Another attempt to fix RfA

[Vigilant]

Main page

Issues identified

[Vigilant]

As someone who's done a lot of interviewing on both sides of the table, when the people on the RfA Reform page compare the RfA process to a 'job interview', I can only say that if I were EVER treated like that at a job interview, I'd get up and walk out and send immediately a lengthy letter to the HR department about the unacceptable and unprofessional behavior exhibited in the interview.

[Vigilant]

And the winner of the Disingenuous Dick of the Year Award goes to.... *drum roll*

Since I was on ArbCom, this is always at the forefront of my mind at RfA. It is extraordinarily difficult to desysop admins who are misusing their tools unless they do something completely egregious – not quite deleting the main page, but close. And I invite those saying that it's easy or easier to desysop to try getting the committee to take, and then participating in, a 6-week admin conduct case! As long as that's the case, I am not going to be the only one who is very cautious about supporting people I don't already know well. Attempts to do something about this have consistently failed, so when the same people who fight ArbCom tooth and nail on desysop cases start clamouring for RfA reform, I can't help feeling that it is more about enlarging the old boys' club than dismantling it. – Joe (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless you're Fram ...

[Vigilant]

I think the real problem with RfA is that the people who show up there are:
* 1/3 randos who want to vote
* 1/3 serial RfA trolls and bullies who like to make others suffer
* 1/3 editor specific warriors on either side who make it a war

If RfAs are to fundamentally change in tone, they need adult supervision and the ability to exclude the 'playas' from the game.

You want to change it overnight?
Give out 30 day blocks to anyone being an asshole at an RfA.

[No Ledge]

They are currently in the "brainstorming" phase.

It's not a "job interview" because they are adamantly against even giving out "coffee stipends", much less real pay.

Behavior would have to be really bad for that 30-day block to stick and not be reverted by another admin well before the time had elapsed.

This looks more like a brain storm to me, a seizure, convulsion, or similar incident of abnormal brain activity like a storm in the collective community brain.

I don't see any ideas coming out of this that will make any significant difference.

[Poetlister]

Maybe it's like a job interview for jobs in the WMF? That wouldn't surprise me.

[orangepi]

I don't see any ideas coming out of this that will make any significant difference.

Yup. A few trivial things will pass (like rewording Q1 to avoid the implication that an admin should do admin work), but none of the substantive proposals I've seen have any chance of passing.

[orangepi]

They are currently in the "brainstorming" phase.

It's not a "job interview" because they are adamantly against even giving out "coffee stipends", much less real pay.

On the coffee stipends: there are lots of people who will have sex for free, and lots of people who would have sex for 1 million dollars. But almost nobody will have sex for $10,

[Poetlister]

I don't see any ideas coming out of this that will make any significant difference.

Yup. A few trivial things will pass (like rewording Q1 to avoid the implication that an admin should do admin work), but none of the substantive proposals I've seen have any chance of passing.

It's the old problem you have in any class-ridden system. Those who have managed to climb the ladder and are proud of their exalted position don't want to make it easier for people trying to follow the.

[No Ledge]

It's the old problem you have in any class-ridden system. Those who have managed to climb the ladder and are proud of their exalted position don't want to make it easier for people trying to follow the.

This is the United States today. The people who climbed the ladder are paying $millions to the !voters (that's Manchin and Sinema, not you and me).

This isn't the case with Wikipedia yet though, is it? Don't the non-admin voters outnumber the admin voters at RfA? Are there any statistics on this?

I think the issue is that of non-admins not wanting to elect admins who they fear might disrupt their exalted non-administrative positions.

[Poetlister]

I think the issue is that of non-admins not wanting to elect admins who they fear might disrupt their exalted non-administrative positions.

Admins are far more likely to participate in discussions about RfAs than non-admins collectively, and their views might carry more weight and deter non-admins from disagreeing.

[Mason]

Well, there’s some irony that “too much scrutiny” was a top concern given the most recent RfA.

[Poetlister]

Well, there’s some irony that “too much scrutiny” was a top concern given the most recent RfA.

You know the "community" well enough to know that they are often inconsistent and occasionally hypocritical!

[WikiWatcher]

Well, there’s some irony that “too much scrutiny” was a top concern given the most recent RfA.

They can fix this by locking all RfA candidates in a room, shining bright lights in their eyes, and shouting at them until they confess to being Icewhiz.

[orangepi]

The votes are open. Surprisingly, 8B (secret-ballot admin elections every 6 months) has come out of the gate very strong. Nothing else looks both substantial and popular; 5A and 7D will probably pass but will not make a shit of difference in RFA pass rates.

[Vigilant]

They are currently in the "brainstorming" phase.

It's not a "job interview" because they are adamantly against even giving out "coffee stipends", much less real pay.

Behavior would have to be really bad for that 30-day block to stick and not be reverted by another admin well before the time had elapsed.

This looks more like a brain storm to me, a seizure, convulsion, or similar incident of abnormal brain activity like a storm in the collective community brain.

I don't see any ideas coming out of this that will make any significant difference.

Make it an ARBCOM style block where you lose tools if you reverse it.

[Vigilant]

The votes are open. Surprisingly, 8B (secret-ballot admin elections every 6 months) has come out of the gate very strong. Nothing else looks both substantial and popular; 5A and 7D will probably pass but will not make a shit of difference in RFA pass rates.

Is this group punishment or herd safety tactics?

[orangepi]

The votes are open. Surprisingly, 8B (secret-ballot admin elections every 6 months) has come out of the gate very strong. Nothing else looks both substantial and popular; 5A and 7D will probably pass but will not make a shit of difference in RFA pass rates.

Is this group punishment or herd safety tactics?

Group punishment. The herd safety is on the talk page; the "why not just make everyone an admin" idea was shut down before I got to point out that Icewhiz would make as many socks as necessary to prevent certain users from getting admin privileges that way.

[Poetlister]

I think that in the earliest days on Wikipedia everyone was an admin. Of course, that soon became completely impracticable.

[ArmasRebane]

Well, there’s some irony that “too much scrutiny” was a top concern given the most recent RfA.

There's realistically no way to stop dedicated, effective socks or bad actors from getting RfA in the current system. Obviously nothing popped up to demonstrate much of any link outside of checkuser evidence and close analysis like happened here. If anything, the extremely high barrier to RfA just means you're going to have a smaller ratio of decent admins to those admin socks.

Anyone who wants to reform RfA or opposes it based on the worst-case scenario happening once is not working on a good system, because there's no perfect way to make a perfect system, especially given the current conditions Wikipedia is operating from as a anonymous platform (even in the olden days of WMF verification for functionaries all you'd need is some trivial photoshopping skills to avoid the basic scrutiny.)

[Poetlister]

Good sockmasters ought to have the cunning and skills to pass RfA. It seems that Icewhiz probably nearly did. The only way to stop socking altogether is to have watertight personal identification, which will never happen because it would be incompatible with even a pretence of "anyone can edit" and anyway wouldn't work retrospectively.

[Beeblebrox]

Risker has now pointed out that Secure Poll can only be used for a single election at any given time, meaning en.wp would be hogging the hell out of it if we did the elections thing. I had no idea it was limited in that way. Seems kinda stupid.

[Vigilant]

Risker has now pointed out that Secure Poll can only be used for a single election at any given time, meaning en.wp would be hogging the hell out of it if we did the elections thing. I had no idea it was limited in that way. Seems kinda stupid.

WOW.

Aside from several of the previously mentioned points, the reality is that the SecurePoll infrastructure is already near capacity, has almost zero technical support, and will significantly impede other projects from using SecurePoll for more important things like their local Arbcom elections. SecurePoll is limited to one instance at a time throughout the Wikimedia-world; it is not possible for there to be two or more simultaneous elections using it. (I note that the recent MCDC election had a significant impact on the Arab Wikipedia arbcom election, both delaying the arbcom election, and requiring the MCDC election to be "dumped" much earlier than initially planned, in order for the arbcom election to be set up.) I get that we on English Wikipedia don't really consider the impact on other projects when we come up with ideas. But this one would create a fair amount of animosity. Risker (talk) 05:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Just wow.

Another world beater from the WeMakeFailures Engineering Coven!

[Poetlister]

Risker has now pointed out that Secure Poll can only be used for a single election at any given time, meaning en.wp would be hogging the hell out of it if we did the elections thing. I had no idea it was limited in that way. Seems kinda stupid.

Is there any reason why with all its resources the WMF cannot set up several duplicate systems?

[No Ledge]

It's a matter of priorities. I'll bet the WMF has plenty of resources and capacity to run dozens of simultaneous fundraising campaigns.

[orangepi]

A different suggestion: every 6 months, we have admin elections. But instead of using SecurePoll, we select a sortition of 20 admins to vote on the nomination publicly. 13 votes and you're in, no bureaucratic discretion.

Point of debate: maybe we sortition from "extended confirmed editors active in the past month".

[Poetlister]

A different suggestion: every 6 months, we have admin elections. But instead of using SecurePoll, we select a sortition of 20 admins to vote on the nomination publicly. 13 votes and you're in, no bureaucratic discretion.

Point of debate: maybe we sortition from "extended confirmed editors active in the past month".

How do you select the admins? Should we include ones who are barely active enough to hold onto the button?

[Beeblebrox]

Proposal 8B, admin elections, looks like it is going to pass link.
Hopefully it can be sorted out as to why Secure Poll can only run one election at a time so it can actually be implemented without pissing off every other of SecurePoll.

[CoffeeCrumbs]

Something mundane like fixing voting on encyclopedia issues has to take a step back when it takes time away from more important WMF core functions such as funneling money to the Tides Foundation.

[Beeblebrox]

Proposal 8B, admin elections, looks like it is going to pass link.
Hopefully it can be sorted out as to why Secure Poll can only run one election at a time so it can actually be implemented without pissing off every other user of SecurePoll.

[No Ledge]

So, hey, in a corner of the very loud, crowded bar where dozens of simultaneous conversations were happening (what I consider the second or followup community "brainstorming" session) a decision to actually do something of substance was reached.

They're taking away my WP:Autopatrolled (T-H-L) right.

But, no worries, I can just simply give the right right back to myself. Much ado about nothing.

Discussion ensues HERE.

[Beeblebrox]

Discussion ensues HERE.

I'm so confused by the contention that this will in any way make RFA work better. I already gave it back to myself as I create tons of user talk pages that do not need to be "patrolled".

[orangepi]

I'm so confused by the contention that this will in any way make RFA work better. I already gave it back to myself as I create tons of user talk pages that do not need to be "patrolled".

My math was that if it made as few as 5 admins (or potential admins) happy, it was worth it. It is technically correct (the best kind of correct) but unlikely to do anything important. I am just assuming 95% of the admins that are active in an "actually creates articles" sense will have the right by the end of the month.

[boom]

After what happened to Eostrix, only a complete madman, or moron, would run for adminship in good faith.

[Anroth]

After what happened to Icewhiz sock Eostrix, only editors who clearly not socks should run for adminship in good faith.

Fixed that for you.

[Jim]

After what happened to Eostrix, only a complete madman, or moron, would run for adminship in good faith.

What, in your opinion, Mr. boom, "happened to Eostrix"?

The evidence that Mr. Eostrix was, in fact, Mr. Icewhiz is overwhelming on the face of it - but it's not 100% conclusive, I guess, because, well, nothing ever truly is in circumstances like this.

Did you have some other perspective on Mr. Eostrix which we haven't already considered in this thread which you think we should consider now?

[Jim]

Did you have some other perspective on Mr. Eostrix which we haven't already considered in this thread which you think we should consider now?

Oops, sorry, my error. I meant this thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=12186

[orangepi]

The final proposal has been closed, at least for now. Perhaps I should wait for the inevitable AN appeal regarding the 8B close to explode before trying to analyze "why did nothing happen".

Or I can do it now. It is one part because the "issues" found in the first round were kind of stupid, and one part because there are enough people who will oppose any substantial change that it is almost impossible to get over 2/3 support necessary for "consensus".

[Beeblebrox]

I've suggested on the talk page that instead of going the drama route at ANI, those who are upset by this start planning a follow-up RFC using the type of restricted format I developed for the pending changes 2012 RFC, in which one core question is addressed, and alternate proposals are not permitted. I developed this specifically for this sort of situation, I'm not sure it's even been used at all since 2012, but this is exactly the sort of thing it is for.

[orangepi]

The emerging consensus on the talk page appears to be that the "there were more distinct arguments against the proposal" part of the close is BS, and the "strong" concerns about "scrutineering" and "voter guides" are more a supervote than an assessment of consensus.

I agree that it should at least be adjusted to "no consensus", or even "substantial support but consensus that a follow-up RFC would be needed to implement an election". Of course basically everyone involved on the talk page already voted ...

[Vigilant]

So, another triumphant moment for consensus governing on en.wp!

[Beeblebrox]

The normal RFC process simply does not work for issues this complicated. I feel like that's been proven now and other methods need to be employed.

[Vigilant]

The normal RFC process simply does not work for issues this complicated. I feel like that's been proven now and other methods need to be employed.

Have you guys tried, "Hiring competent people and letting them do things yet?"

[Beeblebrox]

The normal RFC process simply does not work for issues this complicated. I feel like that's been proven now and other methods need to be employed.

Have you guys tried, "Hiring competent people and letting them do things yet?"

I feel like this process was carefully planned and competently run, but still became a mess because there simply too many things proposed. This is basically is a prerequisite for what I am proposing as the next step. You pretty much have to have a mess of an RFC before trying the restricted format. I'm not going to do it though, I've put it out there, if those who want the election thing so much want to pursue the long, hard path in front of them it is up to them.

[Vigilant]

Well, then the Swami Vigilant will prognosticate that RfA shall remain one of the most fucked up parts of en.wp for the foreseeable future.

[No Ledge]

So, hey, in a corner of the very loud, crowded bar where dozens of simultaneous conversations were happening (what I consider the second or followup community "brainstorming" session) a decision to actually do something of substance was reached.

They're taking away my WP:Autopatrolled (T-H-L) right.

But, no worries, I can just simply give the right right back to myself. Much ado about nothing.

Discussion ensues HERE.

I'm so confused by the contention that this will in any way make RFA work better. I already gave it back to myself as I create tons of user talk pages that do not need to be "patrolled".

I actually haven't bothered to give it back to myself yet. I figure that if the community would rather that I wasn't autopatrolled, what should I care.

I just got an interesting notice after I moved the page NU Hospítals (note the funny i). That page was created by a single-purpose editor on 26 December 2018, after they had done just enough to establish credentials for their new account on 3 December 2018. They created the page on the funky i character because the page for the proper title had been previously deleted on 20 December 2018 and 22 May 2018 as an article created by blocked or banned users in violation of a block or ban. I guess by definition any article about an Indian super-specialty hospital must have been created by a blocked editor because what neutral, disinterested editor would ever be motivated to create an article on such a topic, right??

Anyhow after I moved it back to the proper title, I was informed that DannyS712 bot III (T-C-L) had autopatrolled the redirect I created as a result of the move. I see that bot has seven tasks approved to "Automatically patrol redirects".

Now I'm wondering that if a would-be Neelix copycat were to mass-create redirects with funky characters in them, would this bot just autopatrol them? Which would defeat the purpose of removing autopatrol from admins' kit so as to nip the next Neelix in the bud before they got out of control. (Of course the next Neelix would just grant the right to themselves, but whatever)

[No Ledge]

The most significant thing to come out of this attempt to fix RFA was WP:Administrative action review (T-H-L) (not to be confused with WP:Administrator review (T-H-L)...

...which has already resulted in Administrators Noticeboard drama after an admin insisted that it was proper procedure to put the new process up for deletion. I was fairly advised that I could turn it down a bit, as I felt the rare need to dial it up to eleven.

Y'all enjoy the

[Beeblebrox]

It's a total shitshow, which I knew it would be when I opposed it being created. It's now basically on pause while the proponents try to figure out what it is it is actually supposed to do. People were bringing individual uses of rollback to be reviewed as admin actions.

[Guerillero]

Good. Proponents tripped and remade WQA. We might as well brought back RfC/U. It was at least less of a free for all

[Jim]

Good. Proponents tripped and remade WQA. We might as well brought back RfC/U. It was at least less of a free for all

What makes me belly-laugh is that this was "approved" as something that will help to "fix RFA".

I've yet to see anyone get anywhere close to explaining how it might conceivably do anything remotely related to that.

It just, as far as I can see, introduces a new toxic battleground to add to all the others.

Seems to me it simply gives tedious and pointless process wonks a shiny new place to expound on their 'cleverness' while they pat each other on the back and pretend to be important. Who the fuck is Alalch Emis (T-C-L), by way of a quick example?

Play stupid games and stupid prizes are almost guaranteed.