Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 225

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 220←Archive 223Archive 224Archive 225Archive 226Archive 227→Archive 230

Proposed addition to "Expressing opinions"

Under the "Expressing opinions" section of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship should there be additional wording placed to discourage any perception of canvassing? I would like to propose text to be added, discussed, improved if needed and added, to our current guide if consensus agrees.

Perhaps:(bolded section is new)

:The 'requests for adminship' process attracts many Wikipedians. Some editors may routinely oppose many, or even most, requests; other editors routinely support many, or even most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA !voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments in an RfA, especially 'oppose' comments on an uncommon principle or which may feel like "baiting", consider whether other users are likely to treat it as influential or take it very seriously and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for what you have to say. Additionally, editors are discouraged from contacting others based on their !vote, or comments made with their !vote in an attempt to persuade them to change that !vote. At the very least, not fanning the fire will avoid making the situation worse. Remember, the bureaucrats who close the discussions have considerable experience, and give more weight to constructive comments over unproductive comments.

--Amadscientist (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC) t

I don't think this would be an ideal solution. For one thing, it doesn't happen very often. For another, it is not true and has never had a consensus. Finally, in actual fact users often quite legitimately post a message to a user concerning his/or vote, and many recommend doing so in order to avoid drama on the actual RfA page and have everyone else chiming in too. The recent event that sparked your suggestion specifically concerned the mass canvassing of participants to change their vote which is not quite the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Some had expressed a desire to add something to the guide but the wording above is not ideal, as you mention. If the idea itself is not worth discussing further I won't disagree.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this would be an improvement to the current situation. Taking one not unheard of scenario, one or more people !vote per another editor who then changes their !vote. If there is time to do so it would be useful to inform those editors so they can either reaffirm their !vote but give a different rationale such as "per ....s initial stance. Otherwise it is difficult to know how to weigh such !votes. It is also unnecessary extra complication to the rules at a time when we should really be trying to simplify and de-bloat them. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

let's make all desysopped admins re-run RFA (if they want the bit back)

Right now the Arbcom hands out periodic suspension of admin rights. But look, if you've lost your bit...why not have to face the community again? If you are likely to lose, so what? Let the community decide. Right now it is a sort of power structure game.

The other thing is people who resign. Make them re-run also. (1) It makes the gesture mean a lot more. (2) Gives the community a chance to re-examine candidates including their walking away. (3) If you just want a break, no big deal...just face the community to get it back. (What's the worst that happens? Your break is longer than you expected.)

The only possible exception might be some emergency desysop for a security breach...but even here, I'd be inclined to hold it against the admin for losing the keys.

TCO (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused. Desysopped admins have the opportunity to stand for reRFA whenever they like. Why force it? Is this meant to be a test of the community's concurrence with ArbCom? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Eliminate the option of Arbcom to do partial vacations. If you are bad enough for a time out, the community REALLY ought to re-look at you. The board has plenty of space to handle the tiny amount of desysops. Also, resignations really mean something. TCO (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, routinely.TCO (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect. Usually, ArbCom desysops are permanent until the user decides to even run again at RfA, unless they are explicitly prevented from doing so. — ΛΧΣ21 17:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Making those that take a voluntary (short) break, for example because they're busy and know they won't be editing for a bit, have to re-run RFA will just mean they won't resign the bit in the first place. -- KTC (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
A while back we had an admin who was about to be deployed overseas as part of the military. Understandably he did not expect to participate in Wikipedia during his deployment and asked to have his privileges removed as a security precaution on the remote chance that someone might try to hijack his account. Now tell me, why should we be forcing someone like that to repeat RFA? I think reconfirmation could be a good thing, but I don't think that everyone who ever chosen to relinquish the bit should necessarily be subjected to it. Dragons flight (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
If he is gone for a year, sure, let him re-run. If the deployment is less than a year, then no reason for him to resign. (He won't trip the activity barrier.) I think he would pass with flying colors based on sympathy for his service to the country.TCO (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Umm. We know for a fact that administrators on other projects, at least, have been forced by government agencies to use their admin tools or be imprisoned. There is a well documented event that occurred on the French Wikipedia, and there have certainly been indications of similar issues for administrators who live in or have been working in war zones and areas controlled by repressive regimes. Nobody should ever be criticized for asking for temporary desysop when they are at risk of being forced to use their tools in ways that are contrary to the policies of the project. What you are saying, essentially, is that anyone who puts the security of the project ahead of their own personal access to tools doesn't deserve to have those tools. Risker (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Those cases are very rare. In the event they do occur, the person can go through an election (and likely pass in flying colors). For that matter, your comment makes very little sense. If someone is truly under duress, what is to stop the agency from requiring them to keep (or get back) the bit to perform the action. A de-sysop with a higher hurdle to get it back, would actually keep the agency MORE at bay.TCO (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are bringing up edge cases rather than considering the more frequent cases (restricting the Arbcom/admin deal making and returning things to the community, making retirement gestures more meaningful).TCO (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
These are not edge cases, they're actual cases. And I have no idea why anyone would ever predict how a "former" admin would do on an RFA. How did I know you've never run in one? Risker (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
"not edge cases, they're actual cases". Risker, you are here talking mathematics, not science or anything real-world. A logical extension of that is that there can never be found an edge case. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, it's been at least 18 months since the committee last temporarily desysopped anyone. That mostly happened in 2008 and it seemed to fizzle out after that if my memory serves correctly. Wizardman 16:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That depends on the definition of "temporarily desysopped", though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • @TCO-One of the worst ideas I've ever seen. They've already lost or given up their bit and you want to both rub their noses in it and make RFA more of circus than it already is? Horrible idea. Shame on you. PumpkinSky talk 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Although I understand te reasoning behind this proposal, I doubt it would serve any benefit as currently written. There is no reason to re-examinate any sysop who uncontroversially gives his bit away for external purposes. Back in April, I was about to hand away all of my sysop bits because of a big political crysis that was happening in my country, to prevent any issues if my account was hijacked. Does that merit a forced fresh RfA? No. Maybe different circumstances would apply, but the current wording makes me think that we'll face so much unnecessary RfAs that would be a waste of time. — ΛΧΣ21 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
See my comment to Risker. Handing them over and than having to run the gauntlet (with the process and time and some uncertainty of getting it back) actually gives you more protection from duress and the community more protection if you really are under duress.TCO (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes but you forget that most admins gather enemies along the way. You block someone, and even if your block is accurate (which is most cases should be), that person will surely oppose your reconfirmation RfA. Now, if you have been a sysop for 3 years and usually work at AN/I, there is the same chance you'd pass a reconfirmation RfA than you have to pass an RfB. — ΛΧΣ21 20:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So what? You'll loose the power to block others but you can still participate in the AN/I discussions and say what you think. Not a big deal. Or is the power to block someone so life important? Adminship is not holy grail and admins shoulnd't be "untouchable royalty". --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a small step but one to change the dynamic. This project has too much entrenched leveling up and power politics. We need more Cincinattus.TCO (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to oppose the proposal as originally framed. Earlier this year, the Arbitration Committee concluded that it was necessary to desysop an administrator temporarily because he did a particular thing, but was willing to return the bit once he committed not to do that thing again. (As it happens I didn't agree, but that is neither here nor there.) To the extent the proposal would disable the arbitrators from taking action in what they perceive as urgent circumstances, without the ability to reverse it once the issue is resolved, it is clearly undesirable.

Beyond that, I have occasionally voted as an arbitrator to restore adminship to an administrator we had desysopped. This has not happened for some time, and several arbitrators have stated (in their answers to election questions or elsewhere) that they would never cast such a vote, but again, I don't see the value of denying flexibility to the Committee.

The other situations in which administrators lose the bit and then request it back from the bureaucrats are in cases of voluntary resignation and in cases of inactivity. I see no evidence that restoration of adminship on request following non-controversial resignations has caused any problems. And our policy on deadminship based on inactivity is still relatively new, and has recently been amended, so I'd like to see a bit more time pass in which we can evaluate the current policy before proposing any further honing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  • A user who requests a temporary desysop as a security protection should necessarily be required to publicly re-apply. If the admin has explicitly stated that he is about to be gone for an extended undefined period and that his next edit may be the result of his account being compromised, you should not assume that the account is not compromised simply because it requests resysopping.
Obviously, surely, per the request, the account controller needs to be subjected to some test. A public test, fielding random questions from old friends and other colleagues, is an excellent way to test that the user is the same person as previously. Functionary's testing privately whether the person has control of their old email or telephone number or some other password is good, but not sufficient, it all was possibly written down somewhere before the assignment. I think it absurd to suggest that such an identity-confirming reconfirmation RfA is too intimidating for a returning military person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
You want to put someone through a 7-day RFA to confirm their identity, which could easily be deduced as effectively through a few questions on this board? Seriously? And you wonder why nobody wants to be an admin around here anymore... Risker (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree with Risker, that idea, TCO's orignal post (which should have been ignored and closed--I tried but KWW edit warred to keep it open) and KWW's RFC on this are the worst ideas I've ever seen on wiki, and that is saying something. PumpkinSky talk 10:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
I would not demand 7 days. As the user has previously passed RfA, questions of experience should be moot. Why this assumption that a reconfirmation RfA for simple logical reasons should be as traumatic as one's initial RfA. Are all RfA's traumatic? Some RfAs look more like quite positive affirmations of trust. I would definitely prefer re-sysops to be recorded on a fresh, easily linkable page, than on a ProjectSpace Talk page with a massive history (you call WT:RFA a "board"?). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Re: your last sentence: that page already exists. Graham87 10:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Graham, I didn't know. Wikipedia:List of users resysopped by a bureaucrat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Adminship is no big deal....the only former admins that should need to go through a Rfa are those desysopped by arbcom (like me) and those that turned in their tools knowing they were probably about to lose them anyway (Nixon syndrome). I do believe though that some admins that arbcom desysopped were given the opportunity to appeal directly to arbcom for readminning which was part of the final ruling in a few arbcom cases.--MONGO 14:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Too many admins already... 24.56.11.114 (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We've already had tow RfCs which was closed, by me, as having a different result. Is there any evidence that the community has changed their stance on that?05:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)
  • We have far fewer admins than we used to have and we aren't recruiting enough to maintain their numbers, so losing some unnecessarily is a bad thing. People voluntarily giving up the bit for a period of time is a good thing, and we shouldn't ask them intrusive questions as to why they are doing so, or put a totally pointless barrier in the way of their doing so. For example, I've known people go on courses of methadone as a painkiller, if that happened to me or any admin I hope they'd have the sense to hand in the bit for the duration of that treatment. ϢereSpielChequers 07:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't see any need to make admins who resigned not-under-a-cloud and who are requesting the bit back before wikiculture has significantly changed go through a full RFA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I can't support this as written. There are essentially three ways in which admins can be required to undergo a new RfA prior to return of the tools. The first, and most obvious, is that they are involuntarily desysopped for misconduct by ArbCom. I don't think anyone would argue against a new RfA being required in this case. The second is that tools are resigned "under a cloud", either where the community has already expressed serious reservations about the admin's conduct or an ArbCom case examining such is underway. The third is when an admin has been absent for so long that the project may have dramatically changed since the last time they were here. In all these cases, reconfirmation is already required. But there are a lot of situations where an admin might uncontroversially renounce the tools for some period of time, generally when (s)he is expecting to be absent from the project for some period of time. This is a useful security measure against admin account compromise and a good thing, and what you propose would make admins much more reluctant to do so. The other case is when the admin would just like to take a break from administrative tasks or concentrate on something else for a while. If they're getting stressed and need a break from admin tools, or want to help in other ways for a while, it's also a good thing that they have the option to do so, and then come back without any drama when ready. Another, as brought up by Risker, while rare, is where the admin has reason to believe (s)he could be coerced to use tools inappropriately, and so wants to be able to answer truthfully "I'm not able to do that, as only admins can do that and I'm not an admin". What circumstance do you see, outside the three I listed above where reconfirmation is already required, that reconfirmation RfAs are more likely to do more good than harm? Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm still confused about the purpose of this. You're saying that a de-sysopped admin can override ArbCom by running through another RfA. But ArbCom can just take the tools away again. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Can RfA become a due process?

Hello. Many users will not listen to me now because of this and that, but I still hope that my thoughts can be useful. Three days ago I was insufficiently informed about certain RfA-related matters, and this prompted me to attribute the incident to organized malevolence. Now I learned something and realized that there is much more disorder than bad faith. There were following facts:

  1. I started an RfA;
  2. After two hours certain Hahc21 marked it as “closed” citing an essay;
  3. I reverted, because perceived (and still perceive) the closure as illegitimate and, in any case, a humiliatingly early;
  4. A bureaucrat closed again, apparently because perceived me as a deranged user who blatantly rejects the community output;
  5. I complained;
  6. Another bureaucrat supported the first one, apparently because they are both respected users with 100,000+ edits and I am a plebeian with a handful of thousands edits (at least, in en.wikipedia);
  7. Further arguing became futile.

So, we have:

  • 7 users expressed negative feelings about my candidacy;
  • Hahc21 stigmatized my RfA as a hopeless one because of aforementioned 7 users, without examining the matter;
  • Wizardman assessed my RfA as a hopeless one because of Hahc21’s assessment, without examining neither actual votes nor the matter;
  • The Rambling Man assessed my RfA as a hopeless one because of Wizardman’s and Hahc21’s assessments, whereas user:Secret’s opinion was disregarded as a minority one;

and, finally, I perceived all this as a conspiracy, because did not expect such dysfunction from the “great community”.

It is anything but not a due process. IMHO I was not the first person caught in this vicious loop. Therefore. All RfAs should be run by a board of extremely durable supervisors capable to quickly assess the situation, themselves. Of course, it sometimes requires (fast) reading. Any persons with their own, personal RfA-related troubles (like me, yes ☺) must be barred from exerting any administrative function. Thank for your attention – I sincerely want to help this sick community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

What vicious loop? Your RFA was never going to succeed, and was closed (correctly) per WP:SNOW. The only person who has issue with the close is...you! GiantSnowman 19:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I am not so sure that users who evaluate a candidate based on his/her last dozen of edits and like to cast votes in the first two hours have a strong influence on the community of actually encyclopedic editors. Of course they possibly have… then it would be so poor for the community IMHO. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
You can see previous early closures from this year and the previous year. I think the point of reviewing your most recent edits is to assess your character today. A lot of us start out sloppily and perhaps behaved less civilly than we do now. Recent contributions give us an inkling of how well editors follow policies and guidelines and the demeanor with which they interact with others. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
What does certain number of early closures prove? That there were early closures, I think. To prove your point you should demonstrate that any successful RfA did not ever start from the red rage. In any case I aimed to obtain remarks and advices from the actual community, that I was deprived of. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The rule of thumb is that the threshold of succeeding is having at least 80% of the votes be in support. Based on the 7 votes in opposition, that means you would need 40 votes in support. Another threshold is 70%, and that means you would need ~27 votes in support. This is assuming that you stay at 7 votes in opposition, which is not likely. I would have opposed too, based on others' concerns. You mention that it was a "humiliatingly early" closure, but the point of the early closure is to recognize the outcome based on the aforementioned extrapolation (and past trends) and minimize the bludgeoning. You mention wanting "to obtain remarks and advices", but the RfA is not the place for that. You have to be fairly confident that you will pass. Kind of like a Featured Article candidate should have a peer review before going through the candidacy process. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If you want "remarks and advices from the actual community" then in future you might want to try WP:ER. GiantSnowman 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
He did file one as mentioned in Q2 of his RfA: Wikipedia:Editor review/Incnis Mrsi. It did not get a review until after the RfA. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you compared my edit history with your self-assessment of being a "plebeian". Also not sure what you're hoping to achieve. My best guess is that you want to run another RFA without closure before the standard 7 days elapsed time. If so, I'd be happy to see you renominated and would suggest to all 'crats to allow the nomination to run to its conclusion. Generally speaking, premature closures of RFXs are designed to protect the nominee from unnecessary and usually inflammatory commentary. You seem to be keen to allow an RFA which may succumb to that to run its course. Is that what you're looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Honestly, I had thought about opening a thread regarding this. Personally, I don't support Incnis Mrsi as a candidate for adminship, but if he wants the RfA to remain open longer, why must we say no? The only person who needs to be effected by it remaining open is the candidate. If the candidate wants it left open longer, why must we insist on keeping it closed? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • In response to the title question: no, it can't. RfA is the internet's answer to stoning. It hasn't changed for years, and it won't be changing any time soon. That may be dramatic, defeatist, uncollegiate and a whole bunch of other things with negative connotations, but it ain't wrong. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of being harassed about this nonstop. Is it really that important to have a now pretty stale rfa put back up? I mean, if the person's THAT set on a full seven day rfa then fine. Wizardman 01:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize I am usually the volatile one in the group here but if the user really wants to submit the RFA and run the gauntlet that bad, let him...IMO. Its not going to pass but its not worth arguing this much over either. Its just not that big of a deal folks. Kumioko (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have re–posted the RfA. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, now lets just let the thing die from its own weight. Another lamb to the slaughter...Maybe Ill submit in a few weeks too...I feel tingling of failure coming on and my wounds are healed nicely from the last beating I received.:-)Kumioko (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine too if he decides to have it seven days. He actually came to IRC and talked to me about it, and that was exactly what I told him. Maybe he breaks the record of the most opposes in an RfA ;) — ΛΧΣ21 02:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I always thought that the person running could request against SNOW closures. Lets open the thing back up and see how humiliating it can get before they accept it. --Onorem (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I did. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Good luck, lets see if you can beat my third attempt here. ROFL, Few editors who are still allowed to edit are more despised than I. Lets see if you can meet the challenge. Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, that most certainly is not the record. I've seen RfA that garnered more opposes. I am curious as to what the record is. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  13:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
How humiliating? Not at all, but I am sorry that (inadvertently) caused all this wikidrama. If I’ll learn from more persons about what I am doing wrong, it will be helpful for Wikipedia and will not undermine mutual trust, unlike shutting the candidate up before most voters had even a possibility to notice the RfA. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You said that it was closed humiliatingly early. You apparently have some level of humility that is tied to this RfA. It was reopened. Good luck. Your complete lack of understanding of how this all played out shows well how unsuited you are in my mind...but I don't plan on voting cause the system sucks anyway...--Onorem (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • So much as some are taking the letter rather than the spirit of SNOW as literal, it also states: If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause… I think the fair thing to do was reinstate it, kudos to ASO Jebus989✰ 11:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This reopened RfA is now at 4/32/6. All reasonable feedback that might be provided to the candidate has been provided and its continuation is not a good use of the community's time. I have posted to the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard strongly urging that the bureaucrats re-close this RfA and keep it closed. Please see my comments there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

As I noted there, this is really a case of respecting the nominee's wishes. It was closed once for SNOW, and the nominator asked for it to be re-opened, despite warnings that it wouldn't go well. At some point, we just have to respect editor's wishes. This isn't really a waste of the community's time as we seldom have RFAs these days. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Brad - usually, I'd agree - but as luck would have it, I think I was able to say something that the candidate was able to take on board very late on in the process. Perhaps that doesn't make up for others' "wasted time", but I never noticed the RFA until it was reopened (and voted "oppose") - but maybe also it says that it's "never too late". The whole process still seems broken to me - No easy solutions, I think, unfortunately. Begoon talk 23:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn by the candidate, so this is settled now. -- Scray (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with TRM here and I don't know why its such a huge debate. Its not that big of a deal and its not really wasting the communities time (noe VE, thats a waste of time). If the community doesn't want to vote, then they don't have too. I agree with Scray. Can we move on now? Kumioko (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What doesn’t go well? Do you understand the difference about careless attacks on petty, insignificant pretexts and actual, serious criticism? I badly needed this experience because WP:Editor review does not work, at least for me it was not effective. I’d especially mention user:Begoon for his critical remarks (independently of his post at my user_talk; I already typed it). I promise to work out all this drama, but now I am going to sleep. And about the regretful incident with user:Hahc21 I probably say silly, but no person was in fault. Hahc21 made a suboptimal decision, I reacted suboptimally, and also did bureaucrats; see the thread from the beginning. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think (hope?) you're saying you found my comments helpful. I do hope so, because that was the reason I made them. There's a huge difference between someone who genuinely wants to help and someone who just doesn't have a clue, in my opinion, and I never saw you in the latter group, but firmly in the former. RFA is certainly not a good thing right now - I hope you can work through the issues and try again later. Begoon talk 20:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@Incnis Mrsi: I see that you decided to withdraw. First, I want to apologize if my original close of your RfA caused you any harm. That was not my intention and all I wanted to do was to avoid what exactly just happened. I did not have anything against you, and I still don't, hence why I didn't cast a vote in your request. However, I'd like you to take this experience and think about what happened very thoroughly. My first RfA made me grow after I carefully went through it, and my second one did so even further. Yours was unnecessary, but an experience nonetheless, and I expect you to grow both more mature and stronger from it. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I once again fail to see the point of WP:SNOW closures. I particularly object to non-crats doing that and doing it early in the process. A candidate ought to be entitled to run his/her own RfA to conclusion if (s)he so wishes. If there are such compelling reasons to close it, then the 'crats can do it on their own, without having the need for community members to open threads asking them to do so. I think it would be about time that this silly practice of random editors (be they admins or not), being allowed to close RfAs. We elected and entrusted bureaucrats to do that, can't we let them get on with their job? Snowolf How can I help? 07:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    A friend once told me that Snowolf is a very reasonable person, and now I see it’s true. I do not especially trust in these concrete bureaucrats, but if the community endorsed a stricter procedure, then bureaus would likely follow it. Nowadays they handle early phase of RfAs based on extrapolations and thoughts of random users, but this is a fault of the community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with Snowolf. There are so few RfAs that I fail to see the burden it would place on Wikipedia resources to let the few that come to pass play themselves out. If people are doing it just for drama, let them have their fun. It's not for us to judge. Coretheapple (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You want due process? Become a criminal not a victim and get a lawyer. Because wiki sure isn't the place for due process. PumpkinSky talk 00:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
But its got plenty of victims and criminals! :-) Kumioko (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/বিজয় চক্রবর্তী

Regarding the above RfA, I have two questions:

  1. Why is it dragging on so long with very little action?
  2. Does anyone know how we will categorize it in the chronological list of RfA (odds are it will be the chronological list of unsuccessful RfA)? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
A unrelated question: Is this the first instance of non-latin username admin candidate? The Legend of Zorro 22:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if it is the first, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Σ is the only one I've seen. ~HueSatLum 22:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Why didn't I remember that? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather not remember that one... ~HueSatLum 01:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops. I meant the alphabetical list. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Put it along the numbers xD — ΛΧΣ21 01:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me to be just a few hours old. How is this "dragging on so long?" VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, it had gone over an hour without any !votes. For an obvious NOTNOW, that's basically dragging on. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Why do people get usernames that are unreadable in the language the wiki is on? PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And he doens't have a global account to at least believe he comes from another wiki... — ΛΧΣ21 01:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
He also applied for sysop status in Bengali wikipedia in bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:প্রশাসক হওয়ার আবেদন/Bijoychakrabarty and that also closed down (rare event) per WP:NOTNOW]. The Legend of Zorro 05:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Obvious points: This is Wikipedia-en, and we delete added text in articles that is not in English. Having admins with names English-speakers can't read is not going to work. If there isn't a hard and fast rule against this, there should be. Indeed, En Wiki-wide, I'd be in favor of requiring that all unreadable names add latin characters in a parenthesis at the very least. Jusdafax 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think that would be sustainable enwiki-wide (global usernames and all.) But as to a requirement for adminship, it seems unreasonable to have an admin whose username most editors simply cannot read. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
      • It should be noted he can still keep his username, particularly if its a Global account. But he needs to change his signature to reflect the English variant here (Bijoy Chakraborty). Which may be his real name so it might still be advisable to change it. Kumioko (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Just for the sake of argument, I think it would be a poor policy to deny administrative candidates based purely on their username's legibility. I'd rather have a solid candidate whose name I cannot pronounce than a weak candidate with a Latin-language username. I believe the few times I've seen concerns about non-Latin usernames, the common compromise is to have a Latin version of the name as a signature. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

History question

What user has the record for most RfA (both successful and unsuccessful)? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  17:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it User:Ironholds? Go Phightins! 17:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I think I have a chance at the title! Well for unsuccessful anyway. :-) Kumioko (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It is asserted at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pumpie that that was a 9th unsuccessful try. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 was his 7th try. It was, fortunately, successful. Go Phightins! 18:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I didnt realize it was the 7th, I knew there were 5 others. I'll probably try for 4 in September and probably submit the 5th one sometime around March or April 2014. I don't want to try while Visual Editor is still tearing things up but once that has settled down and the WMF stops using us like a litterbox I'll start editing outside discussions again. :-) Kumioko (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
A few of us are still around :) Manning (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

!votes and adminship

I've noticed that candidates' Articles for Deletion "accuracy" ratings have been mentioned by RfA !voters. I'm wondering whether there's really any reason to judge a candidate's aptitude for adminship based on how their AfD stances have corresponded to the general consensus. There's a big difference between what an AfD !voter does and what an AfD closer does - the !voter is giving an argument based on WP policies, and the closing admin is determining consensus. !voters should not be voting based on consensus. So, let's say an RfA candidate has 69% AfD correspondence to consensus. Is it really appropriate to cite this in opposing him or her? What if the other 31% of the candidate's AfD comments are rooted in WP policy, but just didn't meet consensus? Should that really be a reason to oppose the candidate? Any thoughts on this would be appreciated, as I don't know if RfA will benefit from such rationales. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In my mind, this is ridiculous. "Accuracy" presupposes that the minority are in the wrong: the whole reason we have discussions is that most situations aren't clear-cut, meaning that neither side is more right or wrong than the other. All that this stat really says is that consensus disagreed with you; there's nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't make a big deal of it. Moreover, the fact that people care about this kind of thing can lead to pile-ons. Let's say you run for administrator and are afraid that you have too low of an accuracy rate: you can simply go around and vote with the majority in debates that are close to WP:SNOWing, and your accuracy rate will increase. Doing such a thing already isn't particularly helpful, but you're gaming the system by doing something unhelpful to make yourself look better. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That concerns me, as well. I think that a well-thought-out "keep" in a discussion resulting in "delete" looks better than "delete" in an obvious case, where consensus has already been established. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I should have said two other things. (1) Consensus disagreeing with you should be seen as a bad thing if and only if you're making bad arguments, e.g. ILIKEIT — but that's because people who make such arguments aren't likely to be good administrators. (2) In my mind, improving your accuracy rate by gaming the system is a substantial reason to oppose a nomination, rather than to support it. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that's how it should work but we frequently see opposes for just the reason mentioned above and in some cases it has been enough to derail the RFA. Kumioko (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I might encouragage the above users to challenge those people who are just throwing the number out and expecting not to have to explain why they think the user should pass (or not pass) an RFA. --Izno (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
This looks to me like this tool is being misused, just like edit count can be misused. People should care enough to dig into why a user is missing the consensus some percentage of the time. Maybe he's really missing out on understand a core guideline and !voting delete because of it, and so probably shouldn't be given the tools. Maybe he's working in an area where people pop out of the woodwork to keep an article when in fact those articles should be deleted according to our policies, and so he should perhaps be given the tools for understanding policy or guideline as those apply in his topic area. --Izno (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not arguing against the tool, but against this use of it. Nyttend (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that a lot of editors base their votes on the tangible things like how many edits someone has or what their AFD percentage is rather than on the intangible things. Its just one more example in my opinion why the RFA process and the assignment of the tools needs to be completely redesigned. Not that I think that has any chance at ever happening, but that's what needs to happen. Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend: Yup. I'm affirming your points. :) --Izno (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Oppose: Candidate disagrees with consensus 50% of the time." is a terrible reason to oppose an RFA, and at least once I said as much when I saw it. However, "Oppose: Candidate disagrees with consensus 50% of the time, and when i looked into examples X, Y, Z, he gives awful explanations that suggest he misunderstands policy." is totally OK. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree; that's what I meant by my (1) thing, because it shows that you don't understand or don't care about relevant policies and guidelines, so you're unlikely to be a good admin. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

User who began editing in 2009 running for RFA

Closed per hat.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a user conduct issue and is being dealt with on that user's talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Since when it is forbidden to raise concerns that recently minted editors may be reincarnations of banned users or other undesirables, to the point where such comments are permitted to be redacted? I know from personal experience that ANYTHING GOES at RFA, even blatant lies. So why is the mere suspicion of impropriety sufficient to have the comment redacted AND and only-warning that I will be blocked if I do more? Chutznik (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to this on your talkpage. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is only permitted if supported by consensus. Every editor who edited behind me effectively supported my decision by not reverting it. Why was your trolling comment deemed sheer debauchery extends two fold; first you impute chicanery against all accounts created after 2009 which is a debase aspersion that so many, such as myself, should not endure for the sake of your malfeasance. Secondly your remark about watching Wikipedia die a slow death, joyfully I presume by the context, exposed your trolling intent which is contrary to the purpose of the page. If I had to cite a source of authority for my action I suppose WP:DENY would be sufficient; and you've now received more of my attention than I feel you deserve. Mostly my comment here is for the benefit of others, so they may know how this transpired. As for you, I do not have a measure of good faith to expect a productive thing by your hand. I suggest you begin demonstrating your good intentions right away, or I suspect you will be shown the expedient way out, very soon. :) John Cline (talk) 21:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
If there's no evidence then it's basically a personal attack. GiantSnowman 21:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I also know from very personal experience that ANYTHING GOES at RFA, even blatant lies, and that's why I have long contended that the only thing that's really wrong with the RfA system is the comportment of some of the people who !vote there, and the problem is that such behaviour is infectious. This is what is keeping users of the right calibre from running for adminship (already clearly demonstrated). In order to demonstrate that RfA is not a venue where people can continue to troll and/or breach PA and civility rules with impunity, it's time to be more firm and implement topic bans from RfA - or even blocks - for people who willfully disrupt the process. In the unlikely event of any forthcoming reforms of the system, I see no other solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I did a quick search in the RfA you cite (I read it thoroughly at the time, but am too tired to give it the full treatment again). The search shows no uses of "lie", or variants such as "liar" or "lying". Maybe that's part of the problem? In RfA, candidates don't have the courage to say things as they see them. —WFC— FL wishlist 23:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self noms at RfA

Candidate First RfA Tally % Year
S O N
Grandiose Yes 82 11 6 88 2013
Jason Quinn No (second) 138 29 16 82
Scottywong No (second) 89 4 11 95 2012
Guerillero Yes 59 14 6 80 2011
Rannpháirtí anaithnid No (second) 71 10 4 87
Tyrol5 Yes 65 0 0 100
Worm That Turned Yes 121 3 2 97
TParis No (second) 48 4 4 92
Jimp Yes 75 4 0 94
Sadads Yes 97 2 3 97
Catfish Jim and the soapdish Yes 109 2 1 98
RHM22 Yes 78 16 8 82
Feezo Yes 47 1 6 97
JaGa Yes 83 3 0 96
Neelix Yes 69 14 12 83
Boing! said Zebedee Yes 160 1 0 99
ErrantX Yes 85 2 4 97
Rami R No (second) 66 12 8 84
ErikHaugen Yes 82 27 1 75
Smartse Yes 129 0 1 100
Gimme danger Yes 77 11 6 87

Given Grandiose's soon-to-be-successful RfA, I decided to look back at the previous successful self-noms to do some comparisons. I was pretty impressed at what I got. In the table ablove, I could see that 2012 and 2013 have only had one successful self-nom (2013 will have two when the current RfA closes), but 2011 had 18! Of those 18, only three weren't first runs. 2012 and 2013 have not had first-run self-noms until Grandiose.

Another interesting thing is that most of the self-noms that pass, do so with a high percentage of support. From the 20 RfAs compiled above, only one had a support rate below 80% (ErikHaugen), and only two had more than 20 opposes (Jason Quinn and ErikHaugen). Also, only two self-noms have received 100% support (Smartse and Tyrol5) and only one has received more than 150 support votes (Boing! said Zebedee). Another note is that from those above, only Boing! said Zebedee has ceased to be a sysop (although he resigned voluntarily). Coincidentally, he's the one with the most supports :)

Apart from that, if we compare with non-self noms. Successful self-noms in 2011 represented 34% of all successful candidacies. This saw a significant change in 2012, when only 3% of all successful candidates were self-noms (e.g. one from 28). In 2013, the number sits at 8,3% (including Grandiose's RfA). Now, a good question is: what happened to self-noms between 2011 and 2012 and why community now prefers candidates to be nominated. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 01:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't see any problem with self nom's and always thought it was a pretty poor reason to oppose. There should be nothing wrong with someone wanting to do more to help the project but some feel they are just hat collecting or some other dumb assumption. Aside from that and I have said it many times before. The current process for promoting sysops is crap, but it seems were stuck with it. The way the toolset is grouped is inefficient to the project and does more harm than good by unnecessarily restricting the number of people that can do certain tasks. The fact is that the vaste majority of editors who last more than a few weeks are here to help the project and if they haven't been blocked, then they are probably useful. But we continue to harbor these feelings of Assumption of bad faith by assuming that if they suddenly have access to the toolset they'll turn into vandals. Its complete horseshit and everyone knows it. But, because it would cause a lot of people to lose their feelings of being in control and having power, were stuck with this garbage broken process that is hopelessly broken and will never be fixed. Kumioko (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that enwiki's RfA is somehow plagued by nitpickyness and maybe some wikipolitical matters. I sometimes see that what's important before running is not what you've done, but how popular you are and how many users you've pissed off. On other projects, for example, I became an admin and what was important was my tenure and my track history on that project. Even If I didn't like the user, if he has shown that he could use the tools properly, he has my support. That's something that doesn't happen here, and maybe that's the main problem of our process. — ΛΧΣ21 02:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that completely. Kumioko (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The stats are very interesting, but probably only as stats - there's probably no concrete conclusions to be drawn from them because the pool of !voters is constantly in flux. Some RfA with very strong noms from highly respected users still fail, while I don't believe there is much to be gleaned from a concept that users would tend to systematically opppose self noms - although there have been (just a few) blatant oppose !votes in the past because the candidate self-nominated. Let's not also forget that some of the self-noms were not made without gathering some opinion beforehand from experienced users (not to be confused with canvassing). If any conclusions can be drawn, unsuccessful self-noms are most likely due to being too inexperienced or too ill prepared anyway while those that pass often do with the most flying of colours because they are already well known, well established users. Kumioko (I do understand, I do, I do, but there's nowt I can do about it) has a thing against the system - as he doesn't cease to remind us - because he has a clear need for the use of some of the tools but the community rejects the idea of him having them all - or his judgement for non-tool responsibilities - and rejects the idea of unbundling some of them.
Probably not so much nitpicky, but it's certainly true that RfA is partly an un/popularity contest as a table in WP:RFA2011 shows a staggering number of one-off RfA !voters, of which closer examination would probably demonstrate that they are the ones who do little or no research, basing their vote instead on one good deed that was done to them, or a reprimand they received from the candidate. Those who do find the process nitpicky will get some of their answers from the editors who feel it's still too difficult to remove admins from office.
I am very, very disappointed that Boing has practically retired and I'm at a loss to understand what went wrong. Perhaps I'll know the next time I meet him, but it will probably be kept confidential; I'm also saddened that Worm is going AWOL for a while, but I believe this is a RL issue, and some of the other high scorers haven't been very active since getting the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Your absolutely right Kudpung, I do have a problem with the system as it is. Part of my problem is the fact that if you do something wrong you can't get the tools but once you do get the tools, you can pretty much do whatever and to whomever you want without losing them. There are at least a dozen admins running around that should have the tools removed but there are always some clowns arguing that they should get another chance. Many admins have this huge toolset and never use them, a lot only use one or 2 of the tools and never the others. But there all bundled together, its an all or none package and its ridiculous. Your also right I bring it up a lot, every chance I get because that's the only way to improve the system, to keep bringing it up until its fixed. The squeeky wheel gets the grease as they say. To be honest though, I am probably going to start pulling away myself in the next few weeks. I doubt I'll stop completely, but frankly if I'm not needed and there is no respect for my time, in making me spend 2 and 3 times more of it to accomplish a task, then I can find other users for it than this project. I am certain that others feel that way as well. If we can change the processes to make it easier for people to help and to participate without making them feel like we have no respect for their time and they can't be trusted, we'll start keeping more editors and well get a hell of a lot ore done. But again, as long as we keep being nay sayers, shooting down every suggestion and telling everyone that will never work and the WMF won't allow that, and we allow the admin cabalists to keep their power, and keep the editors in their place. Then the project loses so we can keep a few feeling as though they are the kings and queens. Kumioko (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would still hesitate at tarring all admins with the same brush though. Those who are unfit for the post are very much in the minority, while some do make the occasional, forgivable mistake. However, I have a strong feeling that if more abuse is reported - strong evidence will be needed though - Arbcom will be pulling its socks up in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen at least 4 reported to Arbcom or other venues in the last 60 days. They all left unscathed. In fact, Arbcom refused a couple valid cases and sent them to RFC knowing that they are the only ones that can desysop for cause. So an RFC just for procedural sake is just plum stupid and a waste of time. And before I get beatup, yes, the Beauro's can desysop for certain reasons but I think general incompetence or for cause are not among them. With that said, another point I would like to clarify is that even though some lost the tools and I feel shouldn't be admins, that doesn't mean I don't trust them to have some of the tools. I may not trust them to Block or see deleted content, but I would still trust them to edit protected templates (generally) or pull more than 25000 articles into AWB. Those are just 2 of the ones I think should not be part of the toolset. Especially because so many people say that editing templates isn't administrative....it is if they are the only ones that can do it! Kumioko (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, rather than just sit there whining about "general incompetence" and apparently valid cases getting rejected by ArbCom, why not actually do something about it? GiantSnowman 13:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Like what? Run for RFA? Start another RFC? Participate in another discussion? Try and provoke a response to fix it from the WMF? All have been done, many of these by me. I have participated in countless discussions and all have ended in failure. Mostly because there are enough admins or wanna be admins that view the toolset as a status symbol that they vote down any suggestion to protect that. I honestly don't care how we change it at this point, but change needs to happen and there have been a lot of good ideas. At this point we just need to try something and if it doesn't work we can adjust fire. If you want my opinion though we need to look at all of the tools that come with the toolset and if they are not specifically limited by the WMF (like blocking and visibility of deleted content) we need to split them out and make them more available. If people want to be able to Block/Unblock, Protect/Unprotect or view deleted content then they can apply for the tools. Kumioko (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be the occasional misunderstanding that adminship is only about gaining a few extra tools. More difficult for some candidates to understand is that once an admin, they will be expected to act maturely and lead by example. Hence it doesn't always need a misuse of tools to get desysoped as recent Arbcom cases would demonstrate. That's perhaps what we need more of, as well of course those who are repeatedly too quick on the block and delete buttons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would also agree with that and as I have said before, the tools should be easier to get and easier to take away. Kumioko (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
On the issue of self noms, I worry that the various warning messages that we now have for people creating an RFA may be excessive. In one sense it is good that we only rarely see insufficiently experienced candidates these days, when people fail it is usually because they are an experienced candidate who is perceived to have flaws. My fear is that in deterring people who would fail we are also deterring some who would succeed, especially potential self noms. ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure of that. I created that banner and it was put there by consensus and appears to be working as it should - but still doesn't deter all candidates who are almost certain to fail. It does contain links to important advice pages. I suppose we could try taking it off for a while and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't dispute that it had consensus for implementation, or that it has been effective at dissuading some candidates from unsuccessful runs. My worry is that it could be the thing that has lost us most of our self noms. Rather than remove it how about an amendment to make it less offputting to self noms? ϢereSpielChequers 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I support this. — ΛΧΣ21 19:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it and see about making it milder. However, as I said, I would be quite happy - as an experiment - to take it off completely for a while. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Done: Commented out stophand sign. Minor text changes. Removed 2nd person pronouns and mention of self-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I am ok with that suggestion too. We can always add it back. What's the worst that can happen. A bunch of people applying? Kumioko (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship should also be updated :) — ΛΧΣ21 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't immediately see how that applies. Maybe your link was to the wrong template. Suggestions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It appears when you try to create a new RfA nomination; example. — ΛΧΣ21 00:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The aftermath

I'm looking at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause and wondering if RFA has any predictive power at all. It would seem that the years are able to change a person, for good or bad. The nitpicks fade away, to be replaced by issues which may or may not have had their roots a long time ago. Thoughts? bibliomaniac15 00:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wiki never forgives and never forgets. The fact that that page exists and is tracked to that level of detail is some proof of that. PumpkinSky talk 00:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I Completely agree with PS. Kumioko (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to talk about anyone in particular, but in general I don't think Rfa is very predictive of the admins who will get in trouble with Arbcom. I'll look through the Rfas of a few people on that page and see if it changes my mind. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I looked through a few and my opinion is the same. I only looked at admins who passed Rfa after January 2008 (since there wasn't much scrutiny going far back). What stuck out to me is that Rfa opposers generally focused on things like Afd votes, content creation, number of Rfas and Aiv reports, but those didn't turn out to be the issues that the admins were desysopped for. Usually it seems to be because of blocking/unblocking, behavior in disputes, or sockpuppetry. Those things are hard to screen for at Rfa, since it's hard to predict how someone will use the block button, anyone can behave if they know they have a run for admin coming up, and checkusering candidates is something the community would never go for (although I don't see what the problem would be with that). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
This, probably. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 02:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. About a year ago I looked at the 31 admins desysopped by ArbCom and slapped together a spreadsheet out of curiosity. (I was not able to find an RfA for two candidates.) Among the remainder, six had RfAs that were completely unopposed, that includes the candidates with the shortest period between RfA and desysopping (Archtransit, 1 month) and the longest (Rich Farmbrough, 87 months). The median support percentage at RfA for admins desysopped by ArbCom was 91.7%. Only 4 out of 30 were promoted with support below 80%.
The median 'survival time' from RfA to desysopping was 18 months; the mean was 23 months. The two RfAs with the lowest support (Ryulong, with 69.4%, and Carnildo's request for resysopping after his first desysop, with 61.2%) had longer-than-average tenures; Ryulong was desysopped after 28 months, and Carnildo's second term lasted 70 months. There was no correlation between number of supporting votes and 'survival time'. There was a rather weak negative correlation between support percentage and survival time (even with Carnildo's data point dropped), but both plots had a lot of scatter.
I'm afraid that I don't want to go to the trouble of making sure the sheet is fully stripped of metadata (and I definitely don't have time to do it properly this week) so I won't be uploading the raw data or plots. The information can be readily collected from WP:RFDA. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting. That does indicate also that those with close margins, that is those that had a substantial number of opposes but still got the bit, aren't necessarily apt to let the community down. Kumioko (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
A negative correlation between support percentage and survival time? Not surprising to me at all. I saw numerous times how sysops in ru.wikipedia promoted slightly above the margin retained a cautious behaviour for years. And how sysops promoted by an overwhelming majority entered I-am-a-trusted-person-and-know-what-I-am-doing rampage. The only difference is that here the latter are ultimately desysopped, whereas in ru.wikipedia most of them persist. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
When I said "rather weak", I'm talking about an r2 of 0.08. It's very weak. I really wouldn't go trying to read anything into that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
For a sample N = 31 and r = -0.28 (equivalent to r2 = 0.08), the p-value on a single-sided test of significance is p = 0.064... in other words, there is no statistically significant difference between the observed correlation and no correlation at all. EdChem (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
And even if it were statistically highly significant, a correlation of 0.28 is very marginal, in my view. As it's not statistically significant there's just nothing to see here. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If one is doing such a statistical list, the 40 or so administrators who decided to desysop themselves during a RFC or ArbCom case, or to avoid scrutiny should be included as well like INeverCry to mention a recent example. Outside of my last RFA (which took a few bloodbaths), the last successful resysopping of an administrator who was either desysopped by ArbCom, recalled, or desysopped themselves under ArbCom/RFC scrutiny was in May 2011, who are HJ Mitchell who still has his tools and SarekofVulcan who desysopped himself during a ArbCom case earlier this year, a 21 month span between those two and mine. Secret account 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that generally the only way to get the tools again once they have been removed is to do a name change and wait. As was said above Wiki never forgets or forgives so the only way to change that is to change your name and eventually enough time will pass that people will let it go. Kumioko (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell's reconfirmation RFA is not a useful data point. The only controversy surrounding his desysop and the subsequent RFA was objections to the fact he chose to resign his tools at all. Monty845 01:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the idea of reconfirmation RfA, it might be helpful if we had a few more of those. It could be a good indicator of whether a community de-adminship system is workable. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 14:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
re the "Wiki never forgets, wiki never forgives" meme, I think we should remember that the opposite pretty much applies at RFA. The record here is that the community collectively will forgive pretty much anything given what in the real world would be considered a rather short period of time. In the real world if I got eleven points on my license next month then for the following 35 months I would be 1 point away from losing my license. On wiki I doubt there is a single active editor who couldn't make admin in half that time. Yes there are some where it would take some big changes, and maybe two attempts over the next 18 months. But in reality if you can't convince the community that a problem from more than a year ago is still a valid concern than the oppose section can be a very lonely place. Perversely if you do go through a name change then winning RFA over can take longer. But RFA is an absolute sucker for people who can demonstrate that they have learned much since their long distant RFA/scandal/desysop, and that is one of the few things I like about it. ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not what I have seen...and experienced. For me it appears that Wiki has the memory of an elephant. Kumioko (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I guess it is possible that I've missed the odd exception, but in my experience the community is very forgiving of old issues. Can you quote an example where an RFA failed because of issues that were 24 months stale at the time of the RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Steven Zhang—who I very much respect—had to withdraw his RfA because of something that happened about 40 months earlier. I think there were a couple more, but Steven's sticks in my mind becuase he was very upfront about it, but the community would still not forgive and forget even after all that time. 64.40.54.46 (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all, I was notified about the discussion here. My RFA was tough, but I wouldn't put it solely down to what happened five years ago. I had minimal article contributions back then to non-pop culture articles, and received some opposition over this, as well as the fact the RFA was submitted after a 6 mth return to editing. I understand the importance of article contributions, and occasionally do so but feel it is not my strong area and feel that working on things I am skilled at is a better utilisation of my time. This is the reason I am unlikely to run again, but I do appreciate the kind sentiment by the above user and others who have contacted me. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 03:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Your RfA and Sigma's are the toughest I have ever seen in all my years around here. Then, Ktr101's fifth RfA. Those three are perfect examples of how the process is not what's broken, but the way we approach (and behave) while we're at it. — ΛΧΣ21 03:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Σ's RfA failed due to events outside of Wikipedia. Nominated by no less than four experienced admins who then came under fire for not knowing about it, though how they were supposed to know about is anybody's guess. Steven would almost certainly pass if he ran again now, and it's a shame that he's decided otherwise. I could very much understand if the RfA process were the real reason why he is reluctant to give it another try. Kevin's RfA was withdrawn before I had a chance to comment there. The oppose !votes were not all for the same reason, but there were some less appropriate ones amongst them. I've often considered my own RfA to be one of the nastiest and I was even advised offline by several people to withdraw. I'm glad I was at least 'obtuse' enough to stick it out, but it's not really so recent anymore. Running multiple times has its drawbacks although some are successful even at the 7th attempt (although they may not remain in office very long).

Looking back over these RfAs (as I often do) it's interesting to see how the core of regular voters has changed with time, and that a large number of voters are always a transient pool of rare contributors to the process. Looking back at the archives of this talk page also appears to demonstrate that some people have lost interest in even talking about RfA, while some still plod along in the hope of getting things improved. Some fairly recent Arbcom decisions and desysops seem to have stabilised the system somewhat, but it's those who rarely contribute to it or talk about it who need to be made more aware aware of the reasons why so few editors are now prepared to run for office and perhaps some should be advised that they need more experience before actually voting. Like the voters who come and go, so also do trends in oppose rationales. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it really is worry about the RFA process. Last RFA was pretty difficult for me, so I'm not overly keen to go through that again. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately a lot of people see how the RFA's go down and it deters them from trying at all...or worse they leave if they don't get the tools. At least you tried and stayed when you didn't get it, kudos for that. Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Just for the record, I recently turned down a nomination offer for the same two reasons Steve cites above: insufficient content editing and my emotional reaction to my prior experience, whether deserved or undeserved, at RFA. I believe my experience in dispute resolution clearly indicates that I know how to do content, even if I don't do it much, but I'm pretty certain that argument's not going to have much weight at RFA. I won't go through that pecked-to-death-by-ducks experience again unless I can be virtually certain that it will succeed and unless I either jump on the content creation train or something changes here, that's not going to happen. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Solid self-assessment is the best policy to adopt when considering running. We can only offer so much help, such as at WP:Advice for RfA candidates for example, and that's already extremely comprehensive. Having the confidence of being reasonably sure to pass isn't enough, one needs to be physically sure and know that one has no skellies in the cupboard and know who the enemies are that will turn up. I knew who would creep out of the woodwork to attack me at my RfA, but I didn't know that they were going to put up such a disgusting performance, fortunately they have long since been desysoped. On the other hand, some innocently (or perhaps not so naïvely) took comments of mine totally out of context and presented me as a child hater, which of course got a bunch of pile-ons. Then there was the old crowd of anti-adminship regulars who fortunately appear to have found new hobbies. RfA isn't quite so bad as it was, but potential candidates still need convincing. 14:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)~~

Not enough crats?

The current RfA has stayed open for almost 18 hours past the end date despite a fairly clear consensus. I know I've beaten this drum repeatedly in the past, but could it be that we've reached a point where we simply don't have enough crats? Is this a one-time fluke or a sign of further things to come? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Would more crats be better? Sure, it means less pressure for those already in that position. Do we need more crats? Not urgently. Will we get more crats? Probably no, purely because the nature of work that admins do means you are going to piss off a lot of people, people who will then in turn !vote against you at your RFB. GiantSnowman 16:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A brief examination shows that WP:CHU is quite backlogged. It also took over a day for my username change to be carried out, so I think the answer is yes, there are either not enough bureaucrats or that the bureaucrats are mainly focusing on administrative tasks, in which case more bureaucrats would also be necessary. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Seven days are a minimum requirement, not an end timestamp.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
CHU backlog won't matter soon; crats won't be doing renames. With so few RfAs it seems bizarre to be suggesting more crats are needed to close them - there's probably more work to do in de-sysoping inactive admins that in creating new ones QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
And I suspect that is only going to get worse if we can't do something to turn the RFA process around or reengineer how the rights are given. Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I would stand for 'crat, except that I've been an admin too long - long enough to raise the ire of many by closing contentious discussions, participating in contentious discussions, or initiating what turned out to be contentious discussion. Perhaps, for the umpteenth time, we should be considering a mid-level status with limited admin powers and a lower threshold of entry. bd2412 T 17:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe there could be a user group that has the ability to rename users without the additional 'crat toolset, since CHU is often highly backlogged, and renaming isn't very controversial, as far as I can tell. I couldn't find any information on whatever changes are going to happen to the renaming process, however. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 18:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
@SamX: Here's the link that details the changes. Graham87 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
That makes quite a bit of sense, and thanks for the link. Perhaps it should be documented somewhere on WP:CRAT? — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 15:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that once the changeover happens, WP:CRAT will be getting updated accordingly. There are still a few things that could stand to be clarified, so we might as well just wait until they're finalized. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Account renaming is soon going to be in the hands of stewards, and not with local bureaucrats, so there's no point in that. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Voting crats can not close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of bureaucrats around. I am quite active, although it's not always evident from my contributions as I do tons of stuff behind the scenes. As is the case with many bureaucrat duties, I stop checking frequently since there are other bureaucrats handling matters much more speedily than I could. I'll try to make an effort to check the open RfAs more often to see if any need to be closed. Perhaps we should consider a bot that emails the bureaucrats (or, better, any bureaucrat that opts in to the service) when an RfA is due to be closed. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

👍 AutomaticStrikeout likes this 18:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Having it drop a line to the 'crat mailing list would be kinda cool. Maybe have it send after the customary six-hour "don't bother the 'crats yet" timeframe. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There aren't too few crats, there are too many, with nothing much to do to keep their interest piqued. I propose pimping them out to other WMF projects for some badly needed cash for en.wiki admins to share (suck it, non-admins, it's all mine MINE MINE). --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw RFA

Someone can close my RFA. No reason to waste more time on a lost cause. Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Drought stabilising?

For the last five years RFA has been going through a drought, with each year from 2008 to 2012 seeing between half and two thirds as many admins appointed as the year before. But finally in 2013 it seems to be bottoming out - so far this year we have 24 new admins compared to 28 last year, and there are five months yet to come. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month Of course these numbers are insufficient to maintain our current admin cadre, let alone appoint enough to tackle the consequences of the drought such as the wikigeneration gulf between the existing admins who mostly started editing before 2007 and the very large part of the community who only became active in the last five years or so. Nor does stabilising imply that the underlying problems are being solved, we are still seeing inflation of arbitrary criteria such as edit count and tenure, with the fear that people are judging candidates by things that are easily measured rather than properly checking their edits to see whether or not they'd actually make good admins. But after years of measuring an ever deteriorating situation I'm delighted to be able to announce some good news on this page. ϢereSpielChequers 08:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this year there have been several desysops and/or admins voluntarily handing in the bit. There may also be admins who have simply stopped editing this year and gone unnoticed. Ignoring the number of admins who have had the flag removed for inactivity, I wonder what the actual net result is and whether this year's promotions are actually covering the year's attrition of active admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've got some stats on that as well:

Admin attrition
Active Admins
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Inactive or desysopped (net) n/a 24[1] 22 25 96 382 263 194 179
Inactive or desysopped% n/a 14%[2] 6% 3% 9% 28% 22% 18% 21%
Change (net)% n/a 151.7% 100.6% 35.6% 2.7% -6.2% -7.7% -12%
"Semi-active" admins >=1 edit in last 90 days but < 30 edits in last 60 days [3] n/a 283 421 496 543 519 571 555 539 482
Inactive admins [4] n/a 439
"Active" admins at end of year (EOY) 30 edits or more in last 60 days [5] n/a 143 360 722 979 1,005 943 870 766 744 674 633 585 582 541 543 514 499 511 470 495

NB. Active admins from User:NoSeptember/Admin stats and Revision history of Wikipedia:List of administrators

  1. ^ Over three years not one
  2. ^ Over three years not one
  3. ^ semi-active admins first calculated as 198 on 8/6/2007
  4. ^ Admins with no edits in last 90 days = admins - semi-active admins - "active" admins
  5. ^ active admins peaked at 1021 on 28/2/2008

The number of "active" admins is still falling and despite two dozen new admins being appointed this year it has dropped by slightly more than two dozen since the end of December. Though arguably things would look very different if "active" was relabelled as has edited in last 30 days >30 edits in last 60 days and we had a number of tighter definitions, including has used the admin tools in the last 30 days and even a "very active" for any admin who is active on wikipedia for an evening a week or more. ϢereSpielChequers 12:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WSC. That's exactly what I wanted to know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think these numbers are also a little misleading because there has been a lot of discussions about adminship and RFA's that IMO generated interest. I do think its likely we haven't hit bottom quite yet and this may just be an outlier but its still a problem that needs to continue to be addressed. My fear is that the community will continue to torpedo good initiatives for changes to the RFA system until its too late for things to be fixed and we have to do something drastic at the last minute and the problem is irreversible. Also, although there are quite a few editors with the tools, most don't use them or use them rarely so its the same handful of people doing the admin stuff. In many instances its because the people who are "trusted" enough to get the tools lacks the technical or functional ability to use them. This is another problem that needs to be addressed. Lastly and possibly most importantly, a lot of admins violate the rules in the conduct of their "duties" but are allowed to keep the tools. In some cases these problems are the same things that would prevent a user from getting the tools in the first place. If the problem is bad enough to prevent an editor from getting access to the toolset, then it should be removed and the editor should have to rerun. We shouldn't give them unlimited latitude once they get the tools and then not allow someone to have them because of the same problem. Kumioko (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kumioko, yes discussion about RFA sometimes prompts people to run, and signpost articles in particular usually result in a bit of a spike. My intention is to make at least one such spike a year, this year has already had its spike, but it wasn't any bigger than we've seen in the last few years. So it is quite possible that the next five months could see rather fewer admins than one would predict by extrapolation from the last 7 months. But in saying that in 2013 the year on year decline has finally bottomed out I am not relying on a single RFA succeeding in the next five months. Though if just five do then 2013 will actually produce more admins than 2012.
As to your other questions, yes in terms of whether we can keep this site running this way we need to focus on the number of admins we have, and we really ought to measure level of admin coverage available. 50 full time admins working a shift pattern would ensure that we always had half a dozen around and at busy times at least a dozen. But we depend on volunteers who choose their hours and might only donate an hour of their time in 6 months. That makes for a difficult thing to measure. None of the people who seem to want admins to be a scarce resource also seem to be willing to try and calculate how many admins we actually need. I'm very much in the camp of thinking that all civil sensible long term editors should be admins, so to me the minimum number of admins we need is only relevant as part of a worst case scenario - at what point will there be a general enlistment of a posse of poorly vetted admins? Having the decline in the number of new admins bottom out doesn't stabilise the number of admins, but it does raise hope that things might be improving. However we'd have a very long way to go to get to the point where we had so many admins that being one was not a big deal, and we didn't need anyone to be just wielding the mop and not otherwise being part of the community. ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I think some of that will help but I don't think that causing spikes in the RFA's is a good long term help to the process. I think its good of you to try and affect the number of admins but I think, perhaps naively, that we need to fix the process itself so we A) Get more people to attempt the process, B) we get more admins and C) we get more people with access to the tools needed to help keep this place running. Wikipedia needs people with access to the tools but we don't need them in one big group, we dont need the title of admin and we don't need all the beauracracy. As I and others have said before, we need to make it easy to get and easy to take away. Kumioko (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's not as hard as it seems. This year, there have been more successful RfA than unsuccessful. The problem is getting people to run. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I draw two key conclusions - both optimistic which some may say just makes me a Polyanna. First, this year (thus far) is the first since the prehistory of 2005 when successful nominations have outnumbered unsuccessful ones. So maybe one thing that has changed recently is that fewer speculative, premature or joky nominations/self-noms are happening. Secondly, it may look like a problem that RfAs have gone down from 920 in 2007 to just 92 last year - a convenient 90% decrease. But the high water mark of active admins was just over 1,000 in that same year, 2007, and the total number has declined since then not by 90% but by about 33% (from 1,005 to 647). So the key figure is not the number of new admins we create, but the number still active and that's much less of a problem. I would myself make creating and removing admins a much easier and quicker process but given the tortuous history of RfA reform I don't have any good ideas about how that might be accomplished. But I think RfA reform is a less urgent problem than others have expressed, given that at present the numbers of admins usually seem sufficient to deal with the work on hand. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
    • According to this link there are 1441 active admins (including beauracrats, bots and the like who have admin rights). Of those its the same 50 or less (mostly the same 20 or so) I see doing all the admin work and given the often long backlogs at many of the areas where admin rights are needed, I don't agree that the status quo is sufficient. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's partly right, Kumioko. It is indeed only around 20 or so (if that) who risk their Wiki lives and reputations by working in the drama areas without a Kevlar vest. Of course, in doing so, they are occasionally going to make the rare error of judgement, and unfortunately one wrong block or deletion brings an angry mob out in force yelling 'Desysop!' and calling for kangaroo justice. That said, I will agree that some admins have been less than mature with their use of the tools, but that is no reason to go on a rampage tarring all admins with the same brush and keeping hate lists per WP:POLEMIC.
There is another group of admins however, whose names we hardely ever recognise: they are the ones who quietly work in the background closing uncontentious AfDs, doing page protections, deleting expired PRODs, and other technical tasks that require the bit for access. These may in fact be in the dozens of admins. But looking at the pie charts of many obscure sysops, one could get the picture that some just drift away after they have realised that adminship is no big deal after all and the flash of having those extra tools has worn off. Then you get a few old blokes (or even ladies), retired from active employment in RL, who just do what they have to, do it fairly regularly and reasonably fairly, and stay out of trouble - even if sometimes it's only by a hair's breath :)
At the end of the day, any reliable plodder who has amassed a tidy sum of edits in most areas and without any hiccups, and knows they have no skellies in their cupboard should not have angst to run the gauntlet. Unfortunately there's nothing we can do about those who oppose with a vengeance, and those who simply use RfA to oppose the system - aye, there's the rub.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, the biggest problem may simply be finding prospective candidates that are actually willing to run. Such brave souls are often few and far between. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's fair to say. And as long as the RFA is a gauntlet many individuals will pass on trying to go through it. As you put it, its no big deal so we need to put an end to the idea that being an admin is a big deal and only the editors who don't do anything and keep their heads down can get the tools. As I said before I still think the tools need to be split up. There are only a couple I need or want. Not the whole set and not the title. But there are several aspects of adminship such as editing templates and pulling more than 25000 articles into AWB that I could use if and when I start editing again. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The question is how do we make adminship be seen as less of big deal? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
And how do we make the RfC process less hostile and intimidating? There are many people (myself included) who would not dream of subjecting themselves to a week of hassle and attacks, just to get a mop so we can do additional chores here. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)d
I know it's fun to say that, but RfA is no different from anything in real life. If you've done your homework and behaved yourself for a few months, it'll go off without a hitch. If you're not ready, then you're in for quite a bit of criticism, but nothing deeply soul-wrenching. You need thick skin on the internet, just as you do in the real world. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
What particularly frustrates me is that so many people are afraid of even running for adminship. Does it really need to be this scary? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
One person with shaky credentials and thin skin runs, fails, then convinces everyone else that the problem is inherently with the voters and not with himself. The system works when you realize that admins have to occasionally do things they're not comfortable with (including, initially, standing for the position). – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
"including, initially, standing for the position"...well put. --kelapstick(on the run) 03:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Im sorry but I disagree. The RFA process works in the sense that a few editors, mostly ultra conservative ones who haven't gotten their hands dirty, get the tools. It fails in virtually every other sense. If you have dared to work in contraversial areas or are very active, then the likely hood of getting the tools is low. I would also add that the vaste majority of the "tools" are not inherently administrative but have been left bundled to the sysop role because there is no place else to put them and the community has utterly failed to separate them. In nearly every definition the RFA process is a stunning failure. Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's pretty much what I said. All candidates are expected to have gained some experience in CSD, AfD, AIV, etc, be nice and civil, and have demonstrated a knowledge of policy by helping others at some of the help desks and/or demonstrated their knowledge of inclusion criteria by having either created substantial articles or making substantial contributions to existing articles. They will stand a good chance. Those who have repeatedly got things wrong, have a lot of declined CSDs, had a low hit rate at AfD, and have been warned for COPYVIO, 3R, incivility and/or PA, canvassing, CIR, offline negative stuff about Wikipedia, etc., and don't have a clean block log,or don't fess up to their past misdeeds, are going to have a hard time. Ladies, for some reason, usually enjoy a relatively clean ride at RfA and mostly pass with flying colours (I'll not categorise on why that is).

I don't think the RfA system is a stunning failure though, most of those who should pass do, and most of those who shouldn't, don't, but there is no guarantee of every RfA having a perfect outcome - there will always be the rare sysop who will get defrocked. It has always been the behaviour of the voters that has turned it into a 'horrible and broken process' and the stigma that all admins and admin candidates are potentially badmins needs to be nipped in the bud - well in the flower actually, because it has become utterly ludicrous. That's it, folks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

In a similar vein to what Juliancolton is saying above, the hyperbole associated with RfA is unreasonable (e.g. "scary", "brave souls", "gauntlet"). During RFA2011 I remember phrases like "hellish nightmare", "snakepit", "trial by fire" being thrown around. In reality, worse things are said in a primary school playground than in the average RfA, and the recipient therein likely has a better sense of perspective Jebus989✰ 13:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with you, but nevertheless the number of RfA candidates has shrunk drastically. Bad public relations is bad public relations whether or not it is fair. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kudpung I could name several admins who shouldn't have gotten the tools, several who didn't and should, several who should have them and won't try due to the process as it is and finally some who are admins and should have the tools taken from them. I'm sure you can name some from each group too. My point is we cannot continue to promote 1 or 2 a month and then have 10-20 going inactive.
@WereSpielChequers, your absolutely right and some will be in follow on lists or are as I said above. In fact most of those 1400 that are active don't use their tools. I hate the term but their basically just hat collectors rarely if ever using the tools. Using a very generous number I would say less than 100 are active and use the tools more than occasionally.
@Jebus989, partially true but it doesn't mean its not true. People hate the process, most don't want to go through it and in fact most admins wouldn't do it again if they had too. That's partially why service limits for admins won't work. The community created the process and there is a large movement within the experienced members of it (both admins and non admins) that want to change it, yet any effort to do anything to change it meets with failure. Because just as the community has allowed the process to degrade, they fail to make any changes. If we want to change the process we also must change the perception of the process. We have started doing that this year as noted in the increase in RFA's and approvals but we have a long way to go if the project is going to succeed. Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't lose 10-20 a month to inactivity. We lose about 4-5 on average. If we can just promote that many a month, it would stabilize in terms of losing an administrator to inactivity vs gaining an active administrator. From what I've gathered though, we are going to be experiencing a slight increase in the latter half of this year, maybe 7-8 on average. RFA is pretty much the only thing we can hang our hat on at this point, but it's not much because the only thing we have done is started more nominations that would pass than fail. We're still not close to starting as many nominations as last year. I've done tons of statistical work looking at inactivity desysoppings and making sure that it's done on a monthly basis, as well as maintaining active administrator statistics here and keeping the list of former administrators as accurate as possible. Also, as of last week, we now have more former administrator accounts than we do active administrators. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Kumioko. Just because someone rarely uses the tools recently doesn't mean they were a hat collector when they applied to be an admin. This is a volunteer community, people's availability changes and sometimes some of us are going to retire from this or maybe just take a year out. Yes there are a number of admins who appear to hardly ever have used the tools. But part of this is showing a gap in our measurement - we know who the admins were pre 2005 but the logs of admin actions only go back to I think Dec 2005. So the hypothetical 2003 generation admin who performed a lot of logged actions on 03/04 and 05 but now sticks to an evening a month of editing and perhaps closing the odd RFC would appear as an admin with zero logged actions. Yet you wouldn't want to call them a hat collector would you? ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
You guys seem to be forgetting that I have been around a long time and although I am not an admin I have been doing admin stuff for a long time (I just have to let someone else take credit for the work). I have also been around this process for a long time and understand intimately how it works and doesn't work. So your not going to convince me that its a good process or that it works anymore than it seems I am going to convince you otherwise. The process is crap and needs to be fixed. Not justified and protected because it promotes a handful of candidates. As for the 10-20 a month number. That is the combination of those we remove the tools from due to inactivity and those who just stop editing and walk away. The number does fluctuate between zero and more than 10 but its still far more than we are promoting. In an age where more and more content requires admin action due to being protected, an increase in vandals, increases in CCI and other maintenance tasks, etc. Its no wonder we have backlogs in some areas reaching into months or years. People would help if they could, but we can't. Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There's a net figure of the number of admins who cease to be active each month and a gross figure. I suspect that all new admins are active for some time after they get the mop. But as only one person has passed RFA in the last few years without sufficient recent edits to be listed as an "active admin" the moment the bit is flipped, we might as well assume that all new admins are additional "active admins". There are also a steady trickle of returnees from long breaks and some intermittent editors who sometimes get above the 30 edits in 60 days threshold and sometimes drop below. All this contributes to the figures I listed above - despite appointing over 500 admins in the last five and half years we have over 300 fewer active ones. The Nett loss has averaged about five a month and gross a dozen a month but both oscillate wildly, thus far this year our nett loss has only been about 4 a month. ϢereSpielChequers 16:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah that's basically what I said too. Your right it fluctuates wildly but it still proves my point that the process doesn't really work well anymore and it doesn't produce enough people with the tools to offset the ones that are walking away. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain the "Admin attrition" stats for 2011-2013? Why aren't they divided up by month? It's hard to compare more recent years to Wikipedia or 5 or 10 years ago when you have collated the numbers in different ways. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've only done the admin attrition by year because to do it by month would be a lot more work. If anyone wants to create that then please go ahead, the results could be a great historical record. My suspicion is that most of the spikes will be because in month such and such crat so and so desysopped a bunch of inactive admins. But attrition is more complex than RFAs as it is the net result of all desysops minus new admins and returning admins, all displayed as a proportion of "active" admins. As for why we have seen the current pattern, frankly I don't know. It could be that when we first introduced desysopping for inactivity it prompted a number of people to come back, hence we had one year with a very small drop. or alternatively the desysopping rate may have stabilised, but of course RFAs fell sharply between 2011 and 2012 - enough of a fall to explain half the difference between those years in terms of attrition. ϢereSpielChequers 12:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Increasing candidates

This year, we've had more successful candidates than unsuccessful ones. Frankly, RfA is not as bad as we make it out to be. A large part of increasing RfA candidates will be improving RfA's perception. Still, the question remains. How do we do it? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  01:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't make chicken salad from chicken shit. Any changes to the process are essentially just paving a cow path. I will admit the process is better than it was last year but its still failing to generate more than a handful of admins. Most of the ones it does generate are ultra conservative. They don't participate in contraversial areas, many of them vote in things like AFD or MFD with whatever the winning votes are. Not for what they think or feel about the topic. Because voting your conscience these days and decreasing your "AFD", "CFD", etc. percentages is a good way to not get the tools. Sorry for my pessimism here but I have been around for a long time and I am very familiar with the process. Kumioko (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. My theory is that if we can't change the process, we might as well quit trying to. Instead, let's try finding more of those rare candidates who are willing to run. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I think finding candidates is only part of it but we also need to give the tools (certain ones not necessarily the whole set) to those who know how to use them or will use them. There isn't any sense in restricting template editing to Admins when only a handful know how to edit them. Its better to create a right to allow people who know how to edit them to do so without having to be admins. Same goes for a lot of other things like the API High limit and editing certain pages like the main page. There are a lot of non admins who know how to do these things and a lot of admins who don't. Kumioko (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It's impossible to improve perception when we have perpetual conversations (driven by a few very vocal and inexplicably cynical individuals) about how awful the process is, driven. Most people aren't afraid of running until after they've failed once or twice anyway. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your last sentence. I've asked a lot of people to run for adminship and the vast majority have declined. If the process wasn't so demanding, prospective candidates wouldn't stay away in droves. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
These arguments about RFA have been going on for 7.5 years at a minimum. Have things gotten better, God no. Wiki editorship has been nosediving since 2007 and for quite valid reasons--virtually everything is dysfunctional. Many DYKs, GACs, and FACs now fail simply because there are nowhere near enough reviewers. It's virtually impossible to get rid of a bad admin. RFA is an ever-increasing troll fest. Until these issues are fixed talk of fixing RFA or anything else on wiki is pointless.PumpkinSky talk 02:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with all that. Now with all new VE to add to the mashup of problems! Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Automatic: "prospective candidates wouldn't stay away in droves." But what is a perspective candidate? Somebody who would have stood for the position on another wiki that employed another RfA-equivalence? I feel most active and highly respected editors who have chosen not to run an RfA did so because they simply feel they're better suited to occupy themselves with another part of the project, chiefly content creation. I've been an admin since 2008, and I've never done anything particularly hated or controversial, but at my most active I would still find myself having to answer difficult questions I didn't expect to have to answer about my deletions or blocks. If there's any reason to be hesitant about RfA, it should be what comes after you pass and start getting your feet wet. Now, I agree with PumpkinSky that many other areas of the wiki are suffering from a shortage of hands, especially areas that actually affect what our readers see (FAC, copyvio filtering, etc.). Those, to me, seem more pressing than the RfA "drought", which, as noted above, seems to be stabilizing and perhaps even improving. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
@Julian, the drought of new admins may finally be bottoming out, but the number of active admins is going to continue to fall and is heading to fall a long way to bring it into line with the flow of new admins. That has implication for many parts of the wiki, including copyvio, where admins are needed to delete stuff. If it's true that those who pass RFA tend to stick around much longer, then persuading more of the 2007-2011 wikigenerations to run should increase the numbers of editors available for all sorts of things. ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
As one of the most recent candidates I have to disagree with Kumioko. Yes, candidates are grilled for a week, and at times I didn't enjoy the experience, but it wasn't worse than expected nor bad enough to discourage someone from running. In particular I'm well aware of being more of a deletionist than much of the community, yet my AfD record was hardly an issue - less so than I would have expected. I certainly cannot confirm that "voting your conscience", even when unpopular, is an obstacle to adminship. Or was I supposed to be included among those who don't vote their conscience? Huon (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Huon completely (also promoted in 2013).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yaroslav, how can you second all this being himself a reasonable person? This fascist ochlocracy simply shut me up without giving any chance to respond to grievances and otherwise take the feedback from the community. Why do you feign that all goes right?! You should rally the remaining people, who can think yet, to disperse this crowd of black shirts that is called the RfA community. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Clearly it goes wrong sometimes, and any of us can give examples. My point was that it actually goes smoothly more often than expected, and additionally it can be in many cases predicted. I am pretty sure for instance that MelanieN who says above that she is not willing to submit herself to RfA, would have a smooth ride, unless of course she goes wild a week before and gets blocked for incivility, or unless she really annoyed too many people in the distant past and did not care to repair the damage.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes? Hardly. Dysfunction is the norm on wiki.PumpkinSky talk 10:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sure you have research data to substantiate this statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course, do you to support yours?PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree, just because the process promotes a couple here and there doesn't mean it works. And to answer your question Huon, I wasn't referring to any particular admin. But the fact is that a lot of RFA's are brought down due to percentages at AFD, CFD or the like. Its a common argument in even those that pass and the argument is pointless for a couple reasons. 1) Admins don't generally delete stuff that doesn't meet consensus for such actions and 2) if they did it can just be reverted or recreated. Even in the admin toolset there are few things that cannot be reverted. Kumioko (talk) 14:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Ymblanter. It's true that people have suggested I run and I have always said no thanks. For me there's a second issue, in addition to the aggressive questioning and nitpicking, which you can always grit your teeth and deal with if you really want the bit. The main reason I haven't considered a run is the insistence that the person has to have a excellent knowledge of everything that an admin might conceivably have to deal with, things that I have never dealt with and have no interest in: copyright issues, images, IRC, technical details, etc. If I ever get the urge to be an admin I will have to study up on those things, but in the meantime it's not worth the effort for me. I'm not saying that admins shouldn't have to know all these things, just that the breadth of knowledge and experience demanded at RfA may be a deterrent for some. Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it's not. But it is a consideration that may be keeping down the number of RfAs. --MelanieN (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is actually correct. From my observations, a candidate (i) is expected to have a clue in the areas they are going to work, Q1 of the nomination; (ii) if they screwed up badly in the past in some admin-related areas, to have some knowledge of those areas or to promise very clearly that they are not going to use the tools there. It would be perfectly acceptable if a candidate who wants say to work on MfD answers that they do not really understand copyright, and they are not planning to work with files for this reason.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Really? Because I do see detailed questions, with specific examples, "how would you handle this situation" type of thing. Are others here of the opinion that "I don't know and I don't plan to do that" would be accepted as an answer? --MelanieN (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
"I don't know and I don't plan to do that" could easily bring out an oppose or two. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  15:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(post edit conflict and with a different take from AutomaticStrikeout's) That was a concern at my RfA, with good reason, but they gave me it :-) I've seen the concern raised at pretty much every RfA over the past year, partly because I suspect it is indeed impossible to know everything, but I haven't seen many where it kept someone from getting it. Mine was a peculiar RfA and I wouldn't generally recommend the insouciance with which I treated it, but I think it's easy to be unnecessarily daunted on that score; many editors are looking for clue and for trustworthiness and many do accept the idea that not every admin will work in every area. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that if the candidate declared they didn't know something it would likely generate a few opposes. How many depends on a lot of factors but it could derail the whole RFA. For what its worth I know how pretty much all the Admin stuff works, how to use all the tools (although since I haven't had access I admit I don't know everything) but I still can't get them. So its really less about what you know as your ability to go along with the program, not buck the system, don't ask too many difficult questions or try and make the processes better. Those people, like me, are considered to be trouble makers and won't get the tools. The tools are generally given to those, as I mentioned above, who are very conservative. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes its true that the proportion of candidates who succeed is quite high, and I'd add many who do pass do so with such huge margins that if they'd run 6 months earlier we'd have had an extra admin for those 6 months. But the number of candidates is a function of several things. It's good that we are deterring almost all the newbies who used to run, less good that many who'd make perfectly good admins have decided they prefer to serve the community in other ways, and rather worrying if the decline in RFAs in some way reflects the fall in the numbers of new editors becoming active Wikipedians. I have to choose my words carefully here, because there are several different phenomena going on, some are more meaningful to some editors than others and some are better documented than others. If we ignore the effect of the edit filter and the change to intrawikis then edits on the English Wikipedia are in gentle decline - down 4% this year, and significantly down on the peak in 2007. Of course ignoring either of those and especially the edit filter gives us a completely false picture, but because the edit filter deals with vandalism rather differently than cluebot it is difficult to work out how the current "true" editing level compares with 2007. My suspicion is that if you allow for the edit filter, or if we'd implemented the edit filter as vandalfighting bots, then total editing probably peaked sometime after 2010. But it goes without saying that the automation of anti vandalism work has largely lost us one our biggest recruiting routes for RFA, unfortunately we still need admins to do a large part of the blocking, but the rest is mostly automated. Automating our vandal fighting, along with the rise of the smart mobile and similar "read but don't try to edit" devices has resulted in the latest generation of teenagers being almost exclusively users of Wikipedia. Teenagers and especially under 18s are now relatively rare in the community as we are probably greying by more than a year per year. One side effect of the greying of the pedia is that we have an increasing proportion of middle aged and elderly editors many of whom find RFA rather less attractive than the the stereotypical 2004-2007 era teenage admin who today make up the undergraduates and twenty somethings who are the core of the current admin cadre. Then of course there has been bizarre expectations inflation, despite the fact that neither tenure nor edit count are particularly good indications as to whether someone will make a good admin (imagine a driving test where anyone with more than x miles as a learner and more than y lessons was allowed to skip the bit about driving around with a tester and instead ushered into a hall for a written test). Those easily measured metrics are crowding out proper review of candidates, and I suspect deterring many people who'd make fine admins but lack the editcountitis that now seems to be required. ϢereSpielChequers 18:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The community will not ever do anything about the total dysfunction that wiki is now, except if the the situation is about 10X worse than it is now. PumpkinSky talk 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
There are a lot of editors would make great admins but because of the RFA trollfest, would never pass an RFA. PumpkinSky talk 21:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
For that matter a large percentage of the current Admin cadre wouldn't pass under modern times if they were to rerun. Kumioko (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and I think that last fact is what drives a lot of the growing hostility towards the non-hereditary "caste system" that has become entrenched here. With no community de-adminship process and a connected group of self-interested admins-for-life who unite to kill reforms, we are left with a vanilla Rfa process, well-described above, that discourages anyone with a history that is other than utterly bland from seeking the tools. I have previously proposed a staggered alphabetical de-adminship and re-elections, which got zero backing. Failing that, term limits should be proposed in an Rfc in which opposing admin !votes are heavily discounted due to COI. I submit that such a proposal would pass handily, if allowed to happen, but is unlikely to get off the ground because various admins start up with the "pitchforks" theme, an ironic term since in the story, the monster Frankenstein created was all too real. Jusdafax 22:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I admit that I no longer have any faith that the community will do anything to fix the process. It seems more and more that the community is incapable of passing anything remotely resembling reform on anything let alone something as contentious as RFA. So in the end no matter how much we discuss change or how much we all agree its needed we will be stuck with the same old problems. Kumioko (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The 2010 Rfc on Community de-adminship was the last serious attempt I am aware of. The admin !vote killed it. Everything since then has been rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, as I see it. Jusdafax 22:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I for one find it quite insulting and hypocritical to say the community can be trusted to promote editors to admins but they can't be trusted to demote them. I have never heard a more stupid argument. I thought your submission was a good one and should have been passed and I agree that it was largely the admin cadre protecting their power that killed it. Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
What I find insulting and hypocritical is to imply that administrators are not part of the community, and are too blinded by the unfathomable power of having access to a few extra buttons on a website to be able to contribute anything worthwhile to the solution to this alleged problem (if one even exists). Suggesting that admin !votes in such an RfC should be discounted is like arguing that non-admin !votes in an RfA should be discounted. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 22:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Actually User:Tryptofish and User:Ben MacDui put in a lot more work than I did. Repeat, a lot more than I did. Towards the end the proposal got bogged down when a late addition to the process started haggling in a manner I felt was designed to burn out participants, and there were other irregularities. Three and a half years later, nothing has changed, except for the worse. As for the comment I edit conflicted with, I can't agree and can't help but wonder if you understand the meaning of "conflict of interest." Jusdafax 23:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly to PumpkinSky, changes have happened. BLPprod being one of the bigger ones. I suspect that most of us would agree that the Wiki needs radical change, where we are less likely to agree is over what that change should be. As regards RFA, it doesn't need the situation to get ten times worse, just bad enough that we have a spree of vandalism or attack pages with no admins available for an hour or two. I honestly don't know how close we are to that happening, but the fewer active admins we have the more inevitable the scenario becomes. When it does we'll probably get a large batch of poorly scrutinised admins appointed. Obviously I'd prefer any one of several possible reforms to that, but after bashing my head against the brick wall that is resistance to RFA reform I'm now resigned to the inevitable. As regards there being lots of editors who'd make great admins but who wouldn't get through RFA, I agree, but we might not agree as to who those potential candidates were. For example we have lots of uncontentious editors who are here for perhaps a couple of evenings a month, I wouldn't suggest they run because I don't believe they'd be sufficiently active to get through RFA, but I believe that lots of them would be good admins. As Kumioko points out most current Admins wouldn't pass RFA if they ran today, for starters only one candidate with less than thirty edits in the sixty days before their RFA has passed RFA in years. About 800 of our current admins would fail for that reason alone and many of the rest would also fail for lack of activity. Yet if one judges from the desysops it is the highly active admins who are likely to be problematic. In practice I suspect that if we had some sort of fixed terms for admins and a bunch of candidates ran on the basis that in some specialist area of the wiki they use the tools for an hour a month, then hopefully those of the uncontentious ones who could be persuaded to run would get reappointed. But one of the reasons why I believe fixed terms would be a bad idea is that RFA is such that many good admins just wouldn't rerun. So I'm in the camp that that thinks RFA is broken because most existing admins would not have become admins if RFA was as broken as it is now when they first became admins. If anyone wants to convince me of the opposite case then first they need to say how else they'd recruit sufficient admins to keep AIV staffed and also have most attack pages deleted within minutes of creation. Then of course there's the issue that the fewer admins we have the greater their "scarcity value" is and hence my fear that the fewer admins we have the more detached they will get from the community. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably the biggest issue non-admins have with admins is blocking. The power to stop you from editing and add a permanent black mark to your record is an overwhelming one, and creates a chilling effect. Some admins use the threat of their power as a sort of bully-lite. Perhaps if we can't get meaningful Community de-adminship, admins should have to get a second admin and possibly a third to confirm a block on a regular editor, but here again I doubt admins would go for such a proposal. Recently I have started using STiki on vandal patrol and have noticed a handy warning screen regarding templating regulars (defined generously as 50 edits or more.) Which made me wonder if that shouldn't be something that should pop upon an admin's screen when they click to block a regular. Even that exceedingly mild reform, I suspect, would be fought by some admins. Jusdafax 23:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the term limits either. I think there are a lot of areas we can improve this process but I don't think that's one. With that said I also do not think that admins should be there for life once the have shown a pattern of misconduct. Currently, there are at least a dozen admins that have shown a longterm pattern of misconduct and should have the tools removed. Instead they tell users to take it to Arbcom, knowing they are the only ones that can remove the tools and knowing that Arbcom isn't very responsive to desysopping admins outside a long and tie consuming Arbcom case. Even then its are. So essentially once an editor becomes an admin they know that the only way they'll lose access to the tools is for them to voluntarily give them up. As I said before, what we need is to make the easier to get and easier to take away. We also need to do is allow more people easier access to the tools they actually need, not the whole set of tools that that they neither want nor need so they can edit protected templates or see deleted content or some other specific tool that's bundled. Kumioko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I've created a fairly vague rough draft of an RfC at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Adminship RfC sandbox. Any thoughts? AutomaticStrikeout  ?  00:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
ASO-glad to see you try, but it won't accomplish a thing. PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
AC no longer has any balls to do their job. I said that in the current RFAR and I'll say that here. I'll also say that the current AC is totally useless and should all be fired. That and lack of community de-adminship are why we can't get rid of bad admins. And I agree, if community can give the bit, they can take it away. On wiki source admins had to re-rfa every two years and it works fine. But we're wasting our time talking as wiki is so dysfunctional no reform will happen at all. It's like expecting Congress/Parliament to clean up their own act. Admins will derail any attempt at reform. And admins aren't the only problem, GAC/FAC/DYK can no longer get enough reviewers. Articles don't get promoted simply due to lack of reviewers. Do we really wonder why editorship has been nosediving for 5 years? No we don't wonder, it's because wiki is now totally dysfunctional.PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree they have lost their way. Too interested in being the legislative body and no interest in the Arbitration mission. I gave up on reviewing GAC's and the like because of various reasons not the least of which was my personal feeling that if I cant be trusted to use the tools then I shouldn't be promoting articles either. I do an occassional review but its extremely rare. Kumioko (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@Jusdafax An alternative way to stop excessive blocking of the regulars is to revive my proposal of upbundling "block regular" to the crats. The main argument used against it last time was that it would create anomalous stuations where an admin could block one side of an edit warring pair but only report the other for a crat to block. But otherwise I think it has a lot going for it, we need lots of admins to block the spammers and and vandals who come in every day, and we need them blocked quickly especially the vandals. So we can't upbundle block/unblock altogether. However the few justified blocks and unblocks of regulars could be left to a small group of highly trusted editors, and doing that would take out much of the drama and wheelwarring. It would also as you point out put admins on much more of a level playing field with other regular editors. ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
If you don't think the current Arbs are doing a good job then say why and create a voters guide for next time. Maybe people will agree with you and kick the current incumbents out, maybe the current incumbents will respond to criticism. Maybe we need an RFC to change Arbcom's remit so for example they do have authority over the IRC admins channel or they can desysop an admin for bringing the project into disrepute. But it simply isn't true that admins can only lose the tools voluntarily. This year we've only had one admin resign under a cloud and one desysopped. normally we'd have lost more by now, and the only case that I've really followed should in my view have resulted in a desysopping and probably some interaction bans by contrast most of my criticism of Arbcom in previous years was in cases where they were too heavy handed. But the best response to that is to broaden Arbcom's remit and ensure we elect the right people to it. If you try again to replace or supplement Arbcom with some process that omits the safeguards of Arbcom then don't be surprised if you fail again, especially if you have such an easily refuted case as saying that currently the only way to lose the mop is voluntarily. As for Arbcom processes taking too long, much of the delay involves time for people to put their side of the story, and time for a group of ininvolved volunteers to consider and deliberate. You need to tread very carefully when you consider changing that, and be very specific as to what reforms to Arbcom you are proposing. Otherwise you risk making the whole thing worse - remember our biggest problem re adminship is recruiting new admins. Implementing a less fair system for supervising them is not going to help persuade more people to run. ϢereSpielChequers 09:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
That'd be another waste of time. It could have a majority support but the incumbent power base, admins and arbs, would derail it, just like RFA reform. To reiterate, the entire wiki system is totally dysfunctional. Don't forget, I'm one of the few people that have seen wiki from the extreme of both ends. In order for things to change, two things must happen: 1) wiki needs to recognize there are problems--this we've known for a long time and 2) be willing to change those problems--this we are far, far from doing. PumpkinSky talk 10:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm pretty sure that we have consensus that there are significant problems on Wikipedia. But where we disagree is over the defining of those problems, their priority and in some cases their solution. So for some people one of our problems is that we have a bunch of teenage admins doing things that legal minors possibly shouldn't and supervising a bunch of older and wiser content contributors. For others, including myself, part of the problem of the greying of the pedia is that we now have a bunch of twenty somethings who think they are supervising a bunch of teenagers when actually they are offending a bunch of middle aged men by treating them as teenagers. Problems get harder to solve where they involve misunderstandings and philosophical clashes, and just as most of our religious and nationalistic article disputes involve people who know their side to be right, so increasingly do our governance ones. But where the divide is ultimately about a misunderstanding we can work to achieve consensus by explaining how we understand the situation and being willing to test our assumptions against reality. For example one of the biggest divides within the community in its broadest sense is between those who think that the best response to an unsourced edit is a revert, and those who regard that as newbie biting. A useful bit of research would be for someone to work out which approach is most effective in teaching newbies to cite their sources. Closer to home, pretty much everyone agrees that there are "bad admins" out there who should be desysopped. But when we get more specific, there is a big divide between those who would like to desysop someone like me for a strict interpretation of CSD criteria that sees me declining lots of CSDs that other admins might stretch a point and delete out of process, and those who'd like to desysop some admins whose flexible interpretation of the CSD criteria would get them at least a 40% oppose at RFA if they had to rerun. Now a general call for desysopping "bad admins" might get support from people with very different interpretations of what a bad admin is, it's only when you start defining "bad admin" that your consensus falls apart. But periodic admin reconfirmations don't just worry those who'd expect to fail them. There's also the real risk that we'd lose too many admins to keep the site running with volunteer admins, especially with RFA as dysfunctional at it has been for years. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I agree with PS. I don't see the admin cadre allowing any changes that would reduce their power base or that would allow more editors access to some tools. This isn't just a perception but has been shown repeatedly in a dozen or more reforms over the years. Looking at the reforms its nearly always a majority of admins who vote them down because there are more admins who watch the RFC's and advanced areas than those of us that are advanced users but don't have the tools. So although there are more users than admins, the majority of the ones who would watch these areas are admins. Also, unfortunately I think things will need to get much worse before any meaningful change is allowed to happen. Until we are in such dire need of admins that the community or the WMF is required to do something drastic, we'll be stuck with the same process we have By that time though it will likely be too late to fix it. Kumioko (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
There have been big reforms - the unbundling of rollback being one of the most dramatic. And while I can remember several attempted changes where the balance of !voting was very different among admins or non-admins; I doubt if there have been many where there was consensus for change amongst non-admins and enough admin opposition to stop that change. Happy to have that tested if you can name any RFCs that illustrated such an admin non-admin divide. However I am willing to predict that such incidents will arise in future if we don't reform RFA and open it up to the editors who joined us in 2008-2011. ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh hogwash. Unbundling rollback is the biggest farce ever. All that does is let you do in one click what used to take 3 (i think). Rollback is just smoke and mirrors and not a reform of substance at all. Changes of substance that need done but won't happen unless it gets about 100x worse than now: RFA reform, community desyssop, abolish arbcom, treat content editors like people instead of shitbags, removal of bogus blocks from the log (which is one of the many reasons scotty's rfa tool is bullshit, it counts all blocks as bad, even a reblock if you are unblocked to edit so you can make a statement), cease forcing people to wear the Wiki Scarlett Letter forever, and end the double standards of admins vs non-admins.PumpkinSky talk 17:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I agree that splitting out Rollbacker and Filmover were a step in the right direction they are far from "big reforms". They are really little changes actually and only succeeded because they, IMO, offered no loss of power to the admins. The most important thing I think we need to address is as PS put it the treating of Admins above editors. They have a few extra tools and it time we starting treating it that way. They aren't true database admins they don't have server access, most don't do development. Its time we allow more people to help out and allow expanded access to the tools. Now no one is saying that every editor should have access to every tool but if the editor has shown they are capable and have been here for a while then there shouldn't be any problem with allowing them to access some things. If they want to participate in CCI then they need certain tools to do that. If they want to help with vandal fighting then certain tools go with that. If they are like me and do a lot of gnoming and maintenance stuff then there are tools that lend themselves to that. But in most cases the whole toolset isn't needed to do these and there is no valid reason in today's editing environment that an editor who has been around for a while shouldn't be trusted with many of them...or all of them. If they screw up then they can be taken away. Without all the pomp and circumstance that is currently associated with the RFA/Desysopping process. Give them the access and let them contribute and if they abuse it remove it..that's it. Really easy. I'll add to that one exception and that is block/unblock. I personally think anyone with this right should be required to report their real life identity with proof of age (just like Checckuser and Beauracrat) to the WMF. Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, the two most contentious tools that admins have are block and delete, and of the two I think that delete leads to more RFA fails and block more desysops. I'm not sure that proof of age for RFA would achieve much now - if you introduced a minimum age of 18 five years ago you would have lost a lot of admins, but now I'm not sure you'd lose any. Or rather the people you'd lose would be the ones who don't trust the WMF to know who they are, and they are often the last people that any of us want to lose. But the other thing is is the practical consequences, now I rarely delete anything other than G7 G10 and U1, so I'm unlikely to get a subpoena from some annoyed spammer who doesn't want their spam deleted off Wikipedia. But we all rely on some anonymous admins who do delete such pages, and the WMF can't currently be a conduit for such subpoenas because it doesn't know who these admins are. If it did then we have a problem and I really don't see enough advantages to outweigh that. By contrast what do you think of my idea of upbundling "block regular" to the crats? ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think the idea of upbundling would be good but I also think that should be the case for Range blocks too. Kumioko (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
@PumpkinSky Unbundling Rollback may have lost some of its significance, but I think at one stage it was a precondition of using Huggle. More importantly it transformed RFA. Just look at the way the number of RFAs per month shifted in March 2008. As for your other proposals, If you believe in them write up a case for the change and file an RFC. Taking two at random, I can't remember an RFC proposing the abolition of Arbcom on this wiki, though I think it has happened on another wiki. I'd be interested to read such a proposal, and in particular I would be interested to see which of Arbcom's roles you would simply abolish, which you'd transfer elsewhere and who you'd transfer them to. If the answer involved a significant de facto transfer of power from Arbcom to the Admins IRC channel then I think you'd get some surprising defenders of Arbcom. As for invalid blocks, I think that the record of RFA is that we are pretty good at ignoring accidental and invalid blocks, and as long as they are a year or more old we are also very willing to accept explanations or at least an assurance of things not being repeated. But again if you want to see certain types of blocks erased file an RFC, I for one don't remember when we last considered that idea. Personally my list would be very different:
  1. Upbundle block/unblock regular to the crats.
  2. Unblock most longterm blocked IPs and IP ranges - especially former open proxies
  3. Implement smart blocking as an option for IP ranges - so only editors who are using the same sort of browser O/S and hardware as whoever did the edits that merited the range block get caught by the block
  4. Stop using EN wiki as the test wiki for new software and only implement new tools here after they have been properly tested and ideally battle tested on a wiki that has volunteered for them.
  5. Stop the endless Engvar battles amongst Newbies by making Engvar a user preference, and pointing those who care about such things at our humongous list of words like bonnet, hood and pants that subsequently would require some sort of hidden template to make them correctly render on opposite sides of the pond.
  6. Fold AFC into Special Newpages, with a new "draft" status for any article not yet marked as patrolled, and make those articles {{noindex}} but with a new speedy deletion criteria of "lacks a reliable independent source" for new articles on commercial oranisations.
  7. Implement flagged revisions on all articles as they've done on DE wiki. If I'm forced to compromise on that I'd go for invisible pending changes. So readers and new editors won't notice a difference other than less vandalism getting through, but vandal fighters will be able to spend their time checking edits that no other human vandalfighter has checked.
  1. Resolve the "revert unsourced" problem either by requiring editors to cite their sources and prompting them for a source when they save their edit, or by stopping patrollers from reverting newbies' edits merely for being unsourced (unsourced and clearly bonkers would still be fair game). One of these would be an inclusionist victory, the other a deletionists one - but I think moving either way would be better than the status quo.
  1. Reform RFA so that adminship becomes the norm for sane sensible longterm members of the community that are willing to occasionally wield the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 20:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
An invalid block is invalid from day one. It shouldn't take a year to "erase". You make Some good proposals. I especially like the EngVar one. Probably something close to your list and my list is what's really needed but we both know that'll never happened. While I've truly enjoyed this talk, it will amount to nothing and either none of the ideas will ever get implemented or if it does, it'll only be tiny pieces far too long into the future, ie, too little too late. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I imagine that there are a fair amount of people who frankly just find the admin type of work somewhat uninteresting, and don't want to give the false impression that they have the time and interest to contribute to admin activities. If the goal is to reduce backlogs and get things done, then convincing people that work on admin activities is a worthy use of their time could be just as big of an issue as the perception that the RfA process is overwhelming. Admin work is thankless and I really appreciate everyone who does it, by the way. We really should have an automatic list of those who do the day-to-day stuff to give them more recognition. II | (t - c) 06:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
ssshhhh, don't talk too loud. Admin work is thankless? - not to those who like wearing shiny buttons. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The way a lot of them act you wouldn't know its thankless. If it was they wouldn't try so hard to keep people from helping out or protecting their power. Kumioko (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it's largely thankless...but is that the motivation? If I had the bit, I wouldn't expect much thanks. I just don't feel like it's worth it to run the gauntlet so that I have the privilege of being able to volunteer more time. --Onorem (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • To address the topic raised above about "increasing candidates": there is one ongoing RFA discussion underway, concerning an older editor who has been with Wikipedia for ages and has half a zillion edits, and he is being put through an absolute meatgrinder. Anyone who has any regard for this editor would never expose himself or herself to that kind of treatment. That is something you may want to take into consideration in evaluating the process, if there is an interest in increasing the number of qualified administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    LoL. When I was swiftly shut up by RfA frequenters and ’crats before any non-hostile user managed to ask a question, nobody resented. And when Buster7 with his poorly answered questions has now about 60% support, it is described as a meatgrinder. The propaganda of double standards and hypocrisy never stops. Just compare these two RfAs. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that your RfA ran into difficulty, but they don't seem to have any bearing whatever on the problems encountered by this latest candidate. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's not be coy here. He's not just some editor to you, he is a "wiki-friend" and you are talking purely from that perspective. Referring to him as "this latest candidate", and "this editor" implies a certain distance. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh please, go away. Coretheapple (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that anyone who is interested in becoming an Admin (like me) looks at the RfA process and shudders. There seem to be three types of ways it can go that I've seen:
  1. Where the candidate is well-known, well-liked and can turn out the votes. They basically sail through.
  2. Where the candidate isn't well-known and has a decent record of edits and is well-tempered. Their record is heavily scrutinized for any negative signs that would rule them out. A harsh word spoken to another editor? There will be a diff posted. A bad edit decision? That will be brought up, too.
  3. Where the candidate clearly isn't right for the job or hasn't prepared themselves for questions. They will either withdraw or go down in flames.

It's seems like it's Group #2 (by far the largest group) that you need to be concerned about. These people, who'd probably make decent admins but have their own "not perfect" track record (as do 99.999% of Wikipedians do) will find the RfA intimidating and somewhat grueling. Some are up for the task any way but a far greater number will just decide they'd rather not be subjected to the process.

I'm not saying it's time to lower standards. But the RfA process could be less brutal and cruel. An example? The "Yes" votes are typically something like "Support. He'd do a fine job!" The "No" votes are more like "Strongly Oppose. And here's why, he handled X poorly, he showed immaturity in situation Y and his conduct bordered on PA in Z." This isn't just done once, often everyone who opposes a candidate seems to feel compelled to innumerate their shortcomings. What is wrong with a simple "Oppose. Not ready yet"?

Applying to be considered to be an Admin shouldn't be like a frat hazing. Editors should ask candidates good questions, weigh their strengths and weaknesses fairly and then cast a vote. If he or she wants to know why, they can always contact those who opposed them afterwards for details. Newjerseyliz (talk) 20:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

@NewJerseyliz The problem of making this less of a hazing is that different people have different perceptions as to what counts as hazing and what counts as a constructive oppose. For me personally "Oppose. Not ready yet" would be a fairly civil response to someone who was grossly unqualified, but deeply incivil to anyone who had been here a few months and had contributed thousands of edits. "Oppose, Not ready yet, happy to consider a run in future if deletion tagging has improved (per the examples cited by the first three opposes) and editor has gained some experience of using reliable sources". Would be more my idea of a civil oppose, crucially it focusses on the edits not the person, and gives both the candidate and anyone watching an understanding of my expectations for support. My first RFA was unsuccessful and there were some opposes in my second, so I know the importance of disclosing your reasons when opposing. There is also the possibility of the opposer having missed something, so an oppose of "and editor has gained some experience of using reliable sources" is of course best avoided by making sure you give examples of that in your answer to Q2, but you can respond to such opposes with "look at my work with the Article Rescue Squadron, I've rescued this list of notable articles by adding reliable sources". Sometimes people make such responses in the same RFA, othertimes they wait a few months and run again, and when you run again you really need to be able to answer the question "what has changed since your last RFA, which of the oppose reasons then no longer apply?" You can only answer such a question if people give a constructive oppose that explains why you don't yet meet their criteria. Think of it like a driving test, if you know you failed because you need glasses, had a few collisions and were driving too fast then you know what you need to work on for your next test. If you fail "for shedloads of reasons" then you don't know what you'd need to change before running again. ϢereSpielChequers 08:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
As someone who nominated User:History2007, who in my eyes was more than qualified, but who was denied adminship at least in part because he didn't seem to take it as "seriously" as some would have wanted, I tend to agree that there are flaws with the process. If people give reasonable, competent reasons for opposing someone's RfA, like WereSpielChequers indicates above, that is, to my eyes, the best we can hope for. There are some oppose !votes, details of which I will not go into here, which are dramatically useless and, in at least one recent case, seem to have been directly responsible in some part for the casting of several more support !votes for the candidate, ultimately making that "oppose" counterproductive. Those types of statements sometimes are seen as what they are, and are dealt with appropriately by the closing crats. I prefer it myself when someone indicates why they oppose, although I agree that if there are a lot of opposes that can make the candidate feel somewhat paranoid. And, honestly, considering the fairly regular abuse some admins get from other editors, sometimes almost solely due to their being an admin, maybe, in some cases, having a bit of "hazing" involved isn't a bad idea. God himself, if such a being exists, would probably be subject to regular attacks here for his use or misuse of tools, particularly if he/she/it were to be involved in contentious areas. That being the case, a little exposure to the heat they can expect to face if they become admins might not be a bad idea. I personally wish such behavior did not occur in the first place, but it does seem to be the reality of the situation. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I won't comment too much on User:History2007's RfA because I didn't vote there as it was withdrawn before I had a chance to. That said, the way a candidate approaches and manages their RfA can have a significant impact on the outcome however much or little good or bad work they have done. It looks however as if with User:History2007 the project has lost a good content contributor and that shouldn't happen. That's why it's essential that candidates read all the advice pags and prepare themselves well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The section title here is "Drought stabilising?". A lot of good points have been made ... but the promotion rate continues at roughly 2 per month. We had more than that in the first quarter, but we've always had a bump during the well-attended RfCs on the subject. - Dank (push to talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

We get an annual boost from an annual debate on RFA reform, and we've been getting that boost for years. 2 a month for the rest of the year, or even just one a month would mean that this year we will get more RFAs than last year. We've already had 25 compared to 28 in the whole of last year, so after five consecutive years of the numbers falling by about a third it is fair to say that the drought seems at last to have stabilised. Though of course stabilised is not the same as ended. ϢereSpielChequers 21:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't throw a party just yet. I think this just shows that the RFA process has bottomed out. So even at that, it could very a few here and there between 15 and 30 and still be at the bottom. Just because we had a couple more than last year doesn't mean the process is better, were still losing admins at a faster rate than we are gaining them and more and more of the content requires admin action meaning more work for fewer people. Its even worse that there are a lot of us that are capable and willing to do some of the work but aren't allowed too. Kumioko (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
When I started this thread I used those words myself. "For the last five years RFA has been going through a drought, with each year from 2008 to 2012 seeing between half and two thirds as many admins appointed as the year before. But finally in 2013 it seems to be bottoming out - so far this year we have 24 new admins compared to 28 last year, and there are five months yet to come. I'm not claiming that the drought is over or that RFA .has somehow healed itself, but after five years this is an important change. After years of predictable ongoing decline I simply don't know whether next year we will have more, less or a similar crop of new admins. If the 2 new admins a month of the 2012/13 era continues then eventually the number of admins will stop falling, when that would be and whether by then there will still be sufficient admins to maintain our current processes are both open questions, as is the issue of what sort of a community we will be when and if the number of admins were ever to stop declining and stabilise.. . Certainly we are a long way from the sort of self governing community that I'd like to see where adminship is the norm amongst longterm members of the community, and RFA is far from being "fit for purpose" as a way to appoint new admins. But if the pattern of the last five years had continued we'd only be appointing twenty new admins this year, so 25 with four months to go is a welcome development. ϢereSpielChequers 03:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC) .

Recent nominations

What if we had a "Recently closed RFAs" box on the top of the page? Might be helpful to those of us who only occasionally come around: whenever I vote in a close RFA, I'm often left wondering what happened, so I have to do a bunch of digging to find what would easily be discovered if we had a "Recently closed" box. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Sad to say, I would find this useful too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I also support this. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I have created this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recently. Thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 02:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting. Could it be placed beside the archive box at the top of this page? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am doing some tweaks before adding it. I was about to place it above the RfX box. — ΛΧΣ21 02:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The box looks fabulous, but methinks it leaves a tad too much whitespace on the left side. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of suggesting that we provide links to the five most recent RFAs, so I'm glad you designed it that way. Since RFAs sometimes don't happen for a chunk of time, while at other times there are lots of them, it's much better to have a standard length rather than including all the RFAs that were closed in a certain period of time. What if we also included the most recent RFB? Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that it will take us back to 2011 :) And I think that then i should change the name from Recently closed RfXs to Latest RfXs or something. Thoughts? — ΛΧΣ21 02:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well Nyttend, maybe having another RfB would help solve the problem AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I have absolutely no desire to be a bureaucrat; just see how often I close discussions such as XFDs :-) Our most recent failed RFB was Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Apteva, almost a year ago, while we've had two successful ones this year: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Addshore was in June. You already included a spot for RFBs, leaving it empty because of "No recent nominations", not because it would make the page name confusing. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) People sometimes think that RfB is even worse than RfA. The numbers, sparse as they may be, don't back that up. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but that is because those who run are almost 100% sure that they'll pass, like 28bytes, Wiz or Addshore. Sysops that are not reasonably confident that they have a chance don't risk themselves to be punished at RfB. — ΛΧΣ21 03:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ok, I finished the design, I think. I added a light green background to the successful ones and some bolded here and there. Comments are very welcomed. — ΛΧΣ21 02:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
While it's nice to be bold, this needs to be removed and moved to user space. You simply cannot leave a massive blank space on top of the talk page and expect it's going to be okay - it's incredibly distracting. Ideally it should also be collapsible and modeled after Navbox - see my example here. Alex ShihTalk 05:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Your design is too complicated, though. We need a simpler one like the one I did. However, as several users have approved the addition, I think that it is out of my hands now. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 05:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was also bold. Now there is less white space :) Someguy1221 (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
It does look a bit of a mess currently. I'm also not sure it's a vital addition given we have both lists chronologically sorted just a few pixels above Jebus989✰ 12:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
What's the date? "Date opened"?? "Date closed"?? "Date of last action"?? "Date with destiny"?? Just saying "date" means little without slightly more context ES&L 13:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I tweaked some stuff, mostly to make sure the template is accessible (headers in the middle of a table are not). I have no opinion on how many should be added (whether, 5, 10, or whatnot), but I see no reason why we should separate out RFBs from the set of RFAs, so long as there is a type column of some sort differentiating the two. I realize in this case it means RFBs fall off the current list, but I don't see that as a loss. --Izno (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Can we define "recent"? It seems silly to have an RfB that is more than a year old on there. Anything more than four weeks old I don't think really needs to be listed in a "recent RfX" table. (yes, I realize the table says "latest", not "recent") EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I imagine the thought of having an unsuccessful attempt on display for over 12 months would be a significant discouragement. –xenotalk 16:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:STiki/leaderboard

I've seen RfA's fail 'cause the nominee was accused of using Wikipedia as a computer game. I guess this would make it official. Dlohcierekim 13:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand what you are referring to with 'official'. The only thing that gives me pause is that a couple of the Stiki userboxes may enourage a MMORPG mentality. Do we have such 'leaderboards' for other vandal fighting software/scripts? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable opposes

In the current RFA for Rcsprinter here multiple users have suggested that editors should be here for years before acquiring the tools. This to me seems like an invalid argument. I understand that some people have their own criteria for voting to support or oppose, but I recommend setting up some sort of a process where votes like this aren't counted or aren't allowed. There are no requirements in the Admin rules that say you have to have X edits, have been here for X months or whatever so we need to limit what can be a valid oppose. The tricky part is, while I believe we need to limit what is counted as a valid oppose reason, we still giving the editors some latitude to say why they are opposing. Kumioko (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Then we should limit supports as well. "Why not?" shouldn't be considered a valid support, IMO. Intothatdarkness 14:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I recommend setting up some sort of process where poorly thought out suggestions like this aren't counted or aren't allowed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Bureaucrats are not stupid, and don't merely count votes. They're quite allowed to ignore votes (either support or oppose) that they find unhelpful in addressing consensus. There's no need to ban, modify, or disallow anyone from making any kind of vote or comment after their vote since idiotic votes don't count anyways. Let the bureaucrats do their job. --Jayron32 14:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Its too bad you think its a bad suggestion but this is partly brought about by the beating I got when I opposed someone getting the tools for checkuser. I was told by multiple editors in no uncertain terms that Opposes should be justified. I believe it was even mentioned on my RFA a couple days ago. One user said "I think it's reasonable to request more evidence when you accuse a user of negative behavior". So if that is the case and Opposes need to have some reasonable justification, then we should implement that as a rule, rather than just say that when we don't like the candidate or when we feel like being argumentative. I mean if that is how people feel, that opposes need to be justified, then we should state that don't you think? Other than that, they can assume good faith and support, they can vote neutral or they can not vote at all and live with the result. One of the big factors in the RFA process is how nasty it is, mine is a good example, so if we want it to be not as nasty we need to implement some ground rules and follow them fairly and consistently. Other wise its just a free for all as it has been. I'm also not saying the Beauracrats are stupid, but they have limited latitude as to what they can waive. The vote has to be close in order for them to use their judgement and they generally err on the side of caution and do not give the tools. So its really has nothing to do with beauracrat discretion. Their tied to the process as much as we all are. But I do tend to agree that whether the vote is support or oppose if the justification isn't in line with the discussion "Support because its snowing here", "Oppose for no reason in particular" then they shouldn't count. And before someone starts in about my RFA I think we all know there are plenty of diffs that can be provided to justify an oppose on mine, so this has nothing to do with mine. We can put those arguments to bed. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
In the case of some users, I think it's perfectly appropriate to oppose on the grounds of maturity and to do this without needing to offer a treatise on cognitive psychology. People take time to develop adult skills. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
A perception of lack of maturity is, IMO, a perfectly valid reason to oppose. Stating the user hasn't been here for a year is not. Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
(ec) If we start to legislate about what are and are not permitted grounds for supports and opposes, it will be a time and energy sink and will solve little. I trust the crats. Have there been cases where they didn't have enough leeway? If there are such cases, just give them more leeway. --Stfg (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Or people will figure out that its not an anything goes bloodbath anymore and they need to leave comments that are justified. Kumioko (talk) 16:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I know WP:FREESPEECH applies here, but I don't see any need to remove comments that aren't obvious trolling. Doing so would likely provoke an unnecessary negative reaction from the user who left the comment, and attempting to act as a "moderator" on an RFA would be a waste of time better spent doing something else. Besides, the standards that bureaucrats are expected to uphold are quite a bit higher than those of admins, so I trust them to weigh in comments appropriately. Additionally, opposing because a candidate has only 500 edits is a perfectly valid reason, in my opinion, and the amount of time that someone has been around can be a reasonable indicator of general experience, combined with other factors. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I see no real harm in badgering a voter (whether support or oppose) provided it is done objectively, and above all, pol:itely. It is quite clear that many !votes are made without research or serious reflection, and badgering in the past has certainly convinced some !voters to change their minds. There is a vast difference between badgering and 'moderating' and any moderating is usually limited to the surpression of socks, and blatant trolling or vandalism. Anyone who exercises poor judgement in their voting should realise that they are just making themselves look silly. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I used to be a crat. And I, and prob other crats, gave all comments what consideration they were due. If stupid, I ignored them. PumpkinSky talk 01:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I think this adds yet more weight to the argument that we should have RfA clerks who can take care of problems like this. I have complete faith in the 'crats to come to the right decision and ignore silly votes, but the problem is that RfA isn't like other discussions on wikipedia where the number of people supporting a particular viewpoint is irrelevant - there are absolute numerical conditions set for RfAs to pass or fail. If a number of editors jump on the bandwagon of a superficially attractive but logically bankrupt argument (such as the nonsense about needing years of experience) it can drag the support percentage below the critical 70% mark, and then the 'crats have little leeway to exercise their discretion. There are examples of 'crats ignoring the numbers in RfAs in the past, and it rarely ended well. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 12:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, exactly right. Kumioko (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
'Following the leader' can often wreak havoc with an RfA. The problem is that because they are drive-by votes, the pile-oners don't come back and see what happened even if the 'leader's' vote is exposed as disingenuous. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I suggested extending the range to give the crats more discretion. Also, I agree with what you said about "badgering" above. Actually "badgering" really means pestering; fair, objective comment on a !vote, either on the RFA page or on the !voter's talk page, doesn't seem to me to be badgering at all. And it seems quite fair, if for example somebody accuses a candidate of something and it's later disproved, to automatically disregard any "per Fred" drive-bys that don't get corrected. Or so it seems to me. --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't even need to be a disingenuous vote. Sometimes people who have cause a pile-on simply move from Oppose to Support (or Neutral) leaving a wake of destruction behind them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I think that, to invalidate "per Fred" !votes, Fred's original oppose has to be unsound in some sense. If Fred spots that a candidate got into edit warring for a week or two six months ago, he might oppose, but later see that the candidate has come clean and improved his behaviour. Then Fred may move to neutral or support, but other !votes based on the edit warring may still be valid. Whereas, if the alleged edit warring is completely disproved, then !votes based on it cannot be valid. (For six months, read whatever time you'd consider borderline.) There's scope for judgement, so I prefer extending the crats' discretion over any form of automatic discounting. --Stfg (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The problem with doing that though is, giving the crats' more discretion also means opening them up to take a lot of heat. Using myself as an example I think its fair to say I have ruffled a lot of feathers here and more editors would like to see me gone from the project than to stay and if I ever pass RFA its going to be a narrow margin, so the crats may need to decide. If they decide in my favor, they would unleash a hailstorm of comments and undoubtedly a long and heated debate would ensue. So, knowing that, I think anything we do needs to be grounded in policy, written and clear. Regardless of that or how much leeway we give them, its very unlikely they would give someone the tools based on their discretion if the community vote couldn't reach a consensus. More than likely they would siple rule no consensus and ask the editor to try again later. Kumioko (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, part of the difficulty here is that we're talking about tweaking the current system, whereas I believe in unbundling (and if I remember rightly, I think you do too -- forgive me if I've misremembered). But while we're talking about tweaking the current system, the crats already have discretion, so my suggestion is only one of degree. And if they decide they are faced with a no-consensus and decline to give the tools for that reason, then that seems right to me, especially while the tools include the block and unblock buttons. I do agree with you that "anything we do needs to be grounded in policy, written and clear". I wouldn't say that such a policy could be written that would exclude the need for judgement. But if that's accepted, and if the scope is limited to the handling of unrevised pile-on !votes based on refuted arguments, then to me it seems feasible, and better by a street than blue-pencilling anything (which would also require judgement, in any case). --Stfg (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that and your right I do favor unbundling but I also think there are a variety of things that could/should be done to make the system better. Kumioko (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pile-ons probably rarely revisit the RfA to follow what is going on. I think it would be perfectly legitimate to send a message to a voter's talk page such as:

Hi. Thank you for your participation at Requests for adminship/User:Foo. It appears you voted 'as per' User:Baz. That user has since changed their vote; perhaps you would also wish to reconsider your vote. Thanks. ~~~~

To keep it neutral a template could be made for the message.

'Throw-in' votes are more difficult to address without it sounding like a rebuke. Very extensive research has shown that such votes are often made for reasons such as, for example:

  • One good turn done by a candidate
  • One warning made by a candidate.
  • Very new users: No specific reason other than wanting to jump in at the deep end and be part of the process.

The only ways to handle such votes are: ask the user if xhe did significant research before voting; ask the user if xhe considers they are fully aware of what adminship is; do nothing. IMO, to avoid drama such comments should best be made on the voter's talk page rather than on the RfA. One solution would be to introduce a threshold for eligibility to vote such as is practiced on other Wikipedias; however, the the threshold for voting at Arbcom elections is already very low and it would therefore be inappropriate to have a higher one for RfA.

Unbundling the tools is a very realistic suggestion, but multiple attempts to do this have failed mainly due to two concerns: more hats to collect (although we are well aware that Kumioko is not a hat collector), and the added bureaucracy in managing the granting (or withdrawing) them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • One thing that does not happen, which I believe should, is that a closing crat has never, as far as I am aware, indented a !vote which they theoretically may have discounted. I think if a crat does decide to discount a !vote it should be indented, which would affect the tally, and leave a record of the kinds of !votes that tend to carry little or no weight.—John Cline (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. GiantSnowman 11:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds useful in a vote but less important in a !vote/discussion Jebus989✰ 11:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
All interesting and valid, but nothing will change. This argument has been going on over 10 years. PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_225&oldid=1271761783"