Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 7 August 2015

Please read the short, simple rules on the Project page before posting below

Feel free to add new ideas to the bottom of the list

Negative assertions about candidates should have diffs

Supports:

1. The diffs can be elsewhere on the page, in another oppose, a question, comment or neutral vote. But without diffs it is hard for an oppose not to be a personal attack. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Yes, but as WSC says above, there's no need for every one to repeat them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. I remember this exactly question being posed years ago (and I'm sure it's been posed many times before and after). The objection was that supporters are never asked to back their opinions with diffs, but I think that's actually the way it should work. I very much still hold to the belief that adminship is no big deal, and that most editors should be promoted absent a good reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
4. If there isn't any evidence it didn't happen. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion Not entirely supporting here; I do think some patterns can be described best by a clear description without the need of diffs; I also worry about a diff requirement leading to cherry-picking or excessive weight being given to a few one-off diffs that do not establish a long term pattern. I do agree with the concept that the more personal remarks need proof, as well as strong accusations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Crats should assume a baseline on the basis of WP:NOBIGDEAL

Please read the later stages of the Cratchat for more information

Supports:

The discretionary zone is 70/75%

Crats have some leeway to decide on weight of argument factoring in things like voters who acknowledge their vote as weak or moral, but also discounting obvious trolls. RFAs that end in a "discretionary zone" may be closed as either successes or failures at the discretion of the crats.

There has been occasional debate as to whether the discretionary zone is 70-80% or 70-75%, convention seems to support the latter but the debate should probably be settled.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. There should be discretion when deciding whether something is discretionary (on the basis of IAR), but in general, the discretionary zone is informally 70-75% anyway and it makes sense to state this explicitly. Avraham seems to agree, having recently made this edit. — Bilorv_(talk) 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Mine was 76.4% at the time of closing and went to a 'crat chat (for good reason) but was determined to be successful (also for good reason), so I would be very wary against imposing any hard number on what falls within the realm of bureaucrat discretion and what doesn't. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• Are there figures (or better yet, a graph) for how many RfAs have passed/failed at 69%, 70%, 71%, etc? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know, but I have seen it said that only former admins have been passed RFA with below 70% support in many years and that no-one or almost no-one has been failed at over 75% in many years. We could of course take out crat discretion and set the pass mark at a precise figure such as 72.5%, but I'm not seeing anyone calling for that. ϢereSpielChequers 11:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • A non-reconfirmation example is Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Krimpet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think that the discretionary range can be expressed in such rigid absolute numbers. After all, RfA is not a headcount, or is it? Kraxler (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • How many RfA's have failed at over 75%? I could swear at least one of the ones that recently went to Crat Chat, and failed, was about 75% or above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I have this data back to 2008 on my other computer, but I can tell you the highest-scoring unsuccessful case was Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/CWY2190 from 2008 at exactly 75%, and didn't even get a crat chat. I believe the most recent success under 70% was Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Davemeistermoab (68%, in 2009). Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

RFAs that end in the discretionary zone should go to a crat chat

Many of our crats have been in post for over a decade, recent crat chats have shown significant variance in views amongst crats. Historically only a minority of RFAs end in or near the discretionary zone, but following recent precedents crat chats should be the norm for RFAs that end in the discretionary zone.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 08:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Kraxler (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
5. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A Support without a rationale is an endorsement of the nomination, but an oppose requires a rationale

Votes need rationales because candidates need to know what they need to do to pass next time, and it is hard to have a discussion if people aren't saying why they have voted or what they have checked.

Supports

1. Though once there is a rationale for oppose other opposers can oppose per thatϢereSpielChequers 07:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kraxler (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. With the same caveat as WereSpielChequers. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Off wiki canvassing and publicity is a problem

We are a big high profile site and a target for trolls of all sorts. Whether or not the most recent RFA with its very high turnout and slide in support after being discussed on hostile sites is an example of this is disputed. But the potential for trolling sites to troll us via RFA is real.

Supports

1. ϢereSpielChequers 07:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Having an unwritten rule about voting requirements does more harm than good

Newbie editors who turn up at RFA risk being dismissed as the socks that they may well be. Goodfaith newbies may well be being deterred by the presence of an unwritten rule as to who can participate at RFA. Having a clear rule with a lowish threshold (>200 mainspace edits, >50 in last year, account at least two months old) could well be the reason why the German Misplaced Pages despite having a smaller community has higher RFA participation than we do. We should copy that rule from DE wiki. Higher participation could lead to more candidates and would be a greater protection against trolling from offsite.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 07:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. I've been saying his for years - at least since WP:RFA2011 was started. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Kraxler (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
4. Beyond the fact that they could be socks, I don't trust somebody who's only had a few weeks of experience judging how a candidate responds to and treats policy. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Yes. A minimum threshold is a good idea, I think. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Increased emphasis on questions weakens RFA

To spot candidates who are editing in breach of policy you really need to check their edits, and the drift from judging candidates on their actual edits to judging them on arbitrary statistics and generic questions is probably making RFA less effective at sorting good candidates from bad. The Q&A section is useful, but only if questions are tailored for the candidate and include a diff of their edits. Would you still do this four month old edit today, and if not what would you do differently? can be a very useful question, What is the policy on a random area that the candidate hasn't been involved in and hasn't said they would use the tools in is sadly too common and rather less useful. One of the side effects of the dramatic decline in the number of candidates is that while the number of questions per month has fallen nearly as sharply, questions per RFA have risen and often exceed 20. This could lead to a situation where people read the RFA and vote without really checking the candidate themselves.

A requirement that all optional questions include a diff showing their relevance to that particular candidate would at least ensure that those who ask questions look at the candidate's edits.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. I suspect this trend is partly thanks to the edit count requirements; few people are going to sit down and inspect 7000+ edits, or even a chunk of them. Thus, the focus shifts on statistics that may not mean what one think they mean, and questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
4. I'm quite tired of the textbook answers to generic questions which in practice are not followed. Kraxler (talk) 12:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
5. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointless

I see ... so a page demanded by those angry and calling names because they thought Liz was going to lose the crat chat is presented. The people who demanded it do not need appeasing as their "by whatever means necessary invective "got the results they wanted. Those who were called names, those of whom it was stated that they showed up only because of canvassing with a strong flavor of sexism and GamerGate, those of whom it was said, even by a crat, that their votes should be discounted (and despite the surface take back, it's hard to believe they were not) are not likely to be assuaged by a crat-led sandbox. Those who were called motivated by "personal animus than a broader evaluation of competency" saw no attempt by the crats to rein in the angry howl. I'm really not certain this page is useful for any purpose whatsoever. And remember, I did not vote, but among the opposers are many of my most distinguished colleagues at FAC. Excuse me, I suppose I should amend that to those attracted by "a known cabal and an off-site harassment group".

I will suggest this to the bureaucrats, especially those who were made such in 2004, despite my individual regard for some of you. Consider your positions. You are too many, there is no work for you to justify your numbers, and you have gone too long without any community approval of your status. You know the bit about "you have sat too long for any good you are doing", right? Submit yourself to the approval of the community by RfB in the order you were appointed. If the community rejects all of you, we are little the worse off. For there is rottenness in your house that goes beyond the one incident. For example, that if the Barc proposal passes, Raul654, despite his malign actions and long inactivity, would again sit in judgment on others, for you have failed to police your own. Get your own house in order, and we'll talk. Come show me a community mandate of recent date, and we'll talk. But don't pretend that opening a sandbox makes things "all better".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking for support, but merely stating my views.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt. Thanks for your thoughtful post.

This page was not demanded by anyone, or at least, if it was, such calls didn't cause it to come to be. I created it because I saw issues arising in Liz's RfA and thought we might be able to tackle some of them. I noted my desire to do this during the Cratchat.

Maybe I'm hopelessly optimistic, but let's see?

I'd prefer it if this whole section could move to my talk page, because Wikipedians are brilliant at losing the direction of an initiative by discussion the initiative, and I'd rather that didn't happen. Would you mind? --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I placed it here rather than your talk page for a reason. I object.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to refrain from commenting on this issue on this page, because I don't think this is the right place for it. I advise others here to also not respond and let this die. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The criteria should change by consensus not by minority action

Some criteria are more easily measured than others, and in the grand tradition of giving most weight to things that are easiest measured; edit count and tenure both have enormous importance at RFA, with current de facto standards far in excess of the requirements when most admins were appointed. Part of the cause of this is that without any fixed criteria that would need consensus to change it only takes 30% of the community to oppose over one issue for that to become a criteria for adminship. Setting some of the less important criteria such as editcount, tenure and time since last RFA even at today's inflated levels would at least stabilise those criteria and prevent them changing without a consensus to alter them. It would also make RFA more attractive for potential candidates as they would know whether they met the arbitrary parts of the criteria or how soon they would meet them.

The important part of the criteria would remain judgmental things:

• do the candidate's edits indicate they would use the tools correctly?
• do the candidate's edits indicate they would be civil?
• do the candidate's edits indicate they can explain things to others?

But the unimportant parts of the criteria could be codified (suggestions below for individual elements of the unimportant part of the criteria)

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The unimportant part of the RFA criteria should include 12 months tenure

It has been a while since anyone has passed RFA within 12 months of creating their first account and starting to do logged in edits. A requirement in the unimportant part of the RFA criteria that RFA candidates need to have edited in 12 different calender months before submitting an RFA would fix that particular arbitrary part of the criteria, potential candidates would have a better idea where they stood and once frozen that part of the criteria could only change by consensus (declared alternate or prior accounts would count towards this, but not IP edits or undisclosed accounts).

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Old accounts should count; IP editing should not. 12 months since the user's first edit as a strict criterion should eliminate most, if not all, NOTNOW candidates. — Bilorv_(talk) 09:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Kraxler (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
4. I'm not sure what "unimportant part" means, but formalizing a 1 year of (substantive) editing requirement would probably avoid a lot of heartache, yeah. And, practically, I don't think anyone can learn the ins-and-outs of this place in less than a year. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The unimportant part of the RFA criteria should include >7,000 edits7,000_edits-The_criteria_should_change_by_consensus_not_by_minority_action-2015-08-07T09:19:00.000Z">

Edit count is a bit of a joke as an RFA criteria, but some people seem to be concerned about it. It has been a while since anyone has passed RFA with less than 7,000 edits, and the recent successful candidate who had little more than that had some opposes for low edit count. Putting a requirement of 7,000 edits into the unimportant part of the RFA criteria would fix that particular arbitrary part of the criteria, potential candidates would have a better idea where they stood, and once frozen that part of the criteria could only change by consensus.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)7,000_edits"> 7,000_edits">
2. Kraxler (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The unimportant part of the RFA criteria should include 4 months activity since last RFA

There used to be an unwritten rule that RFAs should be at least three months apart, like all arbitrary rules at RFA this has been subject to inflation. Putting a requirement into the unimportant part of the RFA criteria that RFA candidates need to have edited for four months since any previous RFA of theirs would fix that particular arbitrary part of the criteria, potential candidates would have a better idea where they stood, and once frozen that part of the criteria could only change by consensus.

Support

1. ϢereSpielChequers 09:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
2. Kraxler (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
3. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Do we have data on this? All the "reruns" I've seen have been after a more sizable time-gap before their previous RfA (I think they've all been a year+), but I haven't been watching RfA long. How many people have tried to re-run again within 6 months? I think 6 months might be a more sensible suggestion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be acceptable for a candidate to respond to opposes

Support

1. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Bureaucrats who participate in an RFA should recuse from the ensuing 'crat chat

WJBscribe's involvement in the Liz RFA 'crat chat was probably ill-advised, considering he objected to some votes on both sides during the RFA. xeno's involvement in the 'crat chat was definitely ill-advised after he lobbied for a softening of a reasonable oppose vote during the RFA and participated in subsequent discussion. The result of the chat was defensible, but the process for getting there was tainted. If the 'crats want their process to be respected, they should make it a respectable process by installing basic separation of duties standards.

Support

1. (as proposer) Townlake (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Content creation and writing experience is a reasonable requirement at RFA

The hostility of certain 'crats to some voters' preference for candidates with meaningful content creation and writing experience is bizarre. There's a current RFA that is essentially the opposite of Liz -- lots of content creation, little admin experience -- and the candidate is sailing through. It's time for the 'crats to acknowledge that many volunteers in this community value content creation as a method for gaining the particular kind of trust that is appropriate to acquire the admin tools.

Support

1. (as proposer) Townlake (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBIGDEAL should immediately be marked historical

There is widespread disagreement over what NOBIGDEAL means. None of the interpretations are necessarily wrong, but those interpretations should be spelled out by the people using them instead of using the NOBIGDEAL shorthand that may be off-point depending on who you ask.

Support

1. (as proposer) Townlake (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I think it's "NOBIGDEAL" to an experienced editor who's been around a long time (see: Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cyclonebiskit 2). But I think Adminship, in general, is a "big deal" – it's a job with a lot parts, and a lot of responsibility. That has only gotten more true over time. So I'm ambivalent about this – it shouldn't be a big deal, but it is, and has only gotten more so over time due to a variety of factors (including some mistakes made by the Admin class themselves). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Somebody didn't read the rules for posting on this page. Please review them, then delete both of these comments. Townlake (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that we shouldn't oppose, Townlake, so I'll pull my oppose from your first one. But I don't see anything about not commenting about refinements. If that's the case, I'm sure Dweller will be along to set me straight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)