support of a reform project. Time perhaps to very carefully compile a proposal statement based on some of the suggestions and discussion for clerking, and offer it up for RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility at RfA and everywhere on Wikipedia

/rant When people are rude at a grocery store, they are thrown out. When people are obnoxious at university, they are expelled. When an employee is a dick at work, they are fired. Why is Wikipedia different? Why is WP:CIVIL one of the few policies that's never enforced? Everytime the subject comes up, people say civility blocks don't work or they say we don't need the civility police. It's true that there are no civility police in modern society and that's because everybody enforces civility. Parents enforce it with thier children. Managers enforce it with their employees. Store owners enforce it with thier patrons. Wikipedia, and many online communities, don't enforce civility. This allows the most hostile members to rule those communities. Many of our best users leave because of the hostility here. We enforce WP:VANDAL, yet we don't enforce WP:CIVIL. Which one does more damage over the long term? At what point will we be willing to enforce WP:CIVIL? When there are 1,000 highly active users left? 100? I hope it's before 2 because when there's one person left, there'll be no need to enforce it. /end rant - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 03:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Because the powers that be, especially the early ones who set the standard, failed to enforce it, thereby setting a sad precedent, resulting in things like, as you mention, ogres ruling the roost and easy to get along with editors leaving. Changing institutional behavior once it's ingrained is VERY difficult in any organization, not just this one.PumpkinSky talk 03:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

agree with PS above, but I think another reason is that we can't find a good solid majority who agree on what is and what is not civil. With such a wide variety of backgrounds, upbringings, ages, cultures, etc. within our community, there is the constant debate about what is civility. While I and another 50 year old guy of similar cultures and backgrounds might have a conversation where we tell each other "ahh .. you're full of shit"; and neither of us are offended (although a paserby my bristle at the conversation)... when a 30-something guy tells a 15-year old girl the same thing ... it's quite a different story. Also: we get into the "language" itself; where shit, hell, idiot, piss, troll, vandal, and the omnipresent "fuck" are quick to draw "red-line" attention - I've seen experienced editors (including some admins) use sugar-coated condescending and baiting text to draw an (dare I say?) opponent into a "blunt" retort: and then lower that "civility" hammer. The bottom line is that the community as a whole can not seem to come to a clear consensus as to what civility truly entails. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the way to enforce civility shouldn't the same way that we enforce other policies? Civility is so subjective, that if you were to block for it, even for a pattern of incivility, then the block will instantly be controversial. We do have a "bright line" of personal attacks which we can and should block for, but general incivility we need a better mechanism to deal with. At the moment, talking to the uncivil editor seems like the most sensible thing to do - and I mean actually talking to them, not dropping a bland "Your comments violate CIVIL" warning, which in itself could be regarded as uncivil. I would then suggest that the uncivil editor is given some time to reflect on the discussion, because the next step that can be taken is RfC/U - a fundamentally flawed process, but the only one we have. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos Worm, not only do you see the problem, but you also offer a truly viable solution. I am honestly impressed. All too often on WP (as in life) we talk at one another rather than talking to one another. I think a vast majority of editors here would much prefer to see contentious situations dialed-down and settled rather than escalated into the word slug-fests that all too often happen. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the "why" that Hydroxonium poses here, and I forgot to mention it, is "teh clique's" (intentional mis-spelling of the). Editors who have been around a while (especially in the same areas) tend to get to know one another and natural bonds are developed. While some cliques are more formalized than others, it's still only natural for an editor who has worked with another editor productively to come to his/her defense when their "friend" (at least in the online sense) is threatened or chastised. How often have we seen an experienced editor lose patience with either a new user, or an editor who outright refuses to take good advise onboard? Eventually the patience is exhausted, and a "STFU" or "GTH" comment is issued (often with some justification in regards to the later WP:IDHT editors). Then when an admin. issues a block, or another editor issues a warning - they are descended upon by 3, 9, 15 of the sanctioned editor's "friends". Once bitten, twice shy comes into play and people become hesitant to utter the word "civility". again .. just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  09:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility is a massive problem; it could be solved, if we clamped down. I know there is disagreement about edge-cases, but far too often blatant incivility is tolerated. It needs to stop. It's a voluntary project; volunteers deserve respect. If I volunteered at a local animal shelter, and other workers continually spoke to me in the manner people do here, and if the management ignored the problem, I'd soon quit. I think much of the problem is immaturity. In English libraries, we allow, and indeed we encourage, children. However, if they start running around/shouting, they're disturbing more scholarly library-users, so they get kicked out. Same should apply here.  Chzz  ►  09:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I will just add what I've said elsewhere, as I can't think of a better way of putting it: Of course it's (relatively) OK for us to have to occasional one-off snark (though ideally not too often, and not too many of us at one newbie!). Sanctions should only really apply to things that are way beyond the pale, or to "persistent borderline (and beyond) offenders". We do, all of us, need to remember that as editors we have a dual responsibility to this project. The short-term and endless cleaning-up, and the longer term attraction, retention and training of the next generation. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. This is the ultimate purpose of the civility policy - making this a project where people want to stay, to improve, to collaborate. We have to be able not only to teach the next generation how to "do" - we have to be able to teach the next generation how to teach the one after that. Otherwise, this project is unsustainable. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

As a few others have alluded to, I think the main problem here is cultural. Once people experience incivility towards them, they're more likely to do it back to others; writing a new policy or guideline will never change what is becoming an ingrained culture. Though relativity is a problem, there are some cases of blatant incivility which no well-meaning person should accept - here, I think we can enforce more strongly. With the rest, which is less clear, I do think a strict attitude change is needed. By this, we need to set a high standard of civility and stick to it: keeping to it ourselves and not letting people get away with uncivil comments. Much minor incivility is often due to someone just getting frustrated; however, when admins and experienced editors do not maintain a very high level of civility, newer, less mature and less experienced editors have little chance of achieving anything near that. Thus, we need an attitude shift among more experienced editors, strongly condemning and incivility; we need to take better action against the more obvious cases of incivility; and we need to encourage better civility from newer users. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And who is to be the judge of what's uncivil and what isn't? You? Me? Or shall we just go along with the current view that incivility is anything you don't like said by a non-administrator you don't like? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus hits the nail squarely on the head: we need definitions. Rules have to apply equally to all. A rule that only applies to some people isn't a rule - it's oppression by another name. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it as clear as clear can be - one set of boundary lines, to apply equally to everyone, without exception. This means that the rawest noob should be able to call out the longest-serving Arb, or the most massive of quality content-contributors, for crossing those boundaries, and have the backing of the community when they do so. A word to the wise: to the tyrant, real justice always looks like anarchy. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Good luck with unambiguously defining incivility in a way that will gain consensus as a standard to be used for blocking. For the record, I have never blocked anyone solely for incivility. That being said, context is an important part of determining when someone just had a moment where they lost it and said something they would regret or didn't really mean, and a person who is just being a dick because they like being a dick. Users whose behavior consists solely of trolling can and should get blocked a lot faster than a user who actually contributes here who just got pissed off for a minute and said something intemperate. If somebody says "I'm going to rape your entire family, starting with your grandmother, and drink their blood while you watch" they are obviously trolling. If somebody says "fuck off" they might be saying it somebody who needs to be told to fuck off because putting it more politely didn't work. Judgement is what is needed when determining when to block. Admins are expected to have adequate judgement in this regard. Some do and some do do not. There are 1,500 admins. I defy you to find me 1,500 people anywhere on this earth who are in complete agreement on what is rude and what is not. So, mistakes are made, drama ensues.. If there is one admin who is making bad calls again and again, take them to WP:RFCU, but don't try to make a restrictive policy that would force admins to block based on some sort of "no-no words" blacklist without exercising judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sigh in empathy! Yes, very hard to do. I wasn't thinking of "words" so much as "attitude". The "I'm a god, you're a pillock" kind of thing is just one part of it. Individual swear words are not (to me) a real problem; snidey name-calling, on the other hand, is different. And yes, nobody should ever consider serious sanctions for the odd minor misdemeanour. We're human; we err; we're subject to errors of judgment. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

But they do, all the time. Have I ever mentioned that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we all come up with a list of rules and put each rule up for nomination. There are several editors that agree that civility is an issue at RfA. If a rule passed with 50% or more support, it becomes an enforced rule. If a rule doesn't pass, it dies. After the voting, all the rules that pass are put into a document in the RfA page say...WP:RfA/Code of Conduct. That sounds plausible to me. Any editor can contribute to this adding new rules as they see fit for a period of, let's say, 1 month. When a set of rules have been created, each will be put up for nomination and the community will decide if it should be an enforced rule or not. New rules can be made later but it must be approved by the community. I think this is a method that may work.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thread, but it will go where all the other threads about changing wiki culture go -> NOWHERE.PumpkinSky talk 22:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It's worth giving it a try to possibly fix what's already in the RfA.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 22:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with trying, but a few people talking isn't even to change institutional behavior in an organization with no real central authority. Gestalt, the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts. PumpkinSky talk 23:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If we can create a subpage in the RfA page where users can propose new rules and announce it to Wikipedia say through the watchlist of users, it may work.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 23:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details should defo be used to gain support for proposals before putting them out for a vote, otherwise it will end up as another WP:V fiasco. Leaky Caldron 23:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower-that was recently done and you see what happened. Kudpung could tell you where the page is. 00:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? So much for an original idea.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 00:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Hydroxonium's original post, the comparison with real-life venues doesn't work when considering interactions in a place like Wikipedia. When you talk to someone in real life, that is a constrained, often private, one-to-one conversation, or at most a small group of people. That is very different to Wikipedia pages which all readers and editors can (in theory) read, and many editors and readers do (in practice) read. When you talk to someone in a real-life conversation, the words are spoken, heard and then (usually) lost to history. In contrast, here on Wikipedia, the words are saved in a database and can be, and are, read by many. It is as if the discussion you had with someone (maybe, to use the 'animal shelter' example, a discussion with a fellow worker using blunt language that would be acceptable if it took place in private, but unacceptable if it took place within earshot of a member of the public), that discussion is left hanging in the air in written form, available for all passers-by to read and discuss in turn. That is the fundamental difference between real-life discourse and discourse in an online and intensely public environment like Wikipedia. It is even more nakedly public than people discussing things on a stage in front of an audience (because those arriving years later can still read what was said). And that is why attempts to transplant real-life civility standards onto Wikipedia will fail. The core components to any approach to civility need to acknowledge the very public and disseminated (over time as well as space) nature of the discourse that takes place here. You are never just talking to the person you are talking to, you are also talking (potentially) to the rest of the editorship and readership, as well as innumerable future editors who may read what was said. Some editors instinctively adjust to this. Others (possibly correctly) either fail to see any need to adjust, or consciously try to be true to their inner selves and refuse to adjust. The result is usually a mess. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the result is a mess, but I don't agree with a lot of the rest. You left out a key point - wiki anonymity. Would Wiki Prima Donna/Ogre/Jackass Of Your Choice be that way if everyone knew who he/she was? In most cases no. PumpkinSky talk 03:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

When I go to work I dont want to be abused by the words or actions of the person next to me. I work here. I have collected some thoughts at User:Buster7/Incivility. Bottom line is that we as editors are given the moment to reflect before we hit SAVE. I have trouble giving a bad mannered editor free reign because of some inner self that "needs" to express itself no matter what.--Buster Seven Talk 15:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Somewhere Editor:Cool Hand Luke said this...This project does not exist to help editors grow a thicker skin. Our mission is to build an encyclopedia, not establish limits for low-level abuse that we think our volunteer editors should be willing to suffer. If we drive away more people than we attract, then it's a genuine loss to the project and we should fix it rather than label those who would prefer to work in a civil environment as "thin skinned." A first step in changing the mindset could be referring to each other as Editors rather than Users. Buster Seven Talk 15:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's rather telling I think that everyone who pontificates about incivility sees it as a fault that other editors have, never themselves. But of course that's vanishingly unlikely to be true. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That is true, but even if everyone accepts that everyone can be uncivil at times, especially without realising it (this mainly is seen in a non-empathic form of failing to listen properly to those you are talking with - and happens rather a lot in face-to-face conversations as well, when it is simply called being rude and not listening), where does the debate go from there? If someone engages in a debate and someone else describes that engagement as 'pontification' (I'm assuming you are talking in general terms here), does that improve the debate or end it? It depends, really. What you have written could also be seen as a (less verbose) form of pontification. Personally, I find among the most frustrating things around here is the lack of structured debate. In a face-to-face conversation, it is quite easy (in just a few seconds) to explore byways and side bits of a discussion, to back up from dead ends and return to the main part of the discussion. Online, that is not so easy, unless you are familiar with the style of posting of those you are 'talking' to.

An example above is when PumpkinSky replied to what I wrote with "I don't agree with a lot of the rest", but didn't specify which bits they disagreed with or agreed with. Surely the central point of what I wrote: that online interactions are vastly different from real-world (meatspace) interactions is incontestable? PumpkinSky also referred to 'wiki anonymity', when I would have referred to online anonymity (more precisely pseudonymity) in general. Any online environment where participants are anonymous or pseudonymous leads to less restrained behaviour. That is such an axiomic underpinning of studies of online communities that I didn't really feel any need to mention it (my central point was that online discussions are public and enduring, and offline face-to-face conversations are essentially private and ephemeral).

One final point is that I would expect those who are more experienced in online communities to be more adept at interactions here (though some people fail to learn from experience). There are undoubtedly some for whom Wikipedia is their first experience of a properly interactive online community, and it always takes time to integrate. Even within Wikipedia, there long-standing mini-communities that have developed, and those sensitive to that will change the approach they take in those areas. It is very noticeable when someone more familiar with the norms of a different area of Wikipedia (or using their own norms) turns up somewhere else and dives straight in, and it takes a while for them and those present there to adjust. Which makes everything rather complex, but then that's not too surprising. Carcharoth (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Some people just think Wikipedia is a stage of satire where they can just walk in under a pseudo and do their own version of a dead parrot sketch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Superficial civility from POV-pushers arguing for Randy's sword-wielding skeleton theory are a far greater threat to the encyclopedia that uncivil comments from productive content contributors. Admins who will sanction an editor for telling a POV-pusher where to go but refuse to look at the broader picture are also a threat to the integrity of our content. Cultural differences are also a substantial problem as some people get offended over comments that simply reflect a more robust civility standard. I suggest that no discussion of civility standards will ever gain traction without addressing the civil POV-pusher problem and without ensuring that self-appointed civility police are suitably constrained. EdChem (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. Why do the "productive content contributors" need to tell the "POV-pushers" where to go? I know many "productive content contributors" who are perfectly civil. POV pushing is a completely different problem to civility. As is vandalism, tendentious editing, copyright violations and many other problems that the encyclopedia faces. There's no need to be uncivil whilst tackling them. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

A common (and highly effective) strategy in various pseudoscience topic areas (for example) is for believers to debate every point endlessly, maintaining superficial civility, until someone gets annoyed enough to say something allegedly uncivil, then the POV pusher runs to try and find a civility police admin to block the editor who got frustrated and wrote a "bad word". This is the essence of the civil POV pushing approach, and it is the reason that some of our articles are so bad. Some POV pushers use civility as a weapon, and it is far more damaging to content than the occasional lapse in civility. There may be no need to be uncivil when dealing with POV pushing but it happens in some of the murky parts of Wikipedia and I know which problem I see as more worth our efforts. EdChem (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if it helps, I don't agree with blocking the frustrated editor (see my comment earlier in this thread as to how I think incivility should be dealt with). POV pushing is a problem, especially in pseudoscience areas and I'm sure you're right about the tactics these POV pushers use, but that shouldn't be a blocker for improving civility on Wikipedia. POV pushing may be a larger problem in that it directly harms the encyclopedic content, but incivility appears to be more widespread and also appears to indirectly harm the content in that it drives away good editors. I'd like to see both problems fixed and I don't see why fixing one breaks the other further. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have on two separate occasions been dragged to ArbCom as a first stop arising from my reaction to incivility (one block, one request that another user be blocked). It provides a powerful disincentive to act in the future. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Since I am too lazy to repeat myself User:Gerardw/Notes_on_civility. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I find that if 'any' editor is being obnoxious, simply ignoring them works best. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Food for thought

According to dah list, Lostintherush is currently the Wikipedia admin with the least number of edits, with 10,085, so we can take that as a sort of minimum level of editcountis. ResMar 03:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Xer RfA was in 2006; standards then were lower than today. →Στc. 03:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I recall the standard being 3,000 edits and 6 months experience back in 2006; I passed with a little over 4,000. So now it seems 10,000 and 1 year is the minimum. Good times. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

? There are quite a few currently active admins with much lower edit counts than 10,000. 28bytes (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with 28bytes. Off the top of my head, MGodwin (talk · contribs) is an admin and has only 300-odd edits. The problem with ResMar's approach is that he assumes all admins are in Wikipedia's top 5,000 contributors by edit count. Jenks24 (talk) 07:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

MGodwin's tools were WMF-given. There's a slightly relevant thread at WP:BN#Retired_.22.28WMF.29.22_accounts. →Στc. 08:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, my point was that ResMar's analysis is faulty. A less drastic example is that of Tristanb (talk · contribs), who has less than 5,000 edits. Jenks24 (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Worm That Turned was the first editor who came to mind, mainly because he's the nominator of the currently active RfA. IIRC Elen of the Roads both passed RfA and was elected to ArbCom last year with under 8,000, and occasionally less than 4,000 edits is sufficient to pass RfA. Somebody probably has a nice chart of all that someplace. 28bytes (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of the original Star Trek crew earlier-promoted admins with a surprisingly small number of edits, actually. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That was at a time when there were unsurprisingly few articles, policies, guidelines, and editors. A start had to be made somewhere. Criteria have risen concomitant with the maturing of of the encyclopedia, and the longevity and experience (not necessarily the maturity) of the users. Other Wikipedias actually have minimum requirements, but they have the advantage that the criteria were established when the projects were created. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. An organisation should have rules and standards and infrastructure which fit its needs. Otherwise we have another Citizendium. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just to explain the reason that ResMar's list show the lowest at 10k, xe was looking at the the list of Wikipedian's by number of edits, which does not include any wikipedians with less than 10k edits. There are actually many admins with less than 10k edits, as 28bytes says, I'm one of them. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

An ongoing "glitch", from my perception, is how little value seems to be placed on the contributions of those who gnome around in absolutely vital areas, and whose work we simply could not survive without, who have done little in the way of "article creation" because their major talents lie elsewhere. We have no end of extremely clueful people who would make excellent admins - particularly using their tools in their own areas of expertise - who would be shouted down at RfA because of their perceived "lack of content work". Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Pesky,

"Shouted down at RfA because of their 'perceived lack of content work'" was a bit excessive.

Many editors (e.g. Ellen of the Roads) have demonstrated an ability to explain policies and to mediate (refocus discussions) without having extensive content contributions, and so have had their RfAs succeed. Even the most recent RfA was successful, despite the (justified or unjustified?) concerns with maturity/3 previous RfAs and a focus on non-writing.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I probably did word that a tad too strongly. I haven't looked at very recent RfA's, but I have noticed in the past that people who do vast amounts of work "elsewhere" (copyrightish, image-ish, template-ish and so on) don't always seem to get the credit they deserve for it. Not all of us are brilliant writers, but a brilliant writer doesn't necessarily make a brilliant admin, either (though there's always a requirement for clue when it comes to what is acceptable content). T'wiki is like a highways system - we need road-repairers, signpost-makers, traffic police, verge-trimmers and litter pickers just qs much as we need people to build the roads (articles) in the first place. Maintenance, though not necessarily kudos-accumulating, is vital. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely a sentiment that admins should be editors who have created a lot of content. I think the argument is usually that non-creators might delete more carelessly, not fully appreciating the effort it takes to write, or something like that. Gnomes can certainly have successful RfAs, though—even ones with < 10k edits. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it absolutely ridiculus and stupid to use article creation as criteria for determining if a possible admin can be trusted with blocking, protecting, deleting, or vandalism fighting. Administrative tools don't have anything to do with Article creation and for me doesn't make sense. If you looked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slon02 4‎, you will see the I gave my strongest support and a response from another editor as well as my reply to it. Perhaps someone here can answer the question I placed there.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 18:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How can admin tools have nothing to do with article creation when the only purpose of Wikipedia is the articles?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

In practice, admin tools are rarely needed in relation to article creation per se. Admin tools are more likely to be needed in relation to problematic editing, disputes, dealing with very low quality content written by others, vandalism, seeking and assessing consensus, awkward shunting of articles which have been substantially edited by others, project-space bickering, &c. Experience of those issues - which are surely also rooted in articles, one way or another - may better equip an administrator than experience of creating a thousand stubs or a dozen beautifully-worded FAs. If somebody has their shoulder to the plough simply writing nice content, that's great - we need more of those people - but if everybody was like that we'd scarcely need administrators at all. It's all the other stuff which fuels the need for administrators. bobrayner (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And without a background in the articles themselves they're stumbling around without accurate knowledge of how their actions are effecting the end product.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. And how can you take seriously anyone put in charge of a supposed encyclopedia project who would write "beautifully-worded"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the conclusion drawn from the above discussion is that a good admin will be good at article writing and experienced in dealing with the problematic editors. Some will be better at one more than the other, but editors gain vital admin-required experience from both taking part in writing articles and in dealing with disputes & disruption. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, this criterion may cost a candidate some support but is unlikely to torpedo an RfA on its own. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't use article creation as a criteria for determining the ability of an admin. When it all come down to it, you essentially don't need admin skills to create an article.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't "admin skills" somewhat of an oxymoron? Malleus Fatuorum 21:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What I meant to say is that you don't need to be an admin to create an article and therefore shouldn't be considered as a criteria for candidates. For me, article creation tells me nothing other than the fact that he likes and can create great articles. It doesn't show me though that he is capable of understanding policy or abilities that admins need to have to show they can be trusted with the block, delete, restore, and other administrative buttons.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For me, article creation tells me nothing other than the fact that he likes and can create great articles. Then I feel sorry for you.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a strict judge. Article creation shows that an editor is quite impressive in editing but it doesn't show me that he can be an admin.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 01:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to start with a misunderstanding like that. Article creation shows spit, and I've never seen anyone say anything different. Have you ever looked at new pages for instance? Writing a new page is piss easy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cyberpower, admins have to close AfDs, which often require knowledge of the notability guidelines. How will know them if you don't try to satisfy them? →Στc. 02:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point, however, I don't believe they have to make 100's of them. I believe that if they are able to make an article, and doesn't get nominated for deletion, that would prove sufficient enough for me.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about content creation, not article creation. I don't think many care much about creating articles, its good writing that people look for. Although, like I said, lack of extensive content contribution is not necessarily going to kill an RfA on its own. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you can recruit sufficient IRC buddies then nothing will kill your RfA. Just the way it is. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

IRC buddies are always helpful, but the content-admins-only crowd is not so strong that they are necessary. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been an admin for over 5 years and a bureaucrat for over 4 and I have 18,829 edits (with possibly a thousand of them being from renaming people and getting automatic page moves from the rename tool). Just thought that might be an interesting fact for people. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 13:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Think about this. I've way more than 100,000 edits more than you, but I'm not anodyne enough ever to become a bureaucrat. That's the difference. Malleus Fatuorum 19:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stats

Top 100 admins by lowest edit count

mysql> select user_name,user_editcount from user_groups join user on ug_user=user_id where ug_group="sysop" order by user_editcount asc limit 100; +----------------------------------+----------------+ | user_name | user_editcount | +----------------------------------+----------------+ | EyeEightDestroyerBot | 0 | | ProcseeBot | 0 | | TorNodeBot | 12 | | Orphaned image deletion bot | 31 | | AWBCPBot | 107 | | Midom | 227 | | Orphaned talkpage deletion bot | 245 | | MGodwin | 335 | | Lustiger seth | 490 | | Nanobug | 507 | | Chuck SMITH | 598 | | BradPatrick | 652 | | Phil Bordelon | 791 | | Samulili | 796 | | Sheldon Rampton | 888 | | Tompagenet | 893 | | Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot | 922 | | 7SeriesBOT | 1014 | | Marumari | 1139 | | Noldoaran | 1285 | | Khym Chanur | 1339 | | Sugarfish | 1371 | | Khendon | 1378 | | AstroNomer | 1539 | | Cprompt | 1655 | | Yelyos | 1677 | | Ffirehorse | 1731 | | EvanProdromou | 1783 | | Dgrant | 1932 | | MykReeve | 1992 | | Waltpohl | 2029 | | Jake Nelson | 2155 | | CYD | 2384 | | Robin Patterson | 2443 | | Hashar | 2481 | | Phils | 2500 | | Goatasaur | 2533 | | Taw | 2560 | | Thespian | 2575 | | Ludraman | 2575 | | Dwheeler | 2664 | | Mackeriv | 2667 | | RobLa | 2732 | | Bjarki S | 2817 | | Cyp | 2891 | | Ramallite | 2947 | | Zippy | 3069 | | Refdoc | 3076 | | Kmccoy | 3100 | | Qaz | 3193 | | Hamster Sandwich | 3203 | | Humblefool | 3241 | | IceKarma | 3264 | | Scott Burley | 3298 | | Caltrop | 3304 | | Tkinias | 3315 | | RedWordSmith | 3426 | | Graft | 3440 | | William Pietri | 3493 | | Lachatdelarue | 3612 | | Pratyeka | 3702 | | SorryGuy | 3717 | | Luigi30 | 3725 | | @pple | 3729 | | Joke137 | 3813 | | Wgfinley | 3840 | | R. Baley | 3868 | | Ngb | 3904 | | Goodoldpolonius2 | 4026 | | Brian | 4074 | | Gator1 | 4146 | | XDanielx | 4162 | | Mkweise | 4235 | | Sethant | 4248 | | Vague Rant | 4251 | | Lexi Marie | 4261 | | Tristessa de St Ange | 4274 | | Arvindn | 4275 | | Borisblue | 4276 | | Turnstep | 4278 | | Jamesday | 4305 | | Jamesofur | 4348 | | R3m0t | 4351 | | Lee Daniel Crocker | 4388 | | Flockmeal | 4411 | | Premeditated Chaos | 4423 | | Jrdioko | 4448 | | Tom- | 4450 | | JeLuF | 4488 | | Renesis | 4535 | | Sebastiankessel | 4538 | | AlainV | 4569 | | Tristanb | 4594 | | Jdavidb | 4606 | | Andrew Yong | 4608 | | Daniel Quinlan | 4657 | | Hawstom | 4659 | | Fennec | 4696 | | Rfl | 4698 | | Christopher Sundita | 4699 | +----------------------------------+----------------+ 100 rows in set (0.01 sec) mysql> select AVG(user_editcount) as Average_Admin_EditCount from user_groups join user on ug_user=user_id where ug_group="sysop"; +-------------------------+ | Average_Admin_EditCount | +-------------------------+ | 34786.0066 | +-------------------------+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) —SW— converse 19:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like User:Midom takes the cake as the non-bot admin with the lowest edit count. Average admin edit count is 34786. —SW— ^squeal 19:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's the average edit count as of today, not when they were promoted? Malleus Fatuorum 19:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You should look at the median edit count. Long tail and all. Prodego ^talk 19:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So where can I find that? I don't have access to the database. Malleus Fatuorum 19:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Finding the edit count of an admin at the moment he/she was promoted is far more difficult than finding their current edit count. I did attempt this once (using the edit count stats that are usually posted on the talk page of the RfA) and found that the average edit count of new admins was:

• 22,850 in 2010
• 16,071 in 2009
• 11,930 in 2008
• 9,796 in 2007

But I wouldn't trust that those stats are anywhere near 100% accurate. I can grab the median of all admins' current edit counts off toolserver in a moment. —SW— ^comment 20:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think for a moment it would be easy. But how did you get access to the database? Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so average edit count of all admins at the current moment is 34,786, median edit count is 19,783. (Toolserver provides database access for users with a Toolserver account. I figured someone with 100k more edits than me would have known that... ;) —SW— ^soliloquize 20:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of Toolserver accounts. I only write stuff. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

On a project designed to develop an encyclopedia? .. What a novel concept. — Ched :  ?  01:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The increase in edit counts is not representative of actual effort/contributions to the project. Getting 10K edits today is nothing with all the tools available that make it easy to make 100's of edits in little time.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, forgot I ever wrote this, come back later and o_O ResMar 02:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice analysis Snottywong and I suppose it was dumb of me to think all admins would be in the top 5,000, yeah. ResMar 03:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Contentious discussion now hidden and archived

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Containing the drama --Guerillero | My Talk 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I'm really shocked that someone who considers himself a "senior editor" would use that kind of offensive and sexist language on any wikipedia talk page. Please re-phrase. Deb (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC) You must be new here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC) No. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Which of course posits the existence of "honest cunts". Are you providing examples? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I would be very happy to provide examples, and I'm rather puzzled that you appear not to understand the difference between an honest cunt and a dishonest cunt. They're both cunts, but one believes (s)he's defending Wkipedia, whereas the other is just a self-important wanker. Is that clearer? Malleus Fatuorum 06:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC) When someone (Editor:Deb above) in a group setting, such as this conversation, asks for consideration, it is common courtesy to honor that request. Buster Seven Talk 16:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC) In your opinion perhaps, but not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I am not expecting any special treatement. I just hope you wouldn't use this particularly offensive term outside wikipedia, and there is no reason to use it within wikipedia. And I would also be grateful to other contributors if they don't copy your conduct just for the thrill of doing something they know is wrong. Deb (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Just as well, because you'll get no special treatment from me. I would however suggest that you step outside your front door from time to time, just so you get a feel for how things really are in the real world you're so obviously unfamiliar with. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Eh, this is getting boring. Can we please either talk about admins and RfAs or not talk at all? Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Anyone who's feeling snitty and irritable should now have a mandatory nice cold beer and compulsory granny-hug (>**)> [shrieks of eeeewwwwwww! from the wings]. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC) considering my own "children of my children" ... I'll say yes to both. :) ... is light beer ok? — Ched :  ?  20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Light beer is just fine - tonight, I'm opting for morphine again, so a beer is out! I have to be able to be on-call for ancient mother from 2am onwards! And you may have a granny-hug whenever you wish :P ... and, for those for whom the granny-hug is insufficient deterrent, there is also the ultimate matriarchal weapon of suffocation-by-cleavage as an option :D Pesky (talk …stalk!) 20:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I've blocked Malleus for the above. No editor other than Malleus would expect not to be blocked for this; that this is not merely long-term but a permanent part of his presence here has led to said block being indefinite. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) See, now if you all had just let me improve Wikipedia like I wanted... Prodego talk 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I sincerely hope that block is a piss-take. BigDom 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC) It is not. I'm happy to expain further on my user talk if required. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC) Please do. I think you'll find that I'm not the only one concerned and perplexed. BigDom 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Return to topic: Edit counts

On the topic of the section, I have 9,048 edits with this account and 827 edits with my semi-automated account. I had only 8500ish edits when I passed my RfA on 30 Nov. Food for thought --Guerillero | My Talk 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. I'm not sure how important edit counts really are. Of course, someone with 2 edits won't pass an RfA; however, as I'm sure we all know, contributions are measured according to quality, rather than quantity. I would value a single edit of mine which vastly improves an article much higher than 20 vandalism reversions on a Huggling spree. The same goes for admins - if someone exhibits the qualities needed for adminship, the number of edits is irrelevant. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I missed the fun part it seems... ResMar 00:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I've protected the page for an hour to stop this foolishness. please, everyone, don't emberass yourselves by edit warring any further on this subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No you didn't? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• That's weird. I used Twinkle and told it to protect the page. It added the icon [1] but didn't actually do the protection. Seems to have had basically the intended effect anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Could one request a 3-second block from an admin? Just curious, and since this thread has veered far and away off-topic already... ResMar 05:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I use most when looking at a RfA candidate is trawling through their interactions on others' talk pages. How they communicate with others is of vital importance to me in assessing what kind of admin they'd make. So - a string of really insightful, genuinely helpful communications-with-others carries more weight with me than their contributions to article-space. I never want to be an admin, but if I were asked which of my own contributions I felt were most valuable, it wouldn't be the GA's and DYK's and so on (though obviously I'm pleased with them) - it would be the hundreds of my "standard help and tips spiels" that I've left on the talk pages of relative newbies whose work I've encountered in new page patrol. My own article-space contributions are those of only one editor. One day, I'll die - so those will stop! But I reckon that if I can help turn only 10% of those editors that I've left help for into good editors, and they can go on to do the same, then my contributions in that field ultimately do far more good, in the long term, to the project. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to average edit count at RFA as the average is skewed by the occasional huggler or other very active editor. There probably is a minimum below which the community is unlikely to take a candidate seriously, we have had successful candidates in the 3,500 to 4,000 range, but I wouldn't fancy the chances of anyone with fewer edits than that. Personally I think that's a bit of a shame as in my opinion edit count is not a very useful metric at RFA, but I'm fairly sure that it is a widely used metric. ϢereSpielChequers 00:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page

Hi folks, I would like to ask what do you think about idea of moving talk page of WP:Requests for adminship somewhere like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship feedback. There would be no harm at all, people who want to watch it, just add the page to their watchlist. Reason there are some people who want to watch the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship but definitely do not to watch talk page, which is full of warring, disputes and unproductive dramas most of time. I know there are other ways to watch the current nominations, but I am pretty busy person and I can only watch my watchlist not all pages everywhere on wikipedia, that's what the tool is for. Actually because of similar reasons, people start requests to implement this feature to mediawiki (requested on VPR few weeks ago), which is pretty complicated. Thank you for responses Petrb (talk) 09:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me, though I'd suggest this page is redirected to the other... Worm^TT · (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh god yes. I've been wanting to unwatch this page but not unwatch WP:Requests for adminship for all the reasons mentioned. 28bytes (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Worm! Of course it would be redirected :) Petrb (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Update There should be a notification like This page has discussion located [[WP:Requests for adminship feedback| here]] so please don't forget to insert that page to your watchlist in case you want to watch the discussion of this page. Petrb (talk) 09:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Drama should be dealt with, not just hidden away. Editors who merely want to keep track of who's currently at RfA can surely just watch {{user:X!/RfX Report}}, no? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for reply! Probably this could be enough, and it's a good point, but that's not clear to many people, regarding the drama, I don't think that people who do not want to deal with drama shouldn't be able to "hide" it, I would rather like to have that people who are drama lovers and want to participate in such discussions, watch the other page. Petrb (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the suggested redirect will either hide any drama or stop people from dealing with it. The drama will still be there for anyone who is watching or participating. Cloveapple (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This page would have to be moved (to preserve its history), and doing that means that anyone watching this page would automatically end up watching both pages. So, anyone not wanting to watch the moved page would only have to unwatch it. I would prefer that some benevolent dictator control the NOTFORUM violations that occur here, but I guess that's not going to happen, so another page would be useful. However, there would have to be concerted effort to move new conversations on this page to the "feedback" page. Unless there were a firm commitment to do that, the only result would be two pages that violate NOTFORUM. Should the feedback page be a subpage of this? Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, you are right, but I think that it isn't a problem. If we move the page and make this page a redirect, all new discussion would be just started on a new page, all people who do not want to watch, unwatch it. People who didn't know it, will still have the page on their watchlist and wouldn't be affected. The location of new page is a part of this proposal, we can decide what location would be the best, my proposed name was just an idea, it could be of course a subpage. Petrb (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't follow that: the proposal is to replace this page with a redirect, so any discussion about RfA would be conducted on the forum page. What if there were a substantive and realistic proposal? Wouldn't there need to be a talk page where people interested in RfA would see it and participate? The problem is that people are using this talk page for general and non-actionable opinion sharing. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the "substantive proposals" and "chit-chat" aspects of the talk page is probably too tall of an order. I'm just happy with the idea of being able to watch only for new RfAs, and just checking in on the talk page occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can already "watch" only one page with CSS. This is in my CSS, it hides the watchlist entry for WT:RFA:

.watchlist-5-Requests_for_adminship { display:none; }

(X! · talk)  · @122  ·  01:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That didn't work for me, but .mw-changeslist-ns5-Requests_for_adminship { display:none; } did, perhaps because I am using the "enhanced" watchlist format. Thanks for the tip! --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to watch the RfA's but not this talk page, no problem... not only do you have the ideas suggested above, but you could also use a RFA box that tells you the RfA's without having to watch the pages... that way you don't have to worry about missing an RfA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 03:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

By "RFA box" do you mean something different than the template Chris Cunningham mentioned? Cloveapple (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Add {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report}} to your user or talk page, it will put the RfA/BfA's on your page so that you see them even if you miss the edit to WP:RFA.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 06:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, that is interesting thing, but exactly something I wanted to avoid, I don't want to change any of my pages, I want to be simply able to open my watchlist and see what is happening, it's possible using script or whatever else for that, I could even create an application in tray which would pop up with "There is a new candidate for blah...", but since there are several users who definitely want to do same and not everyone is able to mess up with this, I think that this is something what many people could benefit from (separating this). Petrb (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't want to change any of your pages, but you do want to change pages for everyone else on Wikipedia? Franamax (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There are certain pages which I ignore in my watchlist because I'm not interested in them. (But might be interested in the associated main/talk page.) Do you know how I deal with it?---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protected

discussion not related to RFA. Please take it elsewhere or drop it altogether

Let's take a 48h break from edit-warring and drama, and enjoy Christmas, shall we]? CharlieEchoTango (contact) 04:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Good idea. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I've just unprotected, because I believe 48 hours was way too much; I'm keeping an eye on the page, however, ready to block should this silly edit war start again. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC) OK but if you ruin Christmas, you will get no turkey and will have to eat all the Brussels sprouts and I will edit NORAD Tracks Santa so he doesn't come by your house. That would be a shame because I love Brussels sprouts and usually take a big pile of them. Franamax (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Please refrain from disrupting this discussion page with MySpace commentary.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I added keywords, which Blade of the North removed. I discussed the edit with BotN and restored them; he replied that he acquiesced to there presence ("whatever", "not going to edit war"). Of course WP's search engine can find the page after the keywords have been added. However, my search, earlier and with them again removed, failed to find this page. Listing keywords is hardly continuing drama.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Strange that, because I can search for text in that hidden section right now and it indeed locates the page. Perhaps you should try a few more times to figure out what you're missing. Franamax (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC) @Franamax, Please stop baiting/trolling. Document what search string you used. Keywords facilitate searches by persons who do not know the exact text for which they search. A search for "cunt, Malleus" is reasonable and the keywords allow that search to succeed.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I am neither baiting nor trolling, I'm telling you straight out: learn how search engines work and how to use them. If the search term you select doesn't yield results, you are using the wrong search term and need to try something different. You don't go around adding "keywords" to suit your idea of what "right" is and claim primacy for whatever you imagine others might be searching for. What if I think "Malleus dishonest" is reasonable, can I add that? How about "Kiefer Wolfowitz stirring drama"? It's certainly reasonable people might want to search for that too, and review at least the first page of hits. What is not reasonable is your assertion that some unknown group of people suddenly have an urge to search for those particular terms. What would give them such an urge? Perhaps the various discussions strewn about which all have ample WP:DIFF's pointing to the exact edit in question? And in any case, you're now switching ground (incidentally, a good sign of trolling behaviour) - you began by claiming that the hidden box obscured the text from search; now, having been proven wrong, you seem to be claiming it is in fact a general deficiency in the WP search engine which simply must be corrected for this one instance which involves a close WP associate of yours. It's wearing thin... Franamax (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Franamax, You still have not documented any search string plausibly typed by somebody wanting to understand the Malleus-"cunt" ruckus (or the administrator lunacy) that would produce this page. That simple request was not too difficult to understand, was it? It is trivial that adding more search terms can produce this page. For example, searching for this entire page will produce this page; however, such searches are unreasonably burdensome on users. Avoid trivialities if you want to be taken seriously. Your suggestion that I learn about search engines was laughable. It's a good bet that any other editor writing about computational statistics, numerical linear-algebra, Perron-Frobenius theory, and oriented matroids has at least SIAM-Review knowledge about the algorithms used by search engines. A reader quoting a former student of Hans Radstrom about Linkoping architecture and zeros of the zeta function might know a bit more. Your RfA indicated your writing consisted of thin gruel, and your writing as an ignoramus & blow-hard here suggests investigating your subsequent writing would be a further waste of time. Save your advice for another. Finally, your disorganized discourse applies here to comments I made below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I make a comment, and after spiraling way out of bounds, a week later it leads to a in-page RfC, two back-to-back edit wars, and drama galore. Lovely... ResMar 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Oh and Malleus is at ArbCom now...* sigh *. ResMar 23:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC) Adding keywords is something that is not usually done, and those particular keywords seem designed only to cause disruption. I objected to their addition then, and I object now. Prodego talk 00:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Prodego, Please review the English word only. You might have intelligently written "those keywords might cause renewed discussion on this page of a topic that is being discussed in more appropriate WP fora (and that has been considered disruptive by the majority of administrators here"---although your fear seems misguided since nobody made any further commentary about Malleus's word choice or administrative blocking-jollies.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC) I've asked Salvio for an explanation of their (in)action here, 3 admins have independently found this disruptive, yet the "keywords" are there again. No, adding keywords is definitely not something that is usually done, if ever. Adding them with a signature so they can't be modified by others, never. Adding them to stir up more disruption - well, that's disruptive. Furthermore the premise that extra keywords are needed because text is in a hidden template is simply false. Search for "admin board appear proper", what do you get as the first hit? Search results are the same whether the text is hidden or not. KW's addition is wholly superfluous, has nothing to do with the intended subject of this talk page, and should be removed. Franamax (talk) 07:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Franamax, You are behaving again like a hypocrite. You just posted another puerile posting about brussell sprouts---totally off topic, just a few lines above this rant about off-topic postings. Your digression was much longer than "honest and dishonest; "cunts" (British english); blocking of User:Malleus Fatuorum by User Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)", which at least was on topic. Yet you object to descriptive keywords about the topic of the discussion. You forgot to mention that I had discussed these issues with Blade of the North and Guerillero, and truly sought consensus. You are wrong about the keywords. The search for for "cunt, Malleus" does not produce this page in the top 20 when I searched. With the keywords, "cunt, Mallues" was roughly number 6. You and your clique violate AGF when you accuse me of stirring up trouble for no purpose. Perhaps you can say that, more precisely, that your mind was unable to understand my purpose? Do you now understand? WP policy is that comments are signed. Of course, I signed the keywords.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC) Occasional light humour is often accepted as an attempt to lighten tensions. The post was on-topic as it addressed the possibility that unprotecting this page might result in resumed drama durng the Christmas celebration - and I notice you leapt at the opportunity. You did not discuss the use of keywords with Guerillero that I can see. You obtained Blade's acquiescence on use of keywords based on your premise that hidden templates interfere with search engines, when in fact the WP engine (the only engine we care to facilitate) is pefectly able to search within them. I don't call that seeking consensus. It is in fact a mark of the edit-warrior to re-add disputed material while claiming to be seeking consensus. In what way am I wrong about keywords? It's pretty obvious to me that if you add keywords in close proximity, then search for the keywords, you are going to find them. I've already outlined the problems with adding keywords. If you feel strongly about this as a general topic, I suggest you start a discussion at WP:TPG about making addition of material purely designed to aid one editor's notion of what WP:Search should return an accepted use of talk pages. AGF is not a suicide pact. Your use of bolding in your first addition of "keywords" suggests rather more than a simple attempt to facilitate searches. Your reason to re-add the second time, that WP:Search is unable to see inside hidden boxes is false, and given your claims just above to have major expertise in computer science, now seems rather questionable, unless your education never included actually testing your hypotheses. And now you are claiming that you simply must have one search term you thought up work properly, with no evidence that anyone at all other than yourself needs the search engine, no policy, guideline or essay to support inclusion, for reasons unclear except that you evidently feel that the words your associate used simply must be there for some VERY IMPORTANT reason. Yep. You haven't established any sort of case for inclusion, based on policy, that has found support. Several others have expressed opposition based on policy. Does that pretty much sum it up? Now I'm off for my turkey (and Brussels sprouts) with my family, who just like you think I'm disruptive, myspace-y, trollish, trivial, ignorant, a blow-hard, hypocritical, fatuous, obnoxious and don't know a hammer from a nail-gun - but they accept me for what I am. Merry X-Mas! :) Franamax (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC) @Franamax, Let me correct your worst fatuous errors. (1) I did not embolden the text. I used the standard WP-colon to mark the beginning of a topic, without having it appear in the TOC, which has a side effect of emboldening the text. In my discussion with Blade, I suggested changing the emboldened text to plain text. Your AGF violation was a fatuous cliche. (2) I did test the string "Malleus, cunt" as I noted repeatedly, so your statement that I did not test a hypothesis was another fatuous falsehood.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Perhaps this page should be protected again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC) No. It should be suggested to the two users who continue bickering and want to have the last word that they have talked beyond the pale. They have both repeatedly made their points and should now agree to disagree and move on, or find another forum, as general consensus is that to drag this discussion on is borderline disruptive - it does not discuss RfA. Protecting the page is inhibiting all RfA contributors for the sake of stopping one participant (one of the protagonists would still technically be able to edit the page) which is not how WP should work. --ClubOranjeT 07:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Indeed. Crazynas t 20:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding civility

Is it considered rude to tell someone who is incompetent that they are, in fact, incompetent? Is it considered uncivil for people to speak bluntly to someone about their deficiencies? As a generic example, let's say someone opposes an RfA with this hypothetical comment:

"Very strong oppose — A whopping 4000 edits, 40% of which are to Wikipedia space, 25% to user talk space, and 10% to user space - yet only a fifth of your edits are to article space? Of your Wikipedia space edits, a huge portion are to dramaboards like ANI or RfA, but very few are to actual maintenance areas of this site. Quite frankly, if you're not going to improve articles or at least do something to help build this project, then don't even bother editing here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site. Close this RfA and don't come back until you've made some actual contributions to this site and can demonstrate the maturity and competence required to be an administrator. As it stands, I don't see either of those qualities in you."

Does that sort of comment count as rude, or is it just "telling it like it is"? Is a comment considered civil if it is frank but not a personal attack?

Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 07:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no fair copying opposes from my own RFA. ;) I don't see that as all that rude, though if you're using "quite frankly", you may already know you're getting quite frank and should govern yourself accordingly. I'd be more inclined to rebut on your superficial edit-countitis, where you haven't examined the merits of any edits in those particular page-spaces. But I don't see it as particulrly rude per se. Franamax (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh God, no! I would never use such a rationale. I just made that up on the spot as an example. =)

In all seriousness, my only criterion is, "do I trust so-and-so with the tools?" If I trust so-and-so, then I'd support granting so-and-so adminship. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think you would actually use it, I was speaking to the "hypothetical you". :) But really, it's the lack of analysis (in that hypothetical example of an oppose) that I think can be more hurtful to a candidate than the wording itself. For someone who has been sweating blood to successfully resolve conflicts, sandboxing in their own userspace to get agreeable article wording, working hard to correctly interpret policy - and then get dismissed as a myspacer - that would really really hurt, as in leave-the-site type of hurt. Franamax (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this hypothetical comment contains elements of both. The first two sentences are "telling it like it is" - i.e. mentioning the facts. The second part of the comment is unnecessary aggressive. Telling someone that their edits prove that they are incompetent for the position they applied for is valid - but insinuating that the candidate is not willing to help build the project is potentially insulting; maybe they were trying to help build the project with those edits? Mind you, there are possible scenarios in which it would be valid to make such allegations but in those scenarios the !voter should also provide proof for those allegations, not just claim "because you have X edits to Y but only A edits to B, you are not here to build an encyclopedia". IMHO, the difference between frankness and incivility is the ability to back a claim up with facts: Saying "you are incompentent, because you have X edits to ANI and RFA" is uncivil (not to mention unhelpful) - saying "you are incompetent because you frequently edit ANI and RFA with comments like [1] [2] [3] [4] that attack other users and show a lack of understanding of our policies" is frank. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. I couldn't agree more, except I disagree with even calling someone incompetent. That's a very hurtful thing to say, and the message could be given much more effectively if handled politely. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Individual wording may vary of course; I'd probably never call someone "incompetent" but rather "inexperienced" for example. You are correct that politeness usually is much more efficient even when it comes to criticizing someone, so if you have to tell someone their flaws, do it nicely and with sufficient examples so they (and everyone else) actually know what behavior of theirs is problematic. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Under current practise I think you are more-or-less forced to be incivil with Oppose votes. Watering down an oppose rationale to the point that it is civil devalues the oppose vote. Which is why I think RfA should be a straight equal value vote count with no rationales given. Particularly when admins and even arbs feel free to threaten editors that oppose their preferred candidates. --Surturz (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I have opposed a fair number of RFAs when I felt the candidate was not suited for adminship but I never ever aimed to be uncivil with my !votes yet I never "watered them down". Criticism itself is not problematic, it's how you present it. I'd go even further and say that if you phrase valid criticism in an intentionally uncivil fashion, it is much more likely to be ignored by the candidate than if you do it in a way that signals that you genuinely are interested that they take your comment to heart. No system can stop individual participants from being uncivil to people they disagree with but the (preemptive) response to such behavior should not be incivility of your own. If someone attacks you personally for your civil comments, just ignore them. In the end, that will make you look good and them look stupid. On the other hand, if they attack you because you have been uncivil yourself, you will both look stupid. Regards SoWhy 13:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The rationale there seems very strong, it is just worded in quite an uncivil way. It is perfectly possible to write a very strong oppose rationale without being rude; sadly, this is not always exhibited at RfA. It would be possible to use exactly the same rationale and remain civil:

"Very strong oppose — Only 4000 edits, 40% of which are to Wikipedia space, 25% to user talk space and 10% to user space - yet only 1/5 of your edits are to article space. Of your Wikipedia space edits, a hug portion are at dramaboards like ANI or RfA, but very few are to actual maintenance areas of the sire. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site; I would like to see much more content creation from you if you wish to be an admin. I do not see the required maturity and competence required in a administrator."

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 13:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually don't think "very strong oppose" is even necessary. Plain old "strong oppose" perhaps, but "very strong"? Nah.

Wow, I sure did start an interesting conversation. Then again, this place never bores me. =) Master&Expert (Talk) 15:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• *glares at his own edit count graph and compares it against the comment* Makes me wonder if I could pass RfA if I ran in this era. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I find this kind of language to be very troublesome, and becoming too prevalent. As I recently commented in the MF RFAR, a lot of people don't have thick skins for dealing with this kind of extremely—at best brash, at worst assholish—behavior. It has a chilling and detrimental effect on the community. Some may say that you need a thick skin to contribute to Wikipedia, but isn't that condition problematic in and of itself? We are here trying to build an encyclopedia. We have different kinds of people from all walks of life with different experiences, and different ways which they can and want to contribute. If we don't demand civility then the ultimate result is that we end up with most people fitting into this assholish category of contributors. It can lead to group think. I myself have previously stopped contributing largely over the belief that this is too prevalent for me to want to deal with. You can call that being "scared" or whatever adjective you want, but it's irrelevant because the fact is that if we lose contributors for any reason, especially those which are utterly preventable, that IS a problem. As Erastus Wiman said, "Nothing is ever lost by courtesy. It is the cheapest of the pleasures; costs nothing and conveys much. It pleases him who gives and; him who receives, and thus, like mercy, it is twice blessed."    Thorncrag  21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, except that if you (i.e. anyone) are considering becoming an admin, you better reconcile yourself with the reality that you will perforce be having rather more contact with the more, using your words, assholish, editors than you have done previously. Franamax (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I really don't want to split hairs with you because essentially you are right... that being said, I really feel that in part that making this a requirement is somewhat symptomatic of the decline in civility. We could be losing out on otherwise good admins because of it, and those who can so easily tolerate it might be able to do so because they have a propensity to themselves exhibit that behavior, or they believe it is not inappropriate, or they are at least willing to tolerate it. Hopefully this is making sense.    Thorncrag  02:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

There will always be assholes who edit the Wikipedia and there's nothing we can do about that other than warn them, remove their comments, or in extreme cases, block them - and that's someting admins are expected to cope with. What we don't want is assholes being promoted to adminship, but there is no excuse for the assholes who express themselves in anything other than truthful, objective, helpful, and polite oppose votes. They are the assholes who are discouraging worthy candidates from applying for adminship who should not be expected to cope with group-think assholery on their RfA, and IMHO, persistent assholes should be topic banned from the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, re your edit summary "It's precicesley the incivility and dishonest voting that has broken RfA", even more--it's broken wiki. Since civility is uncontrollable, wiki is hopelessly broken and can't be fixed, double so since the assholes control wiki. PumpkinSky talk 03:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is you can't and shouldn't demand or enforce courtesy in every single situation no matter what. Some of you may be aware that I recently had a brush with the civility police because I told a user to fuck off. That was the only the second time in all my years here I have felt the need to tell somebody that, and in both cases it was solely becuase they persisted in posting to my talk page after I had asked them nicely not to. If you come into someone's house or place of business and start acting like a fool and causing trouble, you may be asked to leave. If you don't, you are the one being the asshole, not the guy who has had enough and tells you to get the fuck out of his house. Yet I had to put with two users who went on and on about how it was not neccessary and only made things worse, completely ignmoring the fact that I had tried to do it the nice way first and that it was the guy who wouldn't stop posting who was making things worse, going so far as to edit war with another admin who removed a comment he made after I asked him to stop posting. (ironically enough the only other time I told anpother user to fuck off it was Malleus, who did pretty much the same thing, but that was quite a while ago) In fact I just today wrote this essay on that very subject. If someone is telling people to fuck off every day, that's one thing, but if someone is abusively posting on my talk page I reserve the right to tell them to fuck off. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't such a user be temporarily blocked at that point? Nobody deserves to be harassed, even admins.    Thorncrag  04:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a painfully long story how we got to that point, but he is in fact blocked now. It's still visible at ANI if you have an hour or so to read all about it. The point, though is that all the sudden I had user all over my case solely because I used a "bad word" and not because I was actually wrong. they kept saying things like "that is not ever acceptable from anyone." I don't believe that reality or consensus On this project back up that position. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't condone it, but as he's one of the most consistently polite and helpful admins here, I can understand Beeblebrox being goaded to the point that he blurted out a last ditch demand to a persistently disruptive user to leave him alone. There's no bright threshold for civility, but one thing is certain, there are editors who regularly make use of inappropriate expression - and it does not even need to be swear words to be hurtful. Beeblebrox does not display any of those character traits. Ironically, where RfA is the one place where civility and maturity should be of the highest level by all concerned, it's the one place some people go to be as demeaning as possible with impunity, and sometimes I would dearly love to tell them to f*** off. More amazing (but typical human reaction) is the that the drama mongers are the quickest to manifest uncivil righteous indignation when they are called to order, however politely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The comment that has been brought to attention at the beginning of this discussion is completely out of order. I've previously expressed my opinion on the hell-hole that is RfA, along with it's gang of vipers that prey on unsuspecting candidates, and this topic has sadly been covered over and over and over again. I've recently spent a lot of time away from Wikipedia, but it's clear nothing has changed. The RfA process is a let-down in so many ways in I'm not in the least bit surprised that there are no nominations at the moment. Orphan Wiki (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If this incivility-at-RFA thing is really such a big issue, we shouldn't need to discuss hypotheticals to get at how awful it is. How about people bring up some actual votes that they found to be so incivil, so people can identify exactly what the incivilty was and what's to be done about it?

People seem to frequently call out my RFA votes as unreasonable, so if anyone's worried about hurting any other editors' feelings, I volunteer my own votes for critique. Townlake (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I certainly appreciate your suggestion and intent, but I fear doing that could just create a shitstorm that we really don't need or want.... I think that's why people are discussing it with hypotheticals. Also, to be frank, In my opinion anyone can rationalize specific statements made... they could be argued ad infinitum, that's not really the point, I don't think. Rather, the general atmosphere that fosters those types of comments is perhaps what needs addressing.    Thorncrag  19:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If the perceived incivility can be rationalized, this thread is simply a discussion of whether Wikipedia should cater to RFA candidates whose feelings are easily hurt. Is that where this is going? If not, where is this discussion going? Townlake (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It was and is a discussion about civility in the context of RfAs, but it's hard to discuss civility in that context without also considering the broader picture of the community in general. RfA by its very nature is almost a microcosm of the community at large, given its weight, and given the implications of selecting those who would enforce civility in the community.    Thorncrag  20:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A list of Townlake's RfA votes is here together with an analysis of his voting pattern. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thorncrag is correct. The reason I used a hypothetical example is because I didn't want to humiliate someone for having an unpopular or overly aggressive opinion at an RfA. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say that the people who make unpopular or overly aggressive opinions at RfA are the ones who do the humiliating. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes get the impression that some users are deliberately like that at RFA as a sort of "final exam" to see how the candidate handles it. Over the years I have seen a few instances of users who were doing well until they freaked out at an agressive or rude oppose and ruined it for themselves. Not saying I condone such behavior but any active admins knows you have to put up with a lot of pointed criticism, some of it entirely without any basis in reality, to be an effective administrator. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some of the angst develops resultant the false premise laid out in the instructions. For example when you see an instruction line which reads: "Always be respectful towards others in your comments."; it is easy to imagine, even expect, an environment of civility and mutual respect. Perhaps cutting to the chase would be a better approach. If the same instruction line read: "We ask all participants to be respectful. Invariably some participants will disrupt this request, by nature or otherwise, and post insulting comments. Candidates at RfA are advised to ignore such commentary, and trust the process overall." candidates would be better prepared, upon the eventuality. We can't really make people behave, but we can present a more truthful instruction. My76Strat (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree Beeb. I think you'll find that most of those who are unpleasant at RfA are pretty obtuse and obnoxious in most other places. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I also think that in RfA or any venue that--trolls or any childish person in general--will always push to see just how far they can go. And I think RfA has become the ultimate destination to push the envelop to see just how far people can push and what they can get away with. And they use the "well we have to see what they can put up" rationalization as free ticket to ride. I'm not saying that I disagree with that premise per se, just trying to take a broad look at things.    Thorncrag  14:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The only way to enforce civility (and honest votes) is to rebut cases of incivility, lies, deceit, and unreflected pile-ons, or to remove the votes entirely with the vote being forfeited. Problem is, however politely the rebuttals are made, the accused will invariably retort with righteous indignation, and garner support from their sycophants of similar disposition. One can come close to believing that there is a band of intellectual hooligans here who roam the streets of Wikipedia late at night looking to see who they can collectively assault. They come to RfA because it's the one place - for some strange reason - where they can work their common evil with impunity. And impunity is the word - all they get is "Aw, only three of your victims actually died and as you do so well in your daytime jobs we'll let you off and block the people who complained instead." If it wasn't so pathetic, RfA would be almost as humorous as the Spanish Inquisition sketch.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

How awful this all sounds. I'll ask again: Can you or anyone else provide an actual example of this awfulness in a real RFA? This dialogue you're all having is sounding more and more like a broad-based collective attack against anyone who routinely opposes RFAs in anything less than flowery language. Townlake (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's exaggerating the situation slightly. It's easy enough to see if one just reviews the last 200 or so RfAs. The growing idea that there is a cabal of anti-opposers is a construct put about by the real band of delinquents who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads and resent being told they're going too far. The overall conclusion that I extrapolate is that there are basically half a dozen or so regulars who are regularly unpleasant, but where the less frequent voters are only too happy to clutch at their coat tails and follow suit under mother goose's wings. I'll make no odds about it: my own RfA was a classic example of practically every nasty trick and comment in the catalogue. I think I handled it reasonably well under the circumstances but the voting didn't turn until very late, and the whole process left me shattered although I'm a tough old bastard. I knew from the onset however, that I would be in for a rough ride from some ancient and dishonest detractors who would creep out of the woodwork for the occasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Splendid! Now we have a talking point. Here's the RFA you're talking about. I reviewed your RFA; looks like I was oppose #2, for your tendency to TLDR discussions. Was I unpleasant with that vote? Overall, I see a little incivility, particularly in #13 (harkening back to the Worcester pronunciation debate, where I think you were firmly in the right and well-behaved.) But this is hardly "practically every nasty trick and comment in the catalogue." It's just a couple malcontents (#8 and #13) whom I happen to disagree with. In the discussion after #8 (which exists because the oppose wasn't entirely unreasonable), your opposer notes that you're highly intelligent and he respects you. Where else shall I look to see why you were left shattered? Were a couple of terse opposes really that bad? Townlake (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd appreciate it if you could identify the "real band of delinquents who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads." I know of one famous delinquent who's currently got an RFC/U running, but even he's a reasonably constructive contributor 90% of the time. Who else is a part of this band of delinquents? Not trying to pick a fight here, but if you're going to make bold and aggressive statements about other users like this, you should be prepared for follow-up questions. Townlake (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That original hypotheticl oppose was a bit half-and-halfish, for me. But as regards incivility at RfA, it makes for very uncomfortable reading for some people (myself included) who aren't Running for Adminship. It's a nasty-tempered place, very often. Very often it's the snidey little remarks suggesting that the candidate's been vote-rigging around IRC, that the support voters are "their IRC friends", accusations like this: "I don't listen to the IRC channels myself but recall some grumbling that there's a clique that hangs out there and which promotes their membership to become admins", and that kind of thing. For someone to think that they can get away with accusations of IRC-based cabals gaming the system by mutual-promotion to adminship, just because they say it at RfA, is out of order. If people aren't prepared to make official reports of meatpuppetry, vote-rigging etc. in the appropriate place, then they shouldn't bring it up at RfA either. RfA is currently the WikiMidden. The entire civility issue needs a major overhaul throughout the wiki, and the same standards should apply in what is preserved for posterity at RfA and RfA talk as one would expect everywhere else. And everywhere needs consistent and fair application of any sanctions and reprimands which are dished out. One standard for all, no matter which page we're looking at. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The average RfA participant is frustrated in one form or another (some because of the nature of adminship itself, others because they believe it is too difficult to obtain a gavel nowadays): frustrations tend to boil over at RfA. Water tends to be wet: swimmers tend to get wet. —WFC— 02:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break just to ease the scrolling

I often refer to my own RfA as an example because it is unique in several ways, and naturally it's the first one that comes to mind, but I've never published an analytical essay about it as some do when they feel they have been poorly treated by some pf the voters. A year or so ago ago I was once rudely treated on this page by a pompous admin for behaving like a schoolyard kid for not naming names; what s/he was forgetting was one of the fundamental principles of NPA - and I naturally refuse to abuse anyone's dignity by publishing a 'hate' list for which I would probably end up in front of arbcom myself. As I have mentioned many times, the info is all available in the logs, page histories, and archives, etc, for anyone who has time to do their own research. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I may have been pompous when I suggested it but at the time I was not an admin, so perhaps you are referring to someone else. In either case, I share Townlake's concern that talking about these things in the abstract doesn't really do much to improve the situation. Perhaps a compromise? Of the people who opposed your RfA, how many (just a count, not a list of names) do you think were uncivil, assumed bad faith or otherwise behaved inappropriately? It appears Townlake's answer to that question is "2". I'm curious what yours is. 28bytes (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

28bytes, you and I seem to have got some things right somewhere, and you have an excellent memory for some of my comments in the older archives of this page, that were made long before I ever dreamed of becoming an admin, and it goes to prove that I repeat my self every time this topic gets tisched up again. I'm afraid that political correctness forces me to make again a somewhat circumlocutory response, but to answer your question: of all types of votes that I believe are uncivil, assumed bad faith or otherwise behaved inappropriately, or were mere pile-ons, there were 18 that if I were a 'crat I would have either discounted or at least given significantly less weight to in a close call. However, I've later supported some of their RfAs while a couple of other less pleasant opposers have become firm Wikifreinds and close collaborators. Some apolosed later by email for their comments and/or unreflected votes, while three continue to misrepresent and demean everything I do to this day when our paths must unfortunately but inevitably cross. If ever any of the opposers run for adminship they can be assured of my polite and objective (and very detailed) vote. Those who are stll admins or who otherwise behaved badly, continue to shoot themselves in the foot elsewhere - and I keep out of it, just as I'm unlikely to contribute any more of my specialised knowledge of linguistics, or submit any articles for FA any time soon. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: there was one comment on my RfA that if I had been an uninvolved admin, I would have been sorely tempted to summarily block for gross PA but would certainly have raised an ANI. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Adminship is is not too difficult to obtain. Generally, those who should pass do, and those who shouldn't don't. Close calls are relatively rare. Wikipedia has matured, and indeed standards and criteria have risen over the years, but this is concurrent with the increasing pool of longer-term mature, experienced editors of who have matured with it. The only difficulty is in getting potential candidates to go through a process which instead of maturing, has descended to little more than a schoolyard of bullies. Admittedly, too many candidates propose themselves who are nowhere near ready for the challenge of adminship, and if they have not bothered to read the guidelines and WP:Advice for RfA candidates, or heed the warning on the transclusion page, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't meet with the community's approval. It's still no reason be nasty to them. Other candidates simply lose the plot, their temper, and their nerves, and demonstrate they lack the cool head for defusing conflict. But baiting, taunting, insulting, and waterboarding the swimmers is not the right way to find out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have two specific opposse which I'd be happy to cite as examples; one is from 2010, when I first started getting a little more active in RfA, and another is from a fairly recent RfA. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wot? Nasty comments that you made? I don't believe it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing we need to ask here is whether anything at all will change about the school-yard bullying at RfA? Or is all this blah blah blah simply futile? Because all this is nothing new... THAT's the problem now. The bullying, the attacking, the demoralising, the stupid arrogance is still there. It's relentless. And it's wholly uncalled for, no matter what level the candidate is at. Orphan Wiki (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We're likely to see relatively little meaningful change under a rigid framework, but reasonably likely to get consensus for at least some of the things that are proposed. Conversely, under few or no restrictions, we're likely to find something that will make a relatively big difference, but somewhat less likely to get consensus for any individual proposal. On balance, it's likely (despite my protestations at the length of time it's taking) that RFA2011 will achieve something first. But given that the problems are systemic (in my personal opinion), there remains a lot of value in developing substantially different ways of doing things. Sooner or later we'll hit upon something worth the wait. —WFC— 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It needs a 'rigid framework' in order to maintain focus on the specific issues that the project has identified as needing to be addressed and prioritised, and to prevent the discussions from deteriorating into a free-for-all à la WT:RfA which incidentally never achieved anything since it was started in 2003. That is not to say that this talk page is unimportant - it's main topic is, naturally enough, all the things that are wrong with the current process. The irony is that among the 2,500 participants here are also those who have ruined RfA, and they interject with derision here too. RFA2011 is an open door like any Wikipedia project, but it is determined to keep the trolls out and get on with serious business. None of its detractors have even bothered to take a proper look at the vast amount of research and discussions in its clearly presented sections, and those who go there simply to criticise it for being inactive or a cabal of power users can only wonder why some of the background work now continues in other places (not IRC!), but like all Wikipedia developments, it all takes time ::sigh:: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, who wouldn't want to join a "reform" process that engenders a tone similar to that evinced in this thread?

From WP:NPA: "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." More: Personal attacks include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."

"Real band of delinquents who can't keep a civil tongue in their heads," "schoolyard of bullies," RFA voters who are "baiting, taunting, insulting, and waterboarding the swimmers." Kudpung, anonymizing your attacks in this thread does not get them out from under NPA; instead it just looks like you're carpet-bombing everyone you disagree with with these unsupported allegations. I believe you are talking about me among those you are accusing, and I request that you focus your dialogue on points that may prove to actually be constructive and productive. Townlake (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, I've said on more than one occasion that having a structure makes sense, my gripes are that the strucutre itself is flawed, and that it is considered pretty much non-negotiable. On the cabal point, a group of admins working off-Wiki will inevitably fuel that perception, although I entirely agree that as far as research is concerned, doing it independently and publishing when it's finished is often more productive. But in the context of trying to shed the cabal image, I ask whether it's really appropriate for one of the most vocal proponents of a process designed to make RfA nicer to make condescending comments such as the one above, aimed at everyone that does not agree exactly with RFA2011? —WFC— 15:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We all know that there is something very wrong with the behaviour of some people on RfA, and that it also engenders a pile-on of votes from those who are not so good at it. We all know that the overall picture of RfA is not a good one at all, even Wales has said it's a 'horrible and broken process' - that's why it's being discussed here. Perhaps what is indeed needed is one of your gold nuggets - but which one? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I know of at least one reasonably good one which is out there and on-wiki, but it's not the finished article. What I hope everyone will agree is that knowing that there is a relatively stable, gradual path to improvement should not hinder the project in its efforts to find a more far-reaching solution. The former is of course necessary in the absence of an alternative solution which is good to go. But completely rebuilding a horrible and broken process will take more than sandpaper alone, no matter how skillful and forceful the people applying it are. —WFC— 16:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a core of regular voters which in itself is not a bad thing and should lead to some consistency from one RfA to another. However, the RfA process has been a magnet for insipient incivility since its inception, and that core contains, as we all agree, some undesireable elements. That core is subject to flux, and although the current one has been relatively stable for quite a while now, it's a very different one from two years ago but it still continues to maintain the tradition of a meeting place for honesty, civility, and good faith issues.

Outside that group, other voters appear to be transient or casual, and possibly mainly 'I like him/her' or 'I don't like him/her' votes. A shortly to be published new set of data will either prove or disprove this theory. Other Wikipedias use basically the same system, and as far as I can see from the ones I can read, their processes are relatively 'clean'. Our problem, as the oldest Wiki, is that the situation has been allowed to go on for too long - so long that not only has it become tolerated and accepted, but those who speak out and create projects to do something about it are now regarded by some as the evil-doers. If people have a pattern of being unpleasant it may only need a couple of temporary topic bans which would work as a deterrent to others - and it does not have to be 'blatant' PA, incivility or cuss words to be hurtful to the candidates and other participants, or damaging to the system; there are other literary devices that are equally demeaning.

Some nuggets may nevertheless be very worthy of consideration, but IHMO, if unbundling the tools were to be one of them, I don't think it would work; it might address some less contentious backlog or vandalism problems, but it won't solve the core issues of RfA or any other (s)election process for user privileges. We already have a myriad of user rights, and a priesthood of policemen with varying ranks and competence will only add more fire to the confusion, and more words wasted on the controversies they will most likely engeder. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you up to and including the point that long-term behavior has been allowed to carry on for too long. But your assertions that 18 of those who opposed your RfA fall into that category is highly dubious. Even if we accept that as fact, that along with your belief RfA currently yields the right end results (in terms of which ones do and don't pass) doesn't tally with RFA2011's stated aim of lowering the RfA pass theshold. If those that consistently vote that way were removed from the decision-making process through more rigourous enforcement of existing policies, a higher pass theshold would be necessary to produce similar end results. —WFC— 19:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Then forget about my RfA, and do what I did: take a few long nights to review a couple of hundred other RfAs. There are 'regulars' in every meta corner of this machine and some may possibly appear to be even far more clannish than RfA, and regular participants at some venues such as, for example AfD, are permanently polarised - like RfA, AfD is also a popular destination for budding office workers and emotions often run high there too; those areas however, are about articles and not about people.

RfA is one of the few non disciplinary department where it is allowed to discuss the editor and not the content, so because no specific behavioural issue is under discussion, some people breathe out and throw as much mud as they can in any direction and hope that it will stick, while others can vote 'keep' in the relative safety of knowing that they don't need to provide a rationale other than the generally accepted one that their signature alone supports the nomination statement, and where they are not required to back their argument up with policy and diffs.

Hence it's not a question of removing anyone who consistently votes one way or another - because anyone can legitimately choose only to vote at an RfA or AfD when they prefer to support or oppose, or delete or keep. What might appear to be tendentious is a pattern that demonstrates a general denial of the reality of the need for Wikipedias to have some form of management, leadership, whatever. They may even have a secret wish for a Wikipedia where everyone has the sysop tools and every one is allowed to be as nasty as they like, and their goal might be to disrupt RfA until that anarchy becomes the only available alternative. It's my guess however, that arbcom would step in before that happens, even if the WMF sits back and does nothing.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, compared to other Wikis, for the size of en.Wiki the turnout is surprisingly low. Where reform or control is needed is in encouraging participants to raise their standards/quality of the votes on both sides, and hoping for a larger quorum. if that were achieved, then the tally equation could perhaps be recalculated. For example, the Italians have an incredibly complex system, and although I have no problems reading their language, it's something I'm still trying to get my head around and understand why it is necessarily so complex, and if one day I'm able to see an advantage in it, it may be worth considering. The bottom line is 'removing' votes (on both sides) that are not appropriate, and perhaps, as is done on other Wikis, introduce some measures that control the quality of the votes, would perhaps send a message to those who 'might' be displaying a tendency to be less congenial.

At the risk of getting TLDR (again), and getting back to WFC's famous nuggets which he declines as yet to detail, how about offering them up for discussion? And if he doesn't like the people at RFA2011, he's more than welcome to start a discussion anywhere else, but it won't be here at WT:RFA that he'll get a structured and focused debate. A sub page perhaps - there are 2,500 watchers to draw on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Some people breathe out and throw as much mud as they can in any direction and hope that it will stick"? That's interesting. Once again I'll quote from WP:NPA, as linked above: "serious accusations require serious evidence." Please provide evidence that your quote is accurate. Yes, this will require you to identify at least a couple of the "some people" referenced in your claim. Thanks in advance. Townlake (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, if that is a personal attack who is Kudpung personally attacking? From WP:NPA it also says "... comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people ..." Isn't that what Kudpung is doing in this instance. trying not to personalise it and commenting on the actions that he sees rather than the people? 65.40.145.244 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you there IP. It might be that Kudpung has crossed his own line on civility in this discussion, but certainly not the site's. I personally have no problem with the tone of his argument (with the exception that he knows full well which unpolished nugget I am referring to). —WFC— 19:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WPC WFC and IP. NPA contains no requirement that the target be named for an attack to exist; in this instance, Kudpung's use of the term "some people" indicates he's talking about the people rather than the behavior. There's a pattern here: In several places in this thread (and as I've already called out once above), Kudpung has made personal attacks against a group of editors he refuses to name, but whom he claims are easy to identify. I have no idea if I'm part of that group of editors or not; I reasonably believe I could be. And I actually consider Kudpung's strategy for attempting to elude NPA worse than a "named" personal attack, because if Kudpung provides no evidence to back up his allegations, there is absolutely no way for his statements to result in anything constructive. Townlake (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

NPA doesn't require naming the individual, but the clear sense is that it is about identifiable individuals, hence the "personal". I'm not interested in being identified as accepting attacks against groups, but if we do intend to prohibit such attacks, we need to be more explicit. This is not a minor point, as one of the issues in the case against MF is whether the precipitating edit was a personal attack. I think it was not.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

MF has nothing to do with this discussion. That said, let's go by what NPA says instead of reading between the lines. Now, try reading this chestnut of civility from Kudpung and tell me it's not meant to be a personal attack against any oppose voter whose vote he doesn't think is high-quality. And remember, Kudpung said above that 18 of the 21 votes at his own RFA should have been devalued because of their content. I was one of his 21 opposers. Townlake (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think wording like that should be encouraged, but it is clearly not personal. As for remembering Kudpung's comment about 18 of 21, I don't remember it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The 18-of-21 thing is in this thread. If you can read Kudpung quotes like "there is no excuse for the assholes who express themselves in anything other than truthful, objective, helpful, and polite oppose votes" and not match it up with the 18-of-21 thing to see what Kudpung thought of his opposers, we're too far apart to have a worthwhile dialogue. Townlake (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Some editors think that the majority of admins are dishonest so-and-sos, and like to say so. Some editors think there's an IRC cabal running everything, and like to say so. Some editors think that there are a lot of assholes who unfairly oppose RfAs, and like to say so. I don't know that their saying so breaches WP:NPA, but I sure believe it's unhelpful and divisive, and I wish they would stop doing it, as I gently suggested elsewhere in this thread. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

<moved from below> To keep things in context, I would just point out that I was deliberately parodying an expression used by a previous poster. Except when citing, I don't generally use any words, either on Wikipedia or in RL, that are possibly part of a vocabulary that is regarded by some as offensive - on either side of the pond, or in any other language that I speak. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You chose and used your own words there. Nothing in that subthread was crying out for a "parody." Townlake (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Case study

It seems to me that if RFA is ever to incrementally become a less hostile place, then sooner or later, someone somewhere is going to have to point to an individual edit (and thus editor) and decide "this is OK" or "this is unacceptable". So maybe we should actually try that. Townlake has cheerfully offered to be a lab rat, so why not go through their last 40 !votes and if anyone sees a problem, bring it up here for discussion? People who think the entire process is structurally broken are welcome not to participate, ditto for those who just want to attack Townlake's character rather than their !votes. Townlake, you can start us off: which of your recent !votes do you think is closest to being poorly phrased? They can't all be equally pertfect. :) Franamax (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate and accept the invitation to participate, though I won't be able to give much input til at least tomorrow - busy the rest of the day. For others' ease of reference, as Kudpung helpfully provided above, here's the toolserver link to my votes. (The toolserver link is running very slowly for me right now.) I'll note that my signature-based rationale in my vote at My76Strat was weak, and RedThoreau took personal offense that I compared his graphics-heavy user and talk pages to Myspace pages. But for incivility, honestly nothing comes immediately to mind. I'll look more later. Townlake (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

<moved, to keep in context>Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

To keep things in context here Kudpung, we're trying to examine a specific set of RFA !votes made by one editor. That editor is not yourself, so the context is not particularly yours to draw. If you're fussed about your edit being the one to start the current section break, I may be able to fix that. Franamax (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've looked back over my recent votes. I'm not finding any incivility, but I'll highlight some of the oppose votes that might raise concerns with others. (As this is an RFA talk space and we're talking about archived RFAs, I'm not going to notify the candidates whose RFAs I bring up here. If anyone else wants to do that, though, feel free. And I'm skipping my support votes, because of course, rare is the support vote that RFA regulars call out as unreasonable.)

• BusterD (oppose #1): I thought the candidate had too many nominators (three plus the candidate's own self-nom statement), and I noted an AFD close I thought was bad. Candidate disagreed with me on both counts.
• Steven Zhang (oppose #4): The entirety of my oppose vote was "Risks outweigh benefits." This spawned conversation.
• Richwales 2 (oppose #2): Again, three noms plus a self nom. Lots of objections were raised to my rationale there.
• RobertMfromLI (oppose #1): I opposed for lack of article creation. Ensuing dialogue got a little ugly, and partly focused on my lack of interest in obtaining additional tools myself.
• My76Strat (oppose #2): I opposed because he didn't have a clear link to his signature talk page in his signature. Candidate understood the rationale and fixed it, but I know signature-based opposes have been frequently cited as something that's wrong with RFA. Anyway, lengthy thread after my vote, indicating other issues had emerged since my original post that made me confident I should stay in opposition.
• Kudpung (oppose #2): I'd be remiss not to mention this one given Kudpung's posts in this thread. Here's the full text of my oppose: "Based on the TLDR answer to Q6, and your genuine surprise at Sandy's reaction to it, it doesn't seem you sufficiently value the time of project volunteers who aren't operating on your wavelength." It spawned no conversation at the time.
• Snottywong (oppose #14): My vote here spawned no dialogue, but was perhaps strongly worded and could have used a diff or two.
• Ponyo (lone oppose): Another signature-based oppose. I switched from neutral; the username didn't match what was in the sig, there were other issues I noted. Anyway, lots of dialogue on this topic.

That goes back 40 votes; #40 was my oppose to 28bytes (a boring oppose), #41 was my support of Sphilbrick's candidacy. Do I regret any of these votes? Well, I haven't used the signature rationale in a while, and probably won't going forward. Otherwise, I doubt I would really do anything differently. I look forward to hearing whether others think I should. Townlake (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Its very commendable of you to put yourself up for scrutiny like this. Reviewing just the last 20 votes, almost all your opposes seem objectionable, including the ones you haven't picked out. Will just talk about the three most recent opposes.

The most recent vote against Sven seems a poor reason to oppose someone whos made such outstanding contributions to the community, though I guess that's a matter of opinion. The comment here seems harsh and judgmental-- even for high office like being a British MP, theres an unwritten rule that youthful indiscretions aren't held against you except in exceptional circumstances (Many MPs are known to have used illegal drugs at uni for example, but no one would attack them for it unless they did something like lead a campaign for harsher enforcement.)

The most objectionale part about your input to the Sven RfA is maybe the scare quotes around "much younger" -as if youre mocking his choice of words. Seems unnecessary, even though Sven showed no sign of taking offence, and ended up handling the RFA with outstanding aplomb.

The Buggie oppose doesnt look like you took much time to word with any clarity. Everyone had a talk page history, was you saying his archiving interval of 10 days was too short, saying the archives should be prominently linked, or something else?

Again with the Buster oppose you linked to, it doesn't look like the oppose rationale was given a lot of thought. If youd said "Multiple nominators could be an attempt to deflect attention from a candidates weakness" that would have been fair enough , but "Lots of nominators = dubious candidate" is surely an overstatement?

Maybe this all seems like pedantic nit picking? On the other hand, in 2011 we've had multiple candidates leaving after an unpleasant RfA experience, and probably a great many declining to run due to the hostile atmosphere. So maybe opposers voters should take care to compose a constructively critical rationale where ever possible? Would be intested to know if you'd still make the same opposes and follow on comments again? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being the first to answer, and for phrasing your thoughts in such constructive terms.

I think this exercise stands the best chance of succeeding if I stay out of the way for at least a couple days and allow others to comment before I respond to anything. We already have two differing views cast here on what constitutes civility at RFA (Feyd's post and Oranje's). If I may say so, I already think something constructive is coming of this exercise. Townlake (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so gracefully and understanding I was talking about civility as its defined in the lede of our policy doc. I agree this does look like it could be an unusually constructive thread. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

• anyone is welcome to dissect my RfA as well. And I'd be happy to offer my thoughts on any questions anyone may ask - but only after the NFL Steelers game .. lol. — Ched :  ?  18:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought this case study was to determine what is acceptable from a civility point of view in order to make this a "less hostile place", not whether Townlake's rationales were sound. Townlake; I have reviewed a random selection of around 25 of your opposes (and a couple of supports) and found, although some of your rationales are thin, none of them cross the lines of civility. Probably the closest to incivility would be your comment on another oppose on Kudpung's RfA which seems mildly catty. Quite frankly you are a somewhat boring candidate for the purpose a case study on incivility (don't take that wrong). Ideally we want a volunteer whose opposes are borderline incivil - or at least their rebuttals of opposes are incivil. --ClubOranje^T 22:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

After watching the discussion for the past few weeks (and occasionally posting), I feel obliged to post again. The brief discussion above seems to highlight the fact that many oppose votes with poor rationale can be worded in a civil manner, and many oppose votes with strong rationale are worded very rudely. If incivility = poor rationale, then we could easily ask 'crats to disregard incivil votes. The problem is that this is not the case - I agree that we need civility, but we cannot be ignoring strong and potentially viral votes on the grounds of civility. It seems to me, therefore, that we need some mechanism of encouraging civility without discounting all uncivil votes. At present, I'm not sure how we would go about this; I think a complete cultural change may be necessary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I never felt Townlake was uncivil toward me in any manner regarding his oppose of my RfA. The angst which emerged within the thread attributes more to a misunderstanding (of mine) than to any other thing. My76Strat (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Based on the feedback above, there are clearly many different ideas of what constitutes civility at RFA.

I agree with Feyd that the lead to WP:CIVILITY defines "civility" pretty broadly. However, I don't think RFA's existing structure, which requires oppose voters to detail the reasons they're opposing, incentivizes voter politeness. The bureaucrats who close RFAs have made it clear that they devalue opposes (and supports) that sound ambivalent... so of course I'm going to write my oppose votes to highlight the reasons I'm opposing. Does Sven Manguard do lots of valuable things on Wikipedia? Of course he does. But if I mention them in my oppose vote, I'm subtracting from the value of my vote. Why would I do that? I vote with the one-sided perspective that RFA encourages.

"Discuss the candidates" was a great idea when Wikipedia was small, but the project has long ago outgrown RFA candidate discussions. Six people voting on an AFD can legitimately have a discussion in a way that adds value above the mere counting of noses. But 100+ people voting on an RFA candidate rarely involves constructive conversations; more often, challenges to oppose votes merely descend into poop-throwing contests.

My solution: RFA is a vote, and we should finally acknowledge that. 'Crat discretion should go away; set a hard pass/fail line and let the no-rationale-required votes fall where they may. (Every RFA has a talk page; voters should use it.) The main purpose of RFA is to promote admins, not to provide editor reviews or stroke candidates' egos. Not to have pointless polarized conversations that just obfuscate the fact that we're voting here. By reducing RFA to its core purpose, I believe the civility problems could be mostly erased. Does anyone disagree?

Thanks to those who commented, and if others want to chime in, I hope you will. Townlake (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with your comments above, and find them particularly astute. My76Strat (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of RfA being a simple vote, but Townlake does make a persuasive argument for making it so in the short term, and using the talk page for discussion. —WFC— 23:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that if it were decided that RFA should become a straight vote then we should go one step further and use SecurePoll like we did in the last 2 arbcom elections. Making the votes anonymous might slightly cut down on the number of "take that" opposes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As for your idea to make RFA a vote, I made a system mockup out of boredom. The RFA page would have sections for each voter with vote and rationale, and then an RFA Clerk or Bureaucrat or whoever would go through and validate the votes (check if it's an IP, sock, maybe judge if the rationale is good enough, etc.), which would turn them transcludable. Discussion could take place under each person's rationale or could be restricted to the talk page. When it's transcluded to a voting subpage, only the "validated" votes would be transcluded and a bot could count them. Here's the example. No comment on whether a straight vote is a good idea or not, just a theoretical exercise. Feel free to mess around with it! — Bility (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The current voting page works just fine. SPA votes are already easy to knock out if they become problematic. I'm not looking to reinvent RFA here. Townlake (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my suggestion was to examine one individual's voting to elucidate opinions on what does or does not create a hostile RFA environment. That includes but is not limited to whatever concept of "civility" we have managed to so precisely define. It excluded opinions on how only structural change would suffice. I wasn't expecting the lab rat to change the experiment. :) Are "Oppose Imaature jerk." and "Oppose I have concerns about your maturity[1][2][3] and in discussions you sometimes seem to be a bit of a jerk to newcomers.[4][5][6]" equivalent? Same keywords, different presentation. To make incremental improvements, we need minimum standards that nost people can agree to. Franamax (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

We were several days into the case study and new comments weren't coming. The results of the experiment -- wide disparity of opinions on what "civility" means -- suggested that incremental attempts to improve civility in RFA comments are a waste of time. Therefore, we've moved on to discussing better solutions. Townlake (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Or a statistically significant proportion of the study respondents found your own votes boring as a case study, take your pick. :) I put in a sub-heading to demarcate discussion, can you do the same? I, or others, may still wish to contribute to the originating sub-thread. I'd rather discuss realistically achievable solutions here, rather than how badly everyting is broken. Franamax (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

My solution is realistic. Townlake (talk) 07:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Cute toy, Bility! The one change I'd really like to make to it would be that the vote= section should be radio-buttoned: support, oppose, neutral It would get rid of all those "Strong oppose" with virtually no strength to their arguments, and so on. Leave it up to the 'crats to decide which are strong votes and which are weak - it also reduces the emotional impact on the candidate if there are only three vote options. (Hope you like my support rationale, btw ;P) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The strong or weak modifiers are maybe best seen as signals of how strongly one feels, not as a self assessment of ones rationale. Google "preference intensity" if youre interested in seeing why this is a useful part of good decision making. Townlake's solution sounds workable to me if its able to get concensus. Even just having this discussion may have some useful effect. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)