Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 1

• Crats to immediately remove any crap !votes. Generally don't like the idea, as it smells badly of censorship. I do like the idea of preventing personal attacks like "obtuse jerk" etc, but a quick look over ANI will show just how contentious the identification of personal attacks can be. Again, there are overtones of "the elite using their power to silence the masses".
• All 'pass', 'fail' decisions to be seconded by a second crat (or perhaps an uninvolved admin) - only if it's close.
• Neutral votes to be taken into consideration in close-call cases - Not sure if it would make sense to try to find some sort of quantitative way to include them (and I don't know how it might be counted), but I would expect that Neutral narrative is already taken into account by crats for close calls.

• Questions from voters only, and possibly only from experienced editors - Does that mean you have to !vote *before* you can ask a question? That would not be good (we could, perhaps, mandate a Neutral vote pending the answer, but that I think that would just be a hoop for the sake of it). Only from experience editors? I like the principle, but it sounds a bit like elitism again, and I really do strongly support the "everyone can participate" ethos and I think it should be spread as widely as is practical.
• Maximum of one question per user and No follow-on questions - I'm really not sure of that, mainly because I've seen a good few cases where follow-on questions have been used to very good effect and to the candidate's advantage. For example, I have asked questions before where the candidate has missed my point and answered in a way that I don't think looks good, but I have then used a follow-on question to nudge them in the right direction - with the result being that they were actually fine on the topic I was asking about. Perhaps allow follow-on questions only if they are refinements to the original question? (Though that does open a whole new kettle of worms when it comes to judging what is and what isn't a refinement).
• No compound questions - Agreed. We should ask clear and concise single questions.
• No discussion threads in the question section except one answer from the candidate - Agreed, with an exception made for a follow-up question added as a proper new question. (eg Q7, A7, Q7a)

Immediately disqualify those who have added a comment, when it clearly says "no other comments other than your signature are needed at this stage", as that shows people who are not able to follow simple instructions. (The degree of seriousness with which one should take this comment of mine is left to the judgment of the individual )

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this Boing. It's exactly the way I had hoped people would offer their opinions. Much of what I wrote is ideas intended as a stimulus and may not actually reflect my own opinions. They are mostly taken from stuff that has been suggested at some time or another. Your last comment is the bst - you totally read my mind! Kudpung (talk) 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Our voices will not be squelched... plus you don't want mindless drones. Rebellion and anarchy baby!---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Parallel optional RfA process for a trial period: Yes, good idea.

• More work for crats? - possibly 'more', but probably less messy for them and easier to do. Bureaucracy is, in any event, preferable to a lynch mob :o)

• Minimum qualifications for candidacy: Good idea - and / but could some leeway be built-in for an 'outstanding talent' nomination even if someone doesn't meet the min.quals?

• Nom only by Admins: don't like it! Too easy to abuse (only 'people we like' will get nominated).

• Right to Vote: yes, like that. (What a shame we can't make people do an online IQ test as part of earning the right :o) )

• No always-supporting / always-opposing voters: yup, sensible.

• No WP:SPA RfA voters: Now we're talking!

• Other voter quals: not seeing many probs there apart from possibly the block-free thing …. it might have to depend on what they were blocked for.

• Voting conditions. Mostly fine. But can you please define 'misplaced humour'? Is proper light-hearted / lightening the mood fun humour OK? Please? Pretty please? :o)

• Definitely no incivility or PA: yippee!! (And how about an immediate indef block for incivility for anyone violating the rule …… not that I'm over-reactive, or anything …..) Seriously, how about a one-month loss of voter's rights for first offence, two months for second offence, four months for third offence, eight for fourth, and so on?

• 'Crat monitoring & closing: like all that stuff, seems good.

• RfA Questions: how about no 'hidden ambush' questions of any kind? (and if you lead someone into an ambush, you don't get to vote)

Pesky (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll add my name, but as I have this thing (aversion? avoidance? lol - summat like that!) about obligations and commitments (too many in real life, I'spect) my input may be sporadic -dunno how much use I'llbe, but make the best use of me as you see fit. Pesky (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to say: thanks for the page. I really like the work you and WSC are doing. - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to a lot of the votes we'll see in any RFC. No matter how plain and simple you make it, no matter how much we try to please people, we're going to be confronting an audience that ranges from neutral to partly skeptical and hostile to very skeptical and hostile. With each other, I think we do a good job of being patient, and we're under no pressure. In a community-wide RFC, we've got one shot to get it right, because of all the times we came to them in the past and were never able to get anything done. Many of us blame the wider community for that, but largely, they blame us, and as I've said, I do believe we've been a little slow on the uptake. We need to do something that says: we're sorry we didn't hear you before, we hear you now. At a minimum, we need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA. If we're lucky and we spin it right, that minimum might be the maximum we need to do, at least for the moment. User talk:Dank/RFA is a concise statement of the way I'd go about it; would anyone else like to present a different synthesis?

I completely support the idea of a task force, and I hope this is the first problem we'll tackle. But I implore you not to take a month putting 20 ideas on the table and trying to come up with something that satisfies everyone in the RFA community. We really need to listen to and satisfy others first, or else we're all wasting our time. After we make some kind of substantive change that survives an RFC, then we can see how it evolves at RFA, and then we can put 20 ideas on the table and try to maximize the benefits of the new system. First, we need what the larger community will see as a demonstration that we know we screwed up (certainly in their eyes) and that we're committed to fixing it.- Dank (push to talk) 00:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to disengage ourselves from the community's anger over admin abuse, and we need to find a way not to get in a candidate's face when they show up for RFA - that is the absolute key sentence. I think the larger community is aware that the discussion at WT:RfA has been one big screw up for the last five years. I've only been a regular contributor to that talk page for 15 months and just about every aspect of RfA has been served up and swept back under the carpet at least five times. All the main suggestions have already been made and there is enough to work from. The most important thing is to do it in a task force, before an edict comes from on high with a solution none of us wants. What happened at BLPPROD was a typical demonstration of how our decision making process is broken, and the final outcome did not actually appear to be all that satisfactory. When a discussion is too open, too many people just interject with 'I don't like it' but they never offer any solutions, while others join in at the last minute and aggressively demand the whole thing be debated over again; RfA is a critical issue and it needs competency to get it sorted. We have about five names on the task force list already, perhaps we can close it off at ten. Kudpung (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've decided to give up on the "supporters go first" idea; I've pointed a lot of people to my userspace and have gotten no feedback on it, and if RFA voters aren't seeing it, then it would die a fiery death in an RFC. I have a backup suggestion that accomplishes at least the goal of protecting the candidate while they make their initial case, and doesn't require a vote or debate to get it started, although we want debate of course: some brave soul should just untransclude whenever someone begins an RFA, and (at least until people get used to the new system) post a message at WT:RFA inviting any interested supporters to help probe the candidate's record and write nom statements before the nom is re-transcluded. Is this doable? Does it meet the goal? - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

So you want a two-part process in which the relationship between the first part and the second is quite similar to the relationship between WP:PR (and WP:GA and A-class reviews, perhaps) and WP:FAC... There are now editor reviews; I haven't looked at those editor review things in quite literally four years, but my impression was and is that they were and are fluff... you would need something with a bit more oomph... a WikiProject RfA, perhaps... • Ling.Nut (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No objection to your ideas, and people can make it into a project if they want to. I'm just suggesting that people help out when they become aware someone's going to run for RFA. Some opposers will make an argument that that might make it harder for them to evaluate the candidate in their "raw" state ... but that was always an illusion, and anyway, prohibiting people from helping people is poor social skills and completely un-Wikipedian. - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) Above, Dank said, "does it meet the goal?" That's an important question. What is the goal? Sure, we want to "fix RfA", however the community can't agree on how RfA is broken.

There are dozens of ideas on how to "fix RfA", from potential ground rules to major reworks of process. I think we need to clearly and specifically define what the ultimate goal is. On what scale are we trying to "fix RFA"? For example, WSC raises these ideas. Kudpung says the goal should be to make RfA "a less unpleasant experience, attract more editors of the right calibre, and nip time wasting candidatures in the bud." The first thing we should do is agree on a goal, as personal opinions, obviously, differ. Swarm ^X 03:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

All opinions are of course personal, but I think one thing has crystallised: the talk on this page and Dank's page is far more intelligent and objective that the virtual rugby club bar room at WT:RfA. I'm just wondering what's been going on at IRC. Kudpung (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't help wondering what happens when someone puts a paintballer into the Rugby club bar :o) Pesky (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• One idea that jumped right out at me as something i would oppose is the elimination of self noms. I realize the intent is to stop hopeless or disruptive RFAs from proceeding, but I don't think that is the way to do it. This page has gotten long rather quickly so I may have missed some other ideas but what about just having a queue where untranscluded RFAs are placed. A crat or maybe just an admin would need to review each one to insure it is not a notnow case. If it is the user could be let down easy instead of watching oppose votes pile up. One idea I do like is not allowing users to place a neutral vote as a wedge to try and force a candidate to answer a question. I wonder if we should just consider eliminating the neutral section altogether. The much-neglected discussion section could be used for any comment that is not a support or oppose. As Neutral !votes do not affect the outcome anyway it seems like a way to neutralize users who have attempted to "weaponize" it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the 'neutral' section. Some people do offer a lot of good advice in it for the candidate. In a very close call, perhaps the crat might consider the comments in their evaluation. If I were a crat I probably would, unless there is an existing rule against it. Kudpung (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There is indeed often some very good feedback there. If we take away the rather silly pretense that there is any such thing as a "neutral vote" and simply make it a comment/discussion section we can keep the good aspects while stopping the neutral comments intended to pressure a candidate into answering a question. I don't know how everyone else feels about that technique but I think we would be better off eliminating it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points Beeb.. Most 'neutral' votes tend to lean towards 'weak oppose' which is probably the way they are interpreted by the community. Thus the comments can, and often do, influence th way other people vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at how they do this over at Simple. No standard questions, all other questions optional, no neutral section. Just support, oppose and discussion. It's a much smaller project but the model seems to work reasonably well for them. And they have a de-adminship process, something we have repeatedly failed to accomplish here. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just dragging this across from the other place, so if it's bitty, that's why, but (as I have said in other places) I am basically an idle get and cba to re-word it, lol! (Getting old, maybe?)

The only way anyone could 'do the studies' (and this is an excellent idea - doing the studies) would be for someone (maybe the 'crats?) to issue an anonymous-to-non-crats questionnaire to (for example) everyone who's run the RfA gauntlet within the past three years, asking for subjective scores on a number of points. in fact, only by doing something like this, and doing it as an ongoing part of the RfA process, can we measure any future improvement. And it has to be measurable. I think an RfA-process feedback page - showing just the results - is definitely a very good idea. Maybe one of the questions on the questionnaire should be "was there any particular opposer who you felt was overly-aggressive and / or verging on (or making) personal attacks" (please name them), and if the same names keep coming up, maybe the crats should have a quiet word with people who are subjectively viewed as 'persistent offenders' - and possibly ban them from the RfA process for a while? If those who might fall into that category knew that this was a possible consequence, maybe that alone would be enough to make the whole thing a more constructive experience for everyone involved - and also for everyone reading through the pages. After all, anyone with Wiki access can read through those histories, and they may well not currently be presenting 'the face of WikiPeople' as we'd like Joe Public to see it!

And adding it to main page as a suggestion for it to be part of the whole RfA process. Pesky (talk) 11:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for the probable seriously-bad etiquette - didn't really occur to me to ask first about putting it on the main page (probably coz I'm impatient, impulsive, stuff like that). Hope it's OK there, Kudpung? Feel free to remove it with extreme prejudice (no, that doesn't mean trout-slap, that means no more online virtual chocky biccies .....) Pesky (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting ideas Pesky. They've all been broached at some time or another so you're suggestions are valid. There have even been many in-depth surveys, stats, and polls, but they all petered out to nothing - they died out even before results were published, so no conclusions or consensus were reached. This time round, we need to lean on all that previous experience without going through it all again, and fast track something into reality. One of the problems, I think, is that many of those who have got the the tools already are not, understandably terribly interested in being involved, however hard their own ordeal was. Many never took any interest in the process before they ran the gauntlet, and most don't even come back to vote on RfA, and we're left with a relatively small group of regulars who do. ironically we get accused of being a cabal (we're not), and to quote one recent comment, pushing the wheelbarrow of power. Ironically, the admins generally just get on with the tasks at hand, continue with their own content work, and only go into a huddle when one admin alone feels more consensus at admin level is needed. Even in a democracy where everyone can vote (see Swarm above), there has to be select committees working behind closed doors to the benefit (we hope) of the rabble. They then return to the house for the approval of the members of parliament or house of representatives. That 'other place' you refer to is really only a virtual pub where some of the customers who are touting for more civility are the drama mongers themselves. I spoke out about it once, and there was a knee-jerk reaction. I was asked to name names, but I was not going to go on a kamikazee trip. Nevertheless, there were obviously some red faces, and things calmed down for a while. But only a while. I think the work I published here had some effect on reducing the questions. The page has been view over 700 times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

My main point was just that athe feedback questionnaire should become part of the RfA process as a standard wossname. You know, thing. :o) Once people have actually run the woolly glove (much nicer than the old gauntlet, we hope), then whether they pass or fail, they do the questionnaire, and then go on to whatever they were going to do anyway. If we can get some of the previous RfA candidates to do the questionnaire as well, then brill, but it does need to be incorporated into the process from now on, just to prevent any future backsliding in the process. What would be the point of 'fixing' it now, only to have it begin to degenerate in ten years' time, and for it to have to get so bad that everyone noticed it before it could be hauled back by its ears, kicking and screaming tweaked again to make it acceptable? Pesky (talk) 19:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I am glad you recognize the value of collecting feedback from the candidate. This is important, it should be done. Ironically the candidate might leave feedback which answers some things you were looking for. It has been said things go around and round. Draw on a new resource, the one who just went through. I just want to make sure to always include in that context, a debrief. This is necessary. The candidate should be told if some events were programed. It is only right to have some questions answered. Maybe even give the candidate a right to ask 1 question, that must be answered. To my own thoughts, I wish to know what was that thing called the debacle? I can not help but feel passionate about these things. That Is why I am compelled to comment when I see these discussions. And say things I have known. Thanks to the many who do read with understanding. My76Strat (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Collecting feedback is vital if you want to enable continuous improvement of the process. However, the RfA candidate is not the only person who can provide feedback. bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Excellent point, in fact. It would also be a good idea to collect feedback from the voters on how they feel they could have improved how they handled the process, whether (with hindsight) they think they said something wrongly, did something wrong, or were less than considerate and compassionate. And how they felt about other voters, too. Did it leave any of the contributors feeling stressed? Pesky (talk) 12:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Lots of good discussion here so far. One thing I found especially worth highlighting is Swarm's comment above: "What is the goal?" The reform page starts with a list of suggested changes, which is great, but it seems to me that we need to clearly set out the goals of the reform before we spend too much time figuring out how to meet those goals. Once we decide on the goals of the reform, that ought to go on top of the page, above the suggested changes. From there I imagine we'd want to focus on a small number of goals that are both important and realistic. From reading previous discussions, the three goals would seem to be:

1. Encourage more long-term editors to consider adminship, either through the current RfA process, an improved RfA process, or some alternative process yet to be decided upon;
2. Prevent newcomers (of the 11 edits variety) from getting pounded in a quick, pile-on, NOTNOW-closed RfA;
3. Find some way of saying "not yet" to long-term editors whom the community is nonetheless not ready to grant the tools without driving them to retirement.

Of those, I think #2 seems (to me) to be by far the easiest to fix; just don't let obvious NOTNOW candidates transclude their RfAs, and if they do, undo it and explain why on their talk page. I've done this a few times, I know other editors have as well. #1 and #3 are probably a lot harder to fix, but arguably more important.

What other goals should we be focusing on? 28bytes (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Split the Admin package into at least two tiers. Have opt-in and opt-out parts of it. Have mentoring through it, apprenticeships, whatever you'd like to call them. Have goal oriented structured learning towards re-applying when someone fails. The major goal - make the whole thing much, much kinder. Pesky (talk) 05:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbundling of admin tasks, and also the question of desysoping are not intended to be the object of this particular exercise - if we try to focus on too many things all at once we'll get nowhere, and that's why previous attempts have failed. Pedro once devoted massive energy to a huge survey that simply petered out. As User:WereSpielChequers once said: ...if anything, fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems. The task force must set the goals, but they should be focussed. I think we need to aim for changes around the present system as outlined here. We will have enough to do, because if and when we get consensus for the changes, many pages of policy and guidelines will have to be rewritten, and that alone will be a headache - it's unbelievable how long people will squabble over a sentence just because they don't like someone else's prose (all problems we had with the BLPPROD). I emphasise again however, that my ideas ideas for reform are only my suggestions to get the ball rolling - simply because a start has to be made somewhere. I'm also conscious that other groups may have, or already be having other ideas that we are not aware of. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall have some thinks on this. If various different groups are focussing on various different aspects, once each group has got some good workable ideas together, it may be possible to integrate all of them at some point, without overburdening any particular group or distracting any group's attention from their own chosen area of focus. Pesky (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes: Yes, those are indeed the goals of this particular exercise: to attract more experienced and/or long term users to both the voting process, and the idea of becoming admins. The details of those goals include dispensing with the drama, encouraging more objective voting, and relieving the humiliation by making sure that every transcluded candidacy has a fair chance of survival, or at least getting into the 80-70% grey zone. This might also lower the rate of repeat attempts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. We want more long term good editors to become admins and we do not want to lose editors. RfA is currently too daunting for some editors and will cause a significant percentage to stop editing when unsuccessful. NOTNOWs are an issue but not as important, but they are handled quite well at the moment - a small fix there will save the community time. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I throw in a comment here, as an "experienced" editor who has never had any intention of seeking to become an admin. Why should I? I'm here to have fun, essentially, by doing what I want to do, building articles, and engaging in (wherever possible) friendly discussion on subjects that I'm interested in, often with the aim of building a consensus - but having the freedom to become irascible occasionally. If I were to become an admin, through whatever route, much of the appeal of being here would immediately evaporate - I'd be under pressure to do what people ask me to do rather than what I want to do, and it would inevitably take time away from the things I enjoy doing. Or, that's the way it seems to me. I suspect I may fall into the category of editors who people would like to encourage to become admins - but, unless I'm missing something, it seems like it is a role I should continue to steer well clear of. Am I right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There's absolutely no pressure on good long-term editors to become admins. In fact some of our highest scoring and most civil users do not want to be admins. It's great however, when they bring their knowledge and experience to discussions such as these. (There is still room for more on the task force). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> To be quite honest, I don't see myself ever wanting to become an Admin either, no matter how good the process gets. It's not really my kind of thing - if I feel like doing some housekeeping I'm more likely to go typo-hunting. Each to their own - it takes all sorts :o) Pesky (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Unbundling of admin tasks, and also the question of desysoping are not intended to be the object of this particular exercise - if we try to focus on too many things all at once we'll get nowhere, and that's why previous attempts have failed.
Absolutely. We can't get distracted by trying to fix all the problems that contribute to negativity at RfA. Swarm ^X 17:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

...if anything, fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems.

— WereSpielChequers, RfA discussions 29 January 2011

Added by Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there any feedback from Jimbo regarding the emails he must have received? My76Strat (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Curious about this as well. Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 02:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, who knows if Jimbo's planning to take action. Part of me wonders if we should just let him do so. Swarm ^X 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty good about stipulated guidelines. I know a lot of people would cry foul but sometimes to get a thing done leadership is necessary. I do believe if we came up with a solid proposal we could easily gain his blessing, but if our best effort is only going to produce disunity, strong leadership can bridge that divide. In some ways consensus itself should be reconsidered. If after some period of time a stalemate still exist, the leadership, should review the discussion and develop the plan with best intentions. And we should do our best to implement the directives. But that is just me. My76Strat (talk) 06:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A stand-alone page has now been created. Please continue the discussion there. Task force members please put the page on your watchlists.

Both Errant and Worm That Turned have recently raised the idea at WT:RFA of using clerks.

• Worm suggested "...someone who was authorised by the community to remove unconstructive comments, asking them to be refactored or at least provide specific examples."
• Errant suggested "...a group of volunteers of whom one or two recuse themselves from active participation in each RFA, instead take on a clerking role - sorting votes, nipping drama/civility in the bud and "mentoring" the candidate through the process."
  

I also think the concept has merit and it should be considered. Swarm ^X 15:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a brill idea - can't think why it hasn't been done before Pesky (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The role and remit would have to be well defined, when I mentioned the idea it was pointed out that the community is unlikely to be happy with a user who could effictively kill votes. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

What you could do to try and resolve this during a trial period is allow each candidate to opt in for clerks in their respective RFA. I'd have a hard time thinking of a reason for someone to not want clerks in their RFA. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it has merit and have included a similar suggestion myself. Much of this I believe will form around an RfA project similar to the task force which is now taking shape. My76Strat (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. The role would certainly have to be well defined. The safest route would probably be to limit their 'power' to remove comments to only blatant, indisputable personal attacks (example), while requesting that other, less serious instances of perceived incivility or unintentionally hurtful comments (example) be rephrased or redacted by their author. The latter example spiraled off into a heated discussion that could possibly have been avoided if a clerk left a polite request to reword their comment on their talk page. Clerks could also do minor things like minimizing the text off topic discussions and excessive oppose pestering, recommend that a candidate withdraw, etc. Swarm ^X 18:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring the candidate through the process is the job of the nominator. While the clerk/crat must be neutral the mentor should be supportive so they can't be combined. But it is a great idea, and I think we should try and do more of this for self noms and noms by "less experienced" editors. I think informally it already often happens but there are probably gaps.

Sorting votes, dealing with odd anomalies etc is the sort of clerking that participants already do - I think that works fine and see no need for change.

Removing incivil and out of line !votes in my view should be a crat job.

ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

WSC's comments make a lot of sense to me. Let the nominator mentor, and ask the bureaucrats to handle the abusive or otherwise inappropriate votes. The crats seem pretty hands-off during RfAs now (not a bad thing in and of itself), but if the community wants to cut down on the insults and attacks, I think the crats would be in the best position to help with that, if asked to. 28bytes (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My view regarding WSC's points are this:

• Clerks would be neutral in the RfA itself (recusing themselves when they're clerking), but I think they should absolutely be morally supportive to the candidate (as should we by default). Thus, I don't think mentoring candidates would conflict with a clerk's neutrality. Furthermore, there are many, many self-noms that don't necessarily get support from anyone.
• The sort of clerking that participants do voluntarily works fine and shouldn't be restricted to "clerks"; however if we had clerks I can't see why they wouldn't look out for technical tasks that need doing, deal with 'odd anomalies' etc.
• Crats don't remove or even monitor out of line !votes. Perhaps they should. Perhaps they used to. But sadly, they don't. They close successful RfAs and determine consensus when need be, but other then that crat involvement seems to be minimal. At the same time the question of "if not the crats, than who?" remains unanswered. We shouldn't need to generate a consensus that personal attacks should be removed. The crats should know to do it. If they're not going to, then someone has to. Swarm ^X 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the crats do. They would probably do it more if they thought the community unambiguously wanted them to and didn't consider it "interfering." 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That's just the problem. The community can't unambiguously agree on anything. If I thought the community would unambiguously agree simply that "personal attacks at RfA should be removed by bureaucrats", I would create an RfC right now.

On another note, why reserve this role, which normally falls to administrators and regular editors, to crats? By doing this, do we not go against the notion that extra tools are 'no big deal'? Crats have a few extra technical abilities, but nothing that makes them the exclusive RfA police. Swarm ^X 20:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a job for Superman! the Page Watchdog / Town Sheriff idea being thrashed out elsewhere Pesky (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, until we have a group of 'Sheriffs' whose job it is to specifically deal with this (and good luck with that one), I don't see anything that says it's a job for crats. Swarm ^X 21:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

However, you want to avoid creating another class of editors that seem "better" then everyone else. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Personal attacks are currently required to support oppose !votes. This is the essence of the current process and the reason that it is perceived as brutal - one must publically and explicitly explain why the candidate is not acceptable by addressing their character and competence. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely one must be prepared to criticise an editor's contributions. But there is a difference between saying "I don't trust you with the deletion button for these three reasons " and "I don't think you are ready for the deletion button yet for these three reasons". Personally I find that less brutally phrased criticism can be a more effective Oppose. However the sort of nastiness that I would like to see the crats remove is more along the lines of comparing the candidate's contributions to excreta , or just saying "terrible contributions" without explaining what you find terrible about said contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack in either of those phrasings TBH. There is nothing nasty in saying "I don't trust you", because that might be their opinion. We ask people to be civil, not to mince words. I think the sort of thing we need to avoid are insinuations ("like a child", "how old are you?") and nastiness ("pathetic", "you're an idiot") etc. And we need to factor in the clarity and intent of the argument, if someone can say "I think you do not have the maturity because XYZ" it should be given more latitude than a comment simply saying "too immature". The point isn't to be *nice*, it is to be *not nasty* :)

RFA clerks are a good idea; I think their role should be clearly defined. I'd swing it away from removing votes per se (except in obvious troll circumstances) and more into stopping pile on discussions, moving extended discussion to the talk pages, monitoring the questions and leeping an eye on the candidate (with a stress on the last point). --Errant ^(chat!) 08:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a personal attack, but I do think we sometimes use unnecessarily brutal ways of phrasing things. "Also I don't think you are ready for the deletion button yet" is usually more honest, it may come as a surprise to the candidates but almost every opposer would happily support them if they were a few months more experienced and had resolved any issues raised in the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I think we are basically in agreement, I just hadn't had a coffee before my last reply :D --Errant ^(chat!) 10:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should be restricted to admins or 'crats. Many people would see that as an attempt to give admins and 'crats more power over the rest of the community.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 11:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, agreed. Also I don't think formal restrictions on "membership" are necessarily needed. The way Arbcom clerking works is a good model I think. We initially seed a trial with a small number of reasonable volunteers (i.e. people volunteer and if no one disagrees with them they're good to go :)). If accepted as a policy/ongoing initiative new clerks can volunteer, assessed by the current clerks for their ability & then mentored if judged appropriate (this is how Arbcom clerking works). That way it is less a case of "20 RFA edits" and more a case of "so is this person someone who can resolve dispute and keep things friendly".

Given that this is a suggestion with pretty strong support do you think we are at the stage of being able to draft the job description & processes and come up with a trial to propose to the community? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the community say yes or no to somone becoming a clerk. --Guerillero | My Talk 12:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about a community discussion for someone to become a clerk...it just seems so...ironic. I think any community discussion regarding RfA is going to be as heated, divided and contentious as RfA itself. It might be better if the status were granted by admins or crats to long term, civil RfA contributors. Swarm ^X 17:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Some possible tasks for a clerk. I think that the very effect of knowing that RfA is clerked, would drastically reduce the rate of poor voting and misbehaviour, probably leaving the clerk with little to do.

• Politely deny any practically certain NOTNOW before transclusion.
• Check that other candidates meet minimum criteria before transclusion - advise the candidate if they are not, and ask if they would still like to go ahead.
• Post the candidate's user stats to the talk page.
• Warn users that their questions may be potentially off topic and/or disruptive, and that they should consider rephrasing and/or removing them.
• Speedily remove any questions that may be off topic and/or disruptive.
• Warn users that their voting comments (or lack of them) may be potentially off topic and/or disruptive, and that they should consider rephrasing and/or removing them.
• Speedily remove any votes and their comments that are blatantly uncivil, have nonsense rationales, and are otherwise disruptive.
• Speedily remove or redact any comments in threads that are inflammatory, blatantly uncivil, are nonsense rationales, and are otherwise disruptive.
• Watching out for by socks and blocked users.
• Watching out for votes that appear to be the result of canvassing.
• Investigate any suspicious votes for possible RfA SPA.
• Verify links to diffs, and that diffs cited in opposed votes are valid and on topic, and not dragged out of the distant past. (Theoretically, if the threshold for candidacy were set at, say (just for example) 3 months, no problems in the past of any candidate older than three moths should be brought into play - but this is a highly controversial issue, because length of membership and edit count are neither compatible nor comparable criteria. Personally i don't generally support any candidate who does not have a clean block log.
• Intervene to close threads that get too long or off topic. (several recent RfA have turned into varying forms of discussion on other users, topics, policies, or guide lines.
• Advise candidates of potential NOTNOW that they may wish to consider withdrawing.
• Early close clear NOTNOW cases.
• Remind the crats if the RfA closure is overdue.
• Close the voting on expiry of the 168 hours, pending crat decision, or crat chat.
• Observing and maintaining any other standards of hygiene.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent list there. I think that instead of clerks closing threads that get too long or unwieldy, they should move them to the talkpage. Also, I think clerks should be able to place a RfA on hold after the seven days expire. In addition to that list, I would add the task of helping the candidate and consoling them should they fail. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 12:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with both the list and Pyfan's suggestions :) Also I'm not sure what is meant by "nonsense rationales", in principle I agree that they have no weight. But on the other hand "Oppose user has a green user page" is nonsense, but I wouldn't remove it. Instead leave it to the crat to discard the vote (the point being; that is a clearly nonsense example, but other things might be less clear cut). I think the clerk should focus on civility more than anything. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented a placeholder here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerks The wording is just filler for now, just to give an idea. We can fill it in as each part is agreed here etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I very much like the list there Kudpung, that's pretty much what I had hoped for an RfA clerk with a couple of extra sensible ideas thrown in. I also agree with Pyfan, firstly that long threads should be moved to the talk page, and secondly that clerks should be there to help the candidate through the entire process, including the aftermath. Otherwise, agree that moving out of Kudpung's space is a good idea, but where do we move it too? All the good names are taken ;) WP:RFA reform, WP:RfA Review Worm^TT · (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

This is all really, really good stuff. After so much crap in other places, it's so refreshing to see some consistently sound good sense coming out :o) Agree with everything said above. Pesky (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Impressive. Instead of removing off topic votes why can't they strike them out and place a template {{offtopicvote}} indented below it --Guerillero | My Talk 17:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Awesome ideas, both on the list and in the ideas regarding it above. Swarm ^X 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time to give Kudpung his house back and move to the project namespace. What do you think? — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 13:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

We have some pretty clear-cut and good ideas. I second the opinion that it's time to move to project space. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

For the project space name, might I suggest Wikipedia:2011 RfA reform or Wikipedia:Revision of RfA? Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we want to get the green light from Jimbo before we advance into the project space, right? Swarm ^X 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

(←) I was thinking of that. That'd be a good next step before proceeding. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on Jimbo's talk page, asking him to look here.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 02:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst his support would be nice, I don't think there is any requirement to get permission to move to project space :P It doesn't make it any more official..

I don't really need anyone's permission to move this out of my user space and it won't make it more official when I do. Everything needs to be started somewhere, though, and I'm happy in the joint effort with Dank and WSC to have been able to help provide that start. One reason I would like it out of my user space now, is because I neither want to regarded by our supporters as the leader, nor branded by our detractors as the ringleader, and pushing that damned barrow of admin power. Another reason is that the board software and/or policy does not allow shortcuts to be made to user space. I'll make the move to a WP:X project space when I get back to my office with its 24/7 broadband on 5 April, and when everyone else has gotten over seasonal delerium. By then, or thereabouts, we should also have the table of RfA voter profiles. in the meantime, do please keep the suggestions coming for a WP:X page name to move to. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got a pile of notes & was hoping (unless anyone gets to it before me) to write a draft at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Clerks for the clerking proposal. Does anyone have any good ideas for a trial we could propose & implement for the scheme? I think we largely have the scope of a clerks task nailed down, it is just the implementation details. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea and I like the choice of project banner. I think that's probably the formula I'll adopt for the move of this user page. There should be, I firmly believe, a concentrated effort to develop these individual features of RfA reform by the same task force - otherwise, as per usual, it will just peter out due to side tracking, innuendo, trolling, and other non constructive contributions. You could start (just a suggestion) by copying the thread about Clerks over to it's tp - I've juggled a couple of comments around on this page to keep them in the right threads. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

There's still some details that need consideration before we move forward with RfA clerking. I've copied the above thread and raised new comments on the talk page. Swarm ^X 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's meant to be 'no big deal'. But while removal of Admin privileges is a 'big deal', then Adminship will be seen to be a 'big deal' too. I know this has been said many times by some really insightful people - and they are dead right. (Pasting from the bar, below, lol!)

I really do think that a recall or suspension of an admin should be 'no big deal'. If you think about it, issues out there in real life can affect each and every one of us. RL issues spill over into WikiLand, Wiki-Issues spill over into real life. Sometimes an admin, just like any of us lesser souls, can go through a patch where they are less than tolerant, less than understanding, less than civil, too inclined to zap things / people (possibly in error). It happens, and it would be naive to say that WikiLand was immune to that kind of spill-over effect. So ... how about when we notice that an admin has become / is becoming less than fully centred and absolutely reasonable, they have a 'holiday' from admin work (not punitive, just a break, and never meant to be any big deal), and their modes of interaction in discussions such as these, ANI, RfC, and all the rest, are assessed until it's clear that they have got over whatever was causing them to be a bit too trigger-happy, at which point their adminship was given back. We all make mistakes, we all go through bad patches, we all get irritated from time to time at the slightest little thing - such as 'what someone's interests are', 'how someone argues their point'. It's obvious. So how about the idea of a 'compassionate leave break' - no big deal. Pesky (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If we tried pushing this process change on existing admins, I feel that the pushback might be rather strong. However, if it were part of the (presumably optional) New-RfA-Process then I think it would see a lot more support. (Also, it might reassure those who feel that making RfA less painful would let in some lower-quality candidates). bobrayner (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I do think that we need a more community-based admin recall process (and I haven't changed my mind since getting my own mop). I would probably support something along these lines, even applying to existing admins -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(Although having said that, I don't think admin recall, or temporary break etc, should be part of this current process - that can be for another time) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What's currently proposed seems to be much the same as the current process with a few tweaks. It would still be a vote and so would still be a political process. Perhaps you should consider a more radical reform. For example, why not just let the bureaucrats just decide the matter themselves? This would be similar to the way that other rights are granted - see Requests for permissions. For example, I recently put myself down on a list for filemover privilege, making a brief case why it would be useful. Someone checked this over and then dealt with the matter immediately without discussion, drama or voting. Other privileges that I've picked up were assigned in a similar no-fuss way. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think what we are trying to work towards here is more than just a few tweaks, and they might be more easier to get accepted than a radical change of system. My personal view is if there were more voter discipline, objectivity, and maturity, and a great deal less drama mongering, it might achieve the goals. Nevertheless, a request for permissions style process has not been ruled out. It's probably what Jimbo had in mind to be run as a parallel trial process. I'm not sure the community would accept it. I don't personally like the idea of it, but it does certainly have advantages over the existing trial by fire. I could be convinced. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think some of the community would be happy to accept almost anything rather than the current one! And it would be good to do some comparative surveys between the original and the trial(s). Pesky (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Acceptance by the community" has always seemed to encumber efforts to rework RFA. I don't think that should be a major concern at this stage. At this point, we should be willing to try something, and if it doesn't work, try something different. But, above all, we need to try something. It's the very essence of WP:BOLD. We've got to be bold and step up and try something soon, after all, the word "trial" is derived from "try". Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The usual point brought up in opposition to something like this is that the bureaucrats weren't selected with consideration that they would have the ability to unilaterally make admins. The same argument is brought up when the question of giving 'crats desysopping abilities arises. However, adding abilities is not without precedent -- admins can now make rollbackers, something not doable at the time of my RFA. Useight (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

<outdent> Any 'job title' can evolve. That's how life works! Pesky (talk) 12:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The useless reform process, discussed in the sections above and below this one, just condemn us to more of the same. The whole "admin bundle" must be unbundled. This is the issue that is being so resolutely ignored by the current round of administrator mandarins who hold the balance of power. The notion of "administrator" on Wikipedia is failing dismally. There are of course, superb administrators; MaterialScientist comes to mind as an exemplary all round contributor. There are other administrators who contribute little or nothing of value to Wikipedia content-wise, but offer much value mediating processes among content editors, such as LessHeard vanU. These pure administrator types should also have valued seats on Wikipedia. But then alas, we have our bully administrators... the dirty underbelly of Wikipedia. It is easy to list some of them, but that won't help. This is why the current notion of "administrator" must be ditched. I very much go along with the notion of "trust the bureaucrats". We need an elected group of people who review important decisions that are made around Wikipedia. If we cannot elect them in a sensible way, then we just deserve what we get. But there is no way content editor should be held hostage to some of our bully "administrators". For the sake of decency, unbundle these so called administrative responsibilities, just as they have already been unbundled in other areas. There is no reason why the right to block IP vandals shouldn't be given to clearly stable established users. Create a special type of user, perhaps still called an "administrator" and perhaps still elected by the current RfA process, who had the power to block established content editors. That is a most special power, and should be given only to users who established content editors can respect. Too many users currently have that power who should not have it. And the actions of those who do have that power should always be be oversighted by bureaucrats – our focus then shifts to how we elect sane bureaucrats... --Epipelagic (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a most special power, and should be given only to users who established content editors can respect. The solution here is very very very simple; go vote in RFA. That way only people you respect become admins. *shrug*. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The solution here is not in any way "very very very simple". You must know very well that the current bundling of admin privileges throws too much dust over the underlying issues. I take it that your *shrug* is meant to indicate your contemptuous dismissal of these concerns. A big part of the problem is administrators who are contemptuous of these concerns. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of that viewpoint, this project isn't even going to address the role of administrators. The task of this RfA reform effort is large enough; there's no way we can take on adminship reform as well. In other words, we're trying to move a boulder; we can't take on the mountain that is adminship. In fact, many of us believe that RfA reform can't be done without Foundation implementation. There's no way adminship is going to be unbundled by a mere Wikiproject. Swarm ^X 22:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Epi, I'm sorry, it shouldn't have come across that way. I'm suggesting an immediate partial solution to the problem you feel exists; if you're representing content editors (which is the impression I get) then round them up, get them interested, and get them voting for admins they feel would be good. The *shrug* was simply to say; be pro-active. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)