Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: Reverted
Line 109: Line 109:
# [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
# [[User:Pilaz|Pilaz]] ([[User talk:Pilaz|talk]]) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
# --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


==Monitoring and nominators==
==Monitoring and nominators==

Revision as of 23:42, 5 May 2024

Status as of 22:13 (UTC), Sunday, 9 June 2024 (update time)

Welcome! This is the discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024 (Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions). The discussion close by Sirdog is reprinted here:

I find that there is a rough consensus among editors that it would be helpful for a named panel of administrators and/or bureaucrats be listed on individual RfAs of whom would be called on to assist in addressing uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior.

There does not appear to be much agreement on any particular way to enact this at present. Many supports present particular methods of enacting this proposal (some have their support contingent on a particular method), but most are structurally different from one another and none are rallied behind. As a result, this proposal's ultimate success will largely be contingent on what kinds of consensus can be achieved for implementation during Phase II.

The prevailing support arguments are a) that any attempt to address civility issues at RfA is welcome and, if nothing else, this proposal is worth giving a shot, and b) that naming particular editors would help combat a perceived bystander effect at RfA and thus increase the chances of intervention.

The prevailing oppose argument is functionally unanimous, being that the proposal is unnecessary and that administrators and bureaucrats are already empowered by civility policies to clerk RfAs. However, the opposers are in a clear numerical minority, and it is clear from the arguments presented by supporters that they are unconvinced that uncivil, problematic, and/or disruptive behavior is being adequately addressed.

Based on my reading of this discussion, editors appear to want the following items ironed out. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but an aid.

  • Should named panelists be the only editors able to address behavioral issues at a particular RfA?
  • Should named panelists be compelled to a) not participate in the RfA, b) not be a nominator for the pertinent RfA, and c) not possess strong ties to the candidate, or any combination of the 3?
  • Should named panelists, presuming they are not a bureaucrat, be capable of striking an individual's RfA vote as part of civility enforcement?
  • Should named panelists be determined prior to or after an RfA begins?

This RfC uses the old-fashioned editor-statement style of discussion (for an example, see WP:ACERFC2019). There is no built-in way to oppose a statement: instead, create your own (contradictory) statement. For instance, if someone had the statement Nobody should get a free pony, you might create the statement Jimbo will buy everyone a pony. You can make and support as many proposals as you wish.

Maintaining a separate list of people open to clerking

Statement #1 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (separate list)

A separate list should be kept of those administrators and bureaucrats willing to assist with the process ("Monitors"). They can be pinged when an RFA is imminent to ask if they are available to monitor for that specific RFA. However, any administrator or bureaucrat is able to sign up to individual RFAs to monitor for behavioural infractions, whether they are on the list or not.

Editors who endorse statement #1 (separate list)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (And leeky's addition below) Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm endorsing this more general statement, because I think having such a list is useful. I'm not endorsing #2 or #3, because I think we should allow some leeway, since any admin can always take actions during the first day or so of an RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by theleekycauldron (separate list)

Unless this comes with the implicit requirement that all RfAs need to announce their arrival ahead of time, figuring out which RfAs are forthcoming is impossible. Instead, monitors should be selected within 24 hours of the start of the RfA. If a candidate wishes to publicly announce their RfA ahead of time or privately contact the bureaucrat team (who can in turn ask admins if anyone is free at X time to monitor an anonymous RfA) in order to secure monitors from the jump, they are free to avail themselves of either option.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (separate list)

  1. :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Toadspike (talk) 12:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by Cremastra (separate list)

A list/register/whatever you want call it of admins and 'crats willing to monitor RfAs should be made. Knowing when an RfA is imminent is unlikely, unless there's a lot of conspicuous planning beforehand; however, selecting monitors within 24 hours of the start of the RfA may defeat the purpose: pile-ons and incivility are likely under way on the first day. Therefore, RfA nominations should be publicized 'before discussion/voting starts, and the RfA should not start until at least one monitor has been designated. In this way there is a designated monitor from the very start of the RfA.

Editors who endorse statement #3 (separate list)

  1. Cremastra (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing non-designated admins to intervene

Statement #1 by SchroCat (non-designated admins)

Abhorrent behavioural problems can still be addressed by any administrator whether they are a listed monitor or not.

Editors who endorse statement #1 (non-designated admins)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by theleekycauldron (non-designated admins)

To slightly bulletproof statement #1: no part of this proposal relieves any administrator or bureaucrat of their ability to enforce civility policies at RfA. It's not within the scope of this subpage to limit the reach of the 99%+ of admins who are not serving as monitors at any one time, only to define what we expect of admins who sign up to be monitors.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (separate list)

  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Toadspike (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cremastra (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like this statement slightly more than #1: it is more precise. In particular, if there is a different reason a specific admin should not be acting as an admin (e.g. WP:INVOLVEment), that admin should not act. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with HouseBlaster that this concept needs to be coordinated with how we handle things like being INVOLVED. I specifically endorse the idea that nothing we do here changes the fact that other uninvolved admins remain free, as they have always been, to take appropriate actions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Suffrage for named monitors

Statement #1 by SchroCat (monitor suffrage)

Named Monitors should be allowed to !vote in the RFA

Editors who endorse statement #1 (monitor suffrage)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Toadspike (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by HouseBlaster (monitor suffrage)

Named Monitors should not be allowed to !vote in the RFA

Editors who endorse statement #2 (monitor suffrage)

  1. I think voting in the RfA makes you INVOLVEd, even if it is a more mild form of INVOLVEment. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cremastra (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Levivich (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Pilaz (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and nominators

Statement #1 by SchroCat (nominators)

Named Monitors should not be nominators for the candidate in question

Editors who endorse statement #1 (nominators)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ToadetteEdit! 10:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Toadspike (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cremastra (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. They would certainly be INVOLVED. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Ties with candidates

Statement #1 by SchroCat (ties)

Named Monitors should not possess strong ties to the candidate in question

Editors who endorse statement #1 (ties)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Although 'Involved' is clearer it is also weaker. Moderator's could have other relations other with the candidate outside the structures of WP:INVOLVED. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by 0xDeadbeef (ties)

Named Monitors should not be closely involved with regards to the candidate in question.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (ties)

  1. I believe this is clearer than strong ties. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 12:18, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Deadbeef – we have precedent for what "involved" means, but "strong ties" is very subjective. Toadspike (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cremastra (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree this is more clear. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC) EDIT: now supporting ToBeFree's alt 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it would be better if it said "not be involved." rather than "not be closely involved," and not just "with regards to the candidate in question," but involved in any way (hence, "not be involved.", period). The standard should be the same as WP:INVOLVED. RFA monitoring is an admin/crat tool use, and the admin/crat tool use here should be subject to the same WP:INVOLVED rules as admin/crat tool use anywhere else. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the first change ("not be involved") clearly strengthens the statement, the second one may inadvertently weaken it. The main concern (to me) is about monitor-candidate involvement. Highlighting and prohibiting this explicitly does seem to be beneficial. The probably main other type of possible involvement – voter-monitor involvement – isn't clear at the time when monitors are named, and almost inevitable when 200 votes are cast. You may not become a named monitor if you are involved with the candidate, and you should not clerk comments of users you're involved with, but the latter is an entirely different issue unrelated to the monitor naming process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another type of involvement is topical involvement, but nevertheless I'm indenting and partly striking my vote here because I prefer Statement #3. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by ToBeFree (ties)

Named Monitors should not be involved with regards to the candidate in question.

Editors who endorse statement #3 (ties)

  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Even more clear :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 18:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support this, though I would still prefer it just say "not be WP:INVOLVED" without narrowing the scope of WP:INVOLVED per my comment above. Levivich (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Striking votes

Statement #1 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (striking votes)

Monitors should not have the power to strike a !vote from the tally except in "voter fraud" scenarios (e.g. double votes, WP:SOCKSTRIKE, etc.)

Editors who endorse statement #1 (striking votes)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by SchroCat and HouseBlaster (striking votes)

Monitors should have the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}}, move to talk, or otherwise remove comments—including a !vote's rationale, but not the !vote itself—if it violates a policy/guideline.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (striking votes)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think leeky's proposal below goes a bit too far. "I really don't like the candidate" should, I think, be a valid oppose rationale, but it might fall under 'bigotry'. Toadspike (talk) 12:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The vote should still be counted, but personal attacks need to be removed. I oppose Statement 4 since removing obvious personal attacks is the entire point of the monitors. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is the right place to thread the needle. Monitors should not decide which votes count, but they should still be able to remove policy-violating content. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, thanks for proposing this. It addresses a main concern I had. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by theleekycauldron (striking votes)

There should be a genuine disincentive to leave nasty comments as it relates to the final tally. If a !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or if the comment itself is a blockable offense – the monitors can, at their discretion, remove the vote. Votes that are, say, entirely bigotry should not count. (The bureaucrats retain removal power by default.)

Editors who endorse statement #3 (striking votes)

  1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good compromise. Cremastra (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  3. It is really not that hard to oppose someone without being nasty. I don't think the candidate is ready to be an admin is not the strongest argument in the world, but it is an argument that would not be struck. It is not that hard. If your comment is enough to get you blocked, that should not count.

    And to be clear what I mean by bigotry: opposing a candidate based on their race, gender, sexuality, religion, etc. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual response to your example argument would be "Why?" or similar questions, in response to which the opposer can either choose being lectured about "consensus" and multiple other voters expressing their hope for the unexplained oppose to be "discounted" by bureaucrats, or providing a made-up civil explanation for their personal dislike, none of which is helpful to anyone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4 by hako9 (striking votes)

Monitors should not have the power to strike, collapse, redact, {{RPA}}, or otherwise remove comments—including a !vote's rationale. They may move to talk any subsequent comments if they violate a policy/guideline.

Editors who endorse statement #2 (striking votes)

  1. As nominator. — hako9 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


'Crat chats

Statement #1 by SchroCat ('crat chats)

If a Monitor is also a Crat, they should be allowed to join in any subsequent Crat chat

Editors who endorse statement #1 ('crat chats)

  1. As nominator. - SchroCat (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. But they retain the right to recuse themselves. Toadspike (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. They can recuse if they really think they need to, but I don't see why it would be required of them. We have too few crats to require this. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. That does seem okay/compatible to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by Levivich ('crat chats)

Crats may not both Monitor and participate in a crat chat for the same RFA.

Editors who endorse statement #1 ('crat chats)

  1. Monitors should be neutral and have no influence over the outcome of the RFA. Levivich (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Open discussion

In general I think this is likely to be a positive step for RfA. I think it would be very helpful if, additionally, we had a statement that all participants (candidates, voters, crats, everyone) had to endorse prior to participation, that reminds us of the reason for the discussion and the expected conduct. That is, we all do need to agree at least in principle with what the monitor's job is for, in order for moderation to work as productively as possible. Anyone who has been in a union or even a well-run corporate board meeting will be familiar with the kind of statement I mean. A sample wording might be "The purpose of this community discussion is to examine whether the candidate has the qualities and experience necessary for admin duties. Editors are expected to remain polite and collegial, especially when discussing the candidate's flaws. Monitorname(s)here will be monitoring the discussion to ensure it remains constructive." (This is just an example. I don't want to get too bogged down about the individual words at this point, since I think they're contingent on the outcomes of the discussions above.)

To clarify, by "everyone has to endorse the statement before participating", I don't mean something like "you must sign some document somewhere", that we'd maintain any kind of list, or anything bureaucratic like that. There are a variety of ways we could approach this. (At a meeting, what you do is simply read the statement out loud at the beginning.) And actually, the edit field I'm using to write this already has a statement I must agree to before posting. It says: Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources..

I'm suggesting this because I do actually believe it has helped in in-person meetings I've been a part of, but also because I think it gets at some of the underlying reasoning crats, etc, have used to avoid intervening in discussions. That is, I think it's easy to see intervening in an RfA discussion along the "censorship vs openness" axis, and/or that it's easy to feel that a 'crat is exercising some form of hierarchical power by intervening. Neither of these are useful frameworks for understanding RfA, which is supposed to be a consensus-building exercise. The result we desire - or at least, what I think most of us desire - is a discussion that usefully and fairly evaluates the candidate, that doesn't alienate anyone's opinion, and which doesn't inspire dread in potential admin candidates. -- asilvering (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Designated_RfA_monitors&oldid=1222442158"