Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

News and notes

Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

Surge in RFA promotions: a sign of lasting change?

Eight administrators were promoted in the first 16 days of 2017, following four successful requests for adminship (RFAs) in December. This is more than any month since March 2011, which saw nine new admins. January has already seen half as many promotions as did the entirety of 2016.

From a large-scale research project in 2011 to several subsequent attempts at reform, the precipitous decline in admin promotions over the last several years has drawn the attention of the community. The Signpost investigated whether these reforms are working: whether this surge is the start of a trend, or just a temporary blip on the radar. We spoke with several recently promoted administrators, past candidates, nominators, and RFA observers to explore that question.

One common theme from their responses was acclaim for the optional RFA candidate poll (ORCP), a development championed by Anna Frodesiak that began in October 2015. It provides a forum for prospective administrators to put their names forward and receive appraisals from community members on their likelihood of passing. In 2016, of the sixteen successful RfAs, eleven (69%) had used the poll. Of 2016's twenty unsuccessful candidates, only two (10%) had first used the poll.

Montanabw, who ran unsuccessfully in September 2015, points to another improvement in the RfA process: watchlist notifications.

“

The watchlist notice has brought about an improvement in the tone and level of participation ... There [previously] was a free-for-all atmosphere that allowed a high level of personal attacks and unregulated debate. The lack of any broad notice provision created a situation where a significant number of participants were people who regularly monitored RfA but who were not necessarily representative of the community as a whole—many people later told me that they had no idea I was even running! I think that the process now is handled with more respect for candidates.

”

Generally, the sentiment that RFA has become less nasty shined through many recent candidates' reflections. NinjaRobotPirate, who passed overwhelmingly earlier this year, commented that "a lot of the nastiness has been purged" from the process. Nevertheless, he described putting himself forward as a challenge, given that "nobody likes the idea of putting their contributions on trial."

RFA's reputation as a nasty experience for well-meaning contributors has certainly not helped encourage editors to take the plunge. Sam Walton, an administrator himself who has recently begun a mini-campaign of nominations that has yielded several new administrators, offered his insight on RFA's perception problem.

“

You only need to glance at WT:RFA to see the endless debates and proposals on how to fix what users see as a broken, horrible, why-would-anyone-bother process. While I wouldn't argue that these discussions aren't useful, they do feed into what I see as RfA's perception problem, which directly results in a lack of candidates and I think only fuels the debated problems.

”

He went on to say that when RFAs are rare and only one candidate runs at a time, it fosters an atmosphere of intense scrutiny on that candidate, which can lead people to look for more reasons to oppose. He has sought with his recent nominations to curb the notion that "no one runs because no one runs" and to address the recurring challenge of getting more people to run by simply asking and nominating qualified candidates. He believes his recruitment efforts are "doing a good job of spreading some goodwill and improving the negative perception of RfA."

Another recent change that may reduce the time-consuming nature of running for adminship is the limitation on questions to two per inquirer, which was imposed in 2015. In all, 11 proposals reached the request for comment stage of a 2015 reform effort, and four of those proposals passed. (The others were the tweaking of promotion discretionary range, watchlisting, and the notice on the Centralized discussion template; while the pre-RFA candidate poll happened at a similar time as the 2015 reform RFC, this was coincidental.)

Two editors at the forefront of RFA reform efforts in recent years have been WereSpielChequers and Kudpung. Kudpung was a coordinator of the massive research endeavor and reform effort of 2011, and WereSpielChequers has compiled statistics and has written about the issue for the Signpost (here, here, and here).

WereSpielChequers doubts that the reform efforts of late 2015—including the optional candidate poll and the lowering of promotion criteria from 70–80% support to 65–75%—explain the recent surge: "the slightly lower threshold for promotion has made almost no difference; Those who do pass usually do so with near unanimity or at least a strong consensus. I fear that ORCP has succeeded in persuading more to come forward, but then deterred them from actually running. It is too early to say whether the January surge is a welcome but temporary rally or a change.".

Kudpung also doubts that the recent spike in successful promotions is part of a longer-term trend. In a statement to the Signpost, he suggests that RFA remains an inherently broken process:

“

I don’t believe the current spate of RfAs is actually bucking the downward trend. It’s probably just a flash in the pan due to the hard work of those who scour the land for possible candidates and Anna Frodesiak's initiative at WP:ORCP. While the precipitous decline in 'promotions' is giving rise to concern, the same could be said about the state of many aspects of the Wikipedia even though the actual content is definitely growing. RfA still remains the horrible and broken process as described by Jimbo Wales and for the same reasons, and it’s clearly the main cause for lack of interest by potential candidates. In spite of all the talk of reform, however, people turn around and are suddenly busy with something else when the actual standard of participant behaviour is mentioned.

The work of admins has never really changed ... Occasional unbundling of one or two tools, such as for example rollback, hasn’t made much difference, but to talk of admin backlogs is really to create an illusion to illustrate the claim that we need more admins ... The future of the number of truly active admins is predictable. It will continue to be as it is, and the number of new RfA has bottomed out. At some time in the future—but not for a while yet—there won’t be enough admins. By then there will however be better bots and better helper scripts.

The various recent reforms brought about in good faith in December 2015 ... have ironically cancelled each other out, leaving the one single major problem still completely unaddressed, but with just more participants, more unnecessary talk in the discussion section, and despite the lowering of the pass mark, more ‘crat chats and more contentiously close-run bids for the mop.

”

Although many deride RFA as a broken process, those who have recently experienced an RFA have differing opinions.

K6ka noted that "the drama (of reading old RFAs) was enough to keep me at bay" before he ran successfully earlier this year.

"I got very little sleep throughout the week. I'd stay up till midnight watching the !votes on my RFA fluctuate unsettlingly before getting eight hours of terrible quality sleep, waking up at roughly eight-thirty in the morning or so to scroll through my RFA page again on my phone in bed," he said.

However, both he and Ealdgyth, who recently passed with 250 supports and no opposes, described their RFAs as enjoyable, a sentiment not shared by Hawkeye7, a former administrator who ran for the tools again in early 2016:

"RfA remains a tough process. There was a vicious off-Wiki campaign against me. It deters people from running, and it deters people from contributing to Wikipedia. I was heartened, though, by the editors who supported my candidacy—a veritable Who's Who of Wikipedia."

Ad Orientem, whose successful candidacy in late December may have springboarded a wave in nominations, summarized RFA as it stands today:

"My RfA was contentious and for me personally, highly stressful. Twice during the RfA I seriously considered withdrawing but was talked out of it … The problem with those who complain about RfA is that there seems little consensus or even serious suggestions for an alternative. As long as we need Admins (and we do!) we are going to need some system for vetting candidates. Like many Wikipedians I have heard horror stories about RfA before the series of reforms that began a few years back and I would like to assure readers that abusive and trollish behavior is generally not tolerated anymore," he said. "Overall I think the process is fair if imperfect." GP

Brief notes

[[File:|center|300x300px]]

Prince's biography was one of our most-edited articles in 2016, covered in a WMF blog. Here the musician is remembered through a permanent work of graffiti in a Spanish public place.

WikiCup 2017 sign-ups open ... this year features a cash prize! Sign-ups for the WikiCup, an annual on-wiki competition to improve content on Wikipedia, have opened and will close on February 5. This year, winners will receive monetary prizes including $US200 for the first-place winner. The money for prizes was donated anonymously. Details on how it will be awarded can be found on the main WikiCup page. GP!
Death, politics, and Vincent van Gogh: 2016 as seen through the lens of Wikipedia: In one of the WMF's blog series, followed up by online newsletter Billboard, Ed Erhart and Samantha Lien asked what were the most-edited English Wikipedia articles in 2016. Four of the top five, they found, relate to the US election. The deaths of many notable people also featured strongly, among them that of Prince (pictured).
Another WMF board vacancy: Two WMF trustees' two year terms expired at the end of 2016. Alice Wiegand sought, and was granted, reappointment; Guy Kawasaki did not renew. Three of the organization's ten board seats are now vacant.
New restricted grant to fund structured data on Commons: The Sloan Foundation, one of the most substantial funders of the WMF over the years, granted US$3 million, targeted at improving the structure of metadata on Wikimedia Commons. More info in the announcement.
Strategic planning updates: WMF executive director Katherine Maher has posted several weekly updates on the upcoming strategic planning process (covered in the previous Signpost). The WMF board has approved up to US$2.5 million in spending, up from the $1 million spent on the 2010 plan. The firm Williamsworks will serve as the lead architect for the process. A discussion on the Wikimedia-L email list focused on the lack of a published long-term plan for the WMF's own future.
Birthdays: Wikipedia celebrated its 16th birthday on January 15. The Signpost's own 12th birthday came and went without much notice on January 10. We'll be OK.
Wikimania 2017 scholarship applications open: You may now apply for a scholarship to the annual conference, which will take place in Canada.
Eureka! The WMF has reported on the results of the Gender Gap Inspire Campaigns to date.
Wikimedia Developer Summit: The annual meeting on the evolution of MediaWiki and other Wikimedia-supporting technologies took place January 9 and 10. See the session notes and our Technology Report for details.
New administrators: Recent promotions have included Boson, Ad Orientem, and Ivanvector (December) and NinjaRobotPirate, Schwede66, K6ka, Ealdgyth, Ferret, Cyberpower678, Mz7, and Primefac (January). GP!
New members elected to Affiliations Committee: The committee announced three new members: Camelia.boban, Kirill Lokshin, and Satdeep Gill. See here for more information.

← Previous "News and notes"

In this issue

News and notes

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

A belated congrats to the editors of the Signpost for its 12th anniversary. We couldn't do without it. Erik Zachte (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Erik Zachte! We weren't digging for a compliment...well, OK, I suppose maybe we were :) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) (Editor)[reply]

Having watched those recent RFA's unfold, I will offer advice for potential admins - if you hold right wing / conservative views in US politics, you must never mention them on wiki or let your edits show your POV. Even if you've never let this affect the content you add. In fact, you're probably better off making a few comments about holding left wing political views here and there for the history diggers. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree that the watchlist notices, question limits, and the ORCP were the most helpful improvements. Having been responsible for the 2015 RfC, I freely admit that those changes were not a cure-all (although I would take note of the fact that I am, to this day, the only person in the history of Wikipedia to get any kind of change effected at RfA via the consensus process). The minor alteration to the discretionary range did not seem to do a whole lot a good, because in practice, the old range still seems to be applied in 'crat chats. I think a major problem is the great reluctance of 'crats to simply throw out oppose votes that are not grounded in policy.

But the heart of the RfA issue is really the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants. To be fair, the RfC did propose direct restrictions on RfA standards, but I did not seriously expect such a proposal to come anywhere near passing, so it wasn't as well thought-out as it could have been. But I don't think such a proposal would ever pass, regardless of how well-thought out it was—I have differed substantially with Kudpung on a good many issues, but there no doubt that he is correct when he says that people are still simply not willing to give up one of their last free-for-all playgrounds. However, I invite any willing person to attempt a thorough RfC on restricting RfA standards, and we'll see how it turns out.

Ultimately, I still hold to my belief that RfA itself will never be completely fixed, and the only true solution is to scrap it completely. Sometimes I even doubt the wisdom of the whole "consensus" idea. It is vague, and it creates a situation in which the closers, rather the participants, ultimately determine what does or does not happen. So it is not exactly true to say that "the community determines Wikipedia policy," or that "the community chooses its admins." No one can dispute that straight up-or-down votes are much more simple, efficient, and stress-free. After all, voting worked just fine a couple of months ago, and has worked in that context for over a decade now.

Biblio (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that RfA is essentially a political process, and selecting people for positions of public trust is always stressful and fraught with difficulties in balancing kindness with the need to publicly evaluate candidates. Go Phightins! and I had discussed the possibility of referencing an article like the following in the article, but didn't get around to it: People are so stressed by this election that the American Psychological Association has coping tips That's not to say that we don't have additional, unique considerations that compound the issue...but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that it's a challenging area for any community with formal positions. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC) (Editor)[reply]

But the heart of the RfA issue is really the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants - this perception is of course completely wrong, as anyone knows who has been actively engaged in the search for suitable candidates for many years. The true reason lies incontestably in the behaviour of the voters, and as I stated to Signpost, when this is mentioned, people usually turn away. Kudos nevertheless to Biblioworm for having proven that change changes to the RfA process can be brought about. All we need now are the right changes, suggested and proposed in a compelling manner - and the incessant, cyclic talk at WT:RFA with its regular interjections by detractors, is not it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The true reason lies incontestably in the behaviour of the voters... - Exactly my point. The arguments at RfA are, far more often than not, in correlation with unreasonable demands on the candidates. You know as well as I do that the trouble always arises when someone opposes a candidate for some ridiculous reason. Biblio (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...the high and unreasonable personal standards of certain participants are actually rarely the reason for a candidate to fail and they haven't moved the goalposts to a higher grade point average. The Major issue with RfA is that potential candidates of the right calibre are reluctant to let thmselves be hung out to dry by such a viscous and nasty minded cult of vindictiveness and PA. That's why your argument is wrong, Biblioworm - you haven't been around long enough to know. Some of us have closely followed 300 RfA or more over the past many years. Your reforms were very important in that they proved that change can be brought about, and no one disputes that, but they didn't actually change the status quo. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And who comprises that viscous and nasty minded cult of vindictiveness and PA? The unreasonable voters, obviously. The nastiness always breaks out in the "Oppose" section when someone posts some ridiculous rationale for why a candidate shouldn't succeed, and then proceeds to fight tooth and nail against it being discounted as it should be. And by the way, I have also examined many RfAs, including the very first ones from 2001. Biblio (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are RFAs crucial to the health of wikipedia

I am not an ADMIN as opposed to most of those who have been interviewed for this story. However, I try to participate in all RFAs because I am very concerned about Bad Apple ADMINs. I define Bad Apple types as editors who have a chilling affect on those who cross paths with them to the point of losing potential good editors. I realize that many wannabe ADMINs don't want to go through a gruelling process to get the "mop". However I believe those unwilling to stand up to scrutiny, should not be ADMINs on wikipedia. Wikipedia is a vast world with no Separation of powers which, unfortunately, invites people with agendas to gain the tools that allow them to get rid of other editors with whom they disagree. Ottawahitech (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

There are bad apples in every walk of life, from police officers, polititians, priests, and presidents. These people are always a rare and small part of society and I resent admins all being tarred with the same brush. Talkng about it too much spreads a totally disproportionate paranoia. I was badly treated by a pair of team tagging teenage admins (fortuately neither of them still around) which led me to want to understand how such people were allowed to become admins, and I began some research. Some while later it was suggested to me that I run for adminship, which I boldly did. My own RfA demonstrated without any doubt whatsoever that RfA is a horrible and broken process. The research I coordinated in 2011 however, did not reveal any compelling evidence that there are in fact many rotten apple admins - more to the point, it demonstrated conclusively that there is (or perhaps was) a distinctly disturbing rotten mentality among far too many of the voters, whether they regularly or only occasionally participate in RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: Thanks for the well-written response. I have "known" you for sometime and I know you are sincere, and that you really believe that bad apples are few and far between. However, I and many others(I think?), who belong to the lower classes here at wiki-land, feel that our wiki-existence depends on being able to avoid confrontations with bad apples. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

RFAs are in no way a "promotion." I thought we were five or six years past that way of thinking. The administrative tool kit and administrators are one thing. Content writers are another. The former is not superior to the latter. Carrite (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite: With all due respect, that is true in theory, but my wiki-experience indictates otherwise. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

I think Ottawahitech, that my own experience with admins which was bad enough, speaks for itself particularly and especially on my RfA where the prime detractor, whose vicious PA on my RfA caused a storm of pile-on of opposes, is a since desysoped admin with a history of imposing his own version of 'facts' on hundreds, if not thousands of articles which largely escaped detection, again under the premise 'If he's an admin, he must be right'. Despite all this, and what I have witnessed in the ensuing 6 years, I still do not consider bad admins to be more than 1 or 2 percent of the truly active admins. A large number of whom show up regularly at Wikimania and whom I find to be, with only one exception (now desysoped), a bunch of actually rather nice people. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even if 1%, it is like rat turds in the raisins. they have an outsized harm. we had a promise to say good-bye to the toxic though productive, which remains unfulfilled. the 1% do not come to conferences or wikimanias, are they trainable? here is a self-diagnostic http://electricpulp.com/guykawasaki/arse/ might want to avoid those habits. Beatley (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beatly, do you actually know what we are discussing here? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That, Carrite, is a classic example of taking written communication out of context. I would have thought anyone would have perfectly understood why I put the word in quotes. Personally, I think 'promotion' has more to do with the climbing of greasy poles on the one hand, and the world of paid occupation on the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UT

Dear Ottawahitech You and I may not be so far apart as you might think. RFA is a process that enables the community to assess applicants for adminship and filter out the unsuitable ones. Your test "editors who have a chilling affect on those who cross paths with them" lacks a little precision, I suspect there may be edge cases where one person thinks the flaw was in the way a speedy was declined and another is more concerned about sloppy deletion tagging. But if you follow that test, look at RFA candidates, check their contributions and give diff supported evidence where you can make a case that the candidate is likely to have a chilling effect on other goodfaith editors, then you shouldn't be contributing to RFA being a gruelling process. In most RFAs I believe you will find yourself happily supporting candidates who do not have a chilling effect on others. In my experience RFA is at its most gruelling where we disagree on our RFA criteria, with some people asserting a candidate is qualified and others looking at the same evidence and saying that they also want x or y. Occasionally that may result in RFAs where we debate whether a particular comment is snarky or sufficiently recent to be troubling. But most candidate should pass your criteria with ease. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betteridge's law of headlines. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a fairly recent addition to the Admin corps, I would descripe the RfA process AS tortuous and grueling. I would not encourage other experienced editors to go through the RfA process. It was personal, painful and brutal. It was not as if I was applying for super secret access to government documents, just the tools to be an admin. But regular editors have their arbitrary standards and if you don't meet them, well, forget it. Luckily, there were more people who trusted my judgment rather than editors who look at every non-content producing editor with highest levels of suspicion. The craziest thing is that even if I made some unfair and arbitrary judgement on another editor (which I was unlikely to do), another admin could undo or question my decision. Admin decisions aren't carved into stone. Admins disagree with each other all of the time, which I believe is HEALTHY. None of us have "godlike" status. If one admin makes an egregious error, contact another admin and state your case. Please, do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About