Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	RfA	Successful	15 Jun 2024	201	0	0	100
Elli	RfA	Successful	7 Jun 2024	207	6	3	97
DreamRimmer	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	31 May 2024	45	43	14	51
Numberguy6	RfA	Closed per WP:SNOW	27 May 2024	5	23	2	18

Current time: 17:38:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Clear as mud

Hey--maybe one of you kind souls can fix poor old Ritchie333's nomination. Some red flag came up saying "Please substitute the parser function immediately" but I don't know what that means, and there was no "subst" with brackets around to remove. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I may have fixed it but I'm not sure. Please check whether I did it correctly--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do wish someone would take a look at the instructions that appear when you are about to transclude an RfA nomination to the page. In my case, I read an instruction as saying "first transclude, then change the date to a week from today" - and the result was that my RfA transcluded with a label saying that closure was imminent, since I hadn't changed the date. Now it sounds as if something weird happened with Ritchie's transclusion also. I don't even know where a person can look to find those instructions - they appear when you are in the act of transcluding. But if somebody techie enough to find them could take a look at them, I think it would be a good idea. This is a more widespread problem than you might think. While I was learning how to wield the mop, I found that a lot of instructions - for example at New Admin School - were outdated. I actually corrected a couple of them myself, even though I was the greenest admin on the block. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on your description, you are describing the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate yourself ("Once you have submitted the RfA, go to the top of the page and edit the end date to reflect 7 days AFTER the day you submitted it, by following the directions in the header source code."). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that sounds like the instructions. I believe they are mistaken. Shouldn't they say before submitting the RfA? I know that I followed those instructions and wound up listed on the RfA page as "closure imminent ". One of my nominators immediately fixed it but I felt silly. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I feel like those directions in the header source code should be somewhere other than the header source code as well, so that people know what to do beforehand without having to dig it out. ansh666 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Please read my description of the problems I had with this process. The instructions have been improved a bit since then, but if the understanding of how to set up timing mechanisms is something that editors should know, shouldn't there be WP:Timers or maybe a section in Wikipedia:Transclusion explaining it? Also, after reading the warning about dire consequences of making any errors at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, a testing page for practising the transclusion of an RfA without the stress of expected perfection on the first try would be helpful. After all, it's not necessary to be an admin onself to nominate someone.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I've not tried this myself but it sounds like a process that could use some clerking to help keep it straight. Would the clerks have to be admins too? If not, the position might be a good one for aspiring admins who could use it to demonstrate competence in managing such complexity. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
              • The problem is that transcluding the nomination is supposed to be a kind of demonstration that the prospective nominee knows what they are doing, so there doesn't appear to be a role for a clerk in the process. (Generally the nominee is expected to transclude the nomination themselves; Anne was unusually nice in doing it for her nominee.) The paragraph Anne linked to above says "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign. If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of WP:RFA, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them." That has an ironic ring to it, because the nomination process does NOT have "clear instructions", per the problems described here by numerous competent admins. I really think someone needs to look at those instructions and fix them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure what position you are referring to. Do you mean the test page? If so, it would just be a spot where people could try transcluding blank RfAs and then deleting them again. The only management might be a bot that regularly reset the page to a default state in case it was left in disarray by the testers. Or do you mean someone who transcludes RfAs for others? About demonstrating competence: In my opinion, it is more important that admins be sensible and familiar with policies than that they be technical experts. An admin with little technical knowledge who knows enough to avoid areas out of his/her skill level or ask for help when appropriate, and is good at (for example) closing discussions based on policy and resolving disputes, is going to be just as beneficial to the encyclopedia as a technical wizard.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • Count me in the list of technically competent people who thought the instructions were unnecessarily convoluted. It seems to be a case of plain old bad design; I don't see a way to follow the instructions as written and not generate the big red error. The instructions say to transclude first and then start the timer, and you can't do both at once, so you'll have a giant YOU JUST SCREWED EVERYTHING UP AND EVERYONE IS LAUGHING AT HOW DUMB YOU ARE staring at you until you make the second edit. Which, of course, you couldn't have previewed or figured out in advance unless you closely inspected Template:RfA. Getting this right on the first try is about as relevant to routine admin tasks as a physics exam is to a baseball game. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an old cliche, but "me too". I'd always got the impression that RfA transclusions were insanely complex affairs and akin to a puzzle to test somebody's admin abilities. In actual fact, they're the same as creating an AfD or DYK nomination by hand, but with a small additional time-dependent template substitution thrown in. I'm sure I could have done it, but as everyone else has said, I did not want to run the risk of ballsing it up and taking 3-4 edits (all with a summary of "fix" or "fix again" or "this should work") because I thought there would be a peanut gallery pouncing on it, saying "Oppose - can't even transclude his own RfA properly. Not fit for purpose". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this: the complexity of transcluding an RfA may be helping to prevent trolls and other clearly unsuitable candidates from wasting our (and their) time - although some still manage it, while I lean towards the opinion that transclusion, particularly of templates, is such an everyday routine process for admins that they should know how to do it (anyone tried to manually start or close an AfD, just for example?). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I remember the days when there were no scripts for starting and closing AfDs, it were all fields round here, you could leave your front door open, and you could buy fish and chips for the whole family and still have change from £5. To be honest though, it wasn't difficult, just tedious. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember the days when the fish&chip van used to come onto our estate and I could get a portion of chips for a tanner: "Six o' chips please!" There weren't so many chippies and take-aways in those days, just as I'm sure the number of AfDs to close has increased dramatically. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, editors tranclude templates and other page elements all the time. However, the RfA tranclusion is more complicated because of the clock-setting aspect, which I have never had to use before or since, and seems to have tripped up a lot of people who went on to become competent admins. There is no explanation of this tricky bit WP:Transclusion, and a candidate or nominator will likely think they are ready for the transclusion if they understand that page. It's like a trick question on an exam so that no one will get a perfect grade. Also, Kudpung, you seem to be saying that in order to save the nuisance of dealing with truly unsuitable candidates, we should prevent candidates whose strength is in people-related areas from applying. But we need more admins willing to close discussions and resolve disputes.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I also find tone of that whole cited section above somewhat irritating. It probably turns potential candidates (included well suited ones) away rather than attracting him. As long as we have more than enough admins that might not matter in practice that much and just be a minor irritation but if we're ever in need fr admins that is certainly not helping.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Anne, No one, but absolutely no one on en.Wiki is more acutely aware of the problems surrounding adminship and its RfA than I am. I'm in my 5th year of looking for solutions and if the complex transclusion is keeping away trolls and idiots it's doing an excellent job. Problem is too many of those simpletons are aparently very capable indeed of transluding their crap RfAs. Thus, IMHO, anyone with the minimum intelligence to be an admin and all it entails, should not find it difficult to transclude thair own RfA. However, because it's a kind of sport to take people's comments out of context, I will hasten to add that I wouldn't dream of opposing a candidate just because their nominator or someobe else transcluded the RfA. At the moment there are more important issues at stake such as closing down AfC once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What kind of trolls is supposed to keep away? I mean is or was their any issue with actual troll rfas? Was the page swamped with pseudo rfas of people who didn't be admins or who were clearly unsuited?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, check out some RfAs and you'll soon see, although many of them get deleted as nonsense before the voting starts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do i find them? The only thing I've looked at is Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) which doesn't look that bad.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea, but I'm not really sold on this argument. Relative to the time wasted by trolls and clueless newbies creating no-hoper articles, the occasional no-hoper RfA is a drop in the bucket. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That was my impression so far (provided i looked at the correct data) hence my posting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with saying that is that the process of transclusion itself, which is often what keeps away inexperienced editors, is not what we're talking about here. It's the timer clock thingy (I don't know how it works either, given my obvious lack of having transcluded an RfA), which to my knowledge is not used anywhere on this project other than here at RfA. I don't see how it's helpful in any way to bury it that deep. The people who aren't serious or experienced enough aren't typically going to read or comprehend the instructions anyways. ansh666 10:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

All in all, I found my RfA to be a far better experience than I had ever assumed it would be when you cross compare it against the examples in Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Perhaps it's because the community has decided that opposition needs well found and reasoned arguments, perhaps it's because everyone else had higher expectations of my abilities than I do, perhaps it's because I ignored all vote comments (all of which, from all sides, were fair comment) .... or perhaps it's a mix of all of these and more. Whatever the case, I can only say from recent events that it seems that RfA is less of a big deal than it once might have been. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It was because you were a top quality candidate, simple as. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the real question there is, what took you so long? ;) Really - if you take out Sarek and me as oddball cases, all the recent successful candidates were obviously qualified ages before they actually ran. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia, what happened was, a couple of people dragged me to RfA kicking and screaming, so I returned the favor by dragging Ritchie to RfA kicking and screaming. And now Ritchie and I have the next target in our sites... --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the text of {{RfA/warn}} to make it slightly less scary, but this whole thing is set up to use a template that uses a template that uses a template that uses a template, and it's too far down the rabbit hole for me to do any more. I think it's {{substchecktop}} that makes it SCREAM AT YOU IN BIG RED LETTERS. But I'm not sure, and I think that template is used in more places than RFA, so I'm not going to screw with it.

In an attempt to automate this, with intricate template switches for every conceivable mistake, we've guaranteed that people are going to make those mistakes; it's an order of magnitude harder than if people just copied the format from an old RFA. I'm not going to get drawn into a long bikeshed conversation at WT:RFA - that way lies madness - but if you want my advice, delete about 95% of the templates used in this process, have more clearly formatted in-line comments, and make it more manual. It would be easier, quicker, and cleaner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudpung, I'm all for keeping trolls and idiots away from RfA, as I'm sure we all are. What we are discussing here is a much simpler issue: a flaw in the transclusion process or its instructions, such that the initial attempt at transclusion does not display properly because it shows the wrong time. That flaw tripped me up; it or a similar flaw caused problems for Ritchie and Anne and probably others. We all got mopped anyhow, it wasn't a fatal flaw, but it shouldn't be there. All I'm asking for is instructions that, when followed, produce a clean transclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but anyone who was seemingly deserving of running for RFA, in my experience, hasn't had the difficulty of transcluding their RFA against them. I'm by no means an expert at templates and transclusion, but I'm fairly competent. On both of our RFAs, other editors lent a helping hand fixing a few little things here and there without any consequence to the process. The only times I've seem a lack of technical knowledge held against a candidate has been when they seemingly lacked experience and the RFA was only one of many examples. Mkdw^talk 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The occasional no-hoper RfA is not a 'drop in the bucket' and I still contend that the complexity of RfA transclusion has the useful side effect of keeping the trolls at bay. However, at the end of the day it's a technical problem, rather than a policy issue that needs a grand debate, so the obvious solution is for someone with the time on their hands and the competence to sit down and completely rescript the whole RfA transclusion process. So instead of us all talking about it and getting nowhere (which is a common ailment of WP management), just someone please just do it or find someone who can. And then we can move on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about something like this: [1] (should open in edit window, so you can see the inline comments). Obviously could use some tweaking, but the general idea is get away from complicated nested templates and pre-formatted front matter (and resulting complicated instructions), and just let people fill in the blanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam, that looks like exactly the kind of improvement I was looking for. I vote to implement it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just transcluded my own admin nomination yesterday and yes, the instructions were unclear enough that I had to go back to past nominations and look at diffs. It's not that complex, but it's really something you want to get perfect the first time, lest people start questioning how carefully you edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Neil. So here's another recent candidate - fully qualified to be an admin and coasting to an easy confirmation - who says the instructions were unclear. What is it going to take to get this fixed? I suggest that Floquenbeam should boldly implement his new instructions, since no one else has seemed to want to tackle it. Seriously, we have identified a real problem here, confirmed by many people; let's not just let the discussion expire and the problem continue indefinitely. If something isn't done, I will be tempted to replace the instructions I quoted above - "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination" - with "The transclusion process is fucked up, so don't feel bad if you get it wrong the first time." --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have some comments regarding the tone of the proposed changes; before any changes are made, if there are no objections, I'd like to make a copy-editing pass. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, some of the other major laguage Wikipedias have automated scripts for transcluding their RfAs. Why not just have a look at those? We don't always need to go off and reinvent the wheel just because someone else does it better ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard thread

A long discussion relevant to RfA is winding down now at WP:AN#On the brink of collapse. I offered to help with one job here, but I didn't get any response there, and if I put any energy at all into fixing the problem, then I'll probably have to give up my job as a serial closer. My thinking is: when someone says "I'd be an admin if only ...", people sometimes discount that, for various reasons. But if we survey the people who actually did become admins and ask them why they chose not to run, say, three months sooner than they did, it becomes harder to discount their feedback ... we did, after all, promote them, so if we weren't taking advantage of their services sooner, that might give some insight into why otherwise qualified people aren't running. Btw, we're now less than a week from the end of the month, so we know that as of June 1, only 5 first-time admins will have been promoted this year. That puts us on track to promote 12 for the year. Everyone knows that, for a variety of reasons, most admins aren't still grinding out a lot of admin work years after their initial promotion, so that figure of 12 represents some much smaller number of projected long-term heavy-duty admins that Wikipedia might pick up as a result of this year's promotions ... say, 3 or 4, max. Clearly there's something going on that's very different from the way things worked in our first decade, and I hope someone will generate some useful data, figure out what's going on, and file an RfC that deals with whatever the actual problems are. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I would run, however it is highly unlikely that I would pass considering my first two attempts were complete failures. Plus, I'm nowhere near as active as some would like, although I never saw how inactivity correlated with poor admin decisions. I think, though I don't have any statistics for it, that wikipedia is not as popular as it was 4/5 years ago. That, and how RfA has a reputation for being brutal, stopping potential applicants. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One big problem that I personally have encountered is that there are several non-admins that I believe are suitable for adminship and would offer to nominate, but I won't, as I don't want to see them get destroyed at RfA and leave, which would deprive us of their very useful service. So the problem isn't just with potential candidates not wanting to run, but potential nominators not wanting to nominate for the fear that the nominee will get their shit wrecked. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this kind of argument is wearing rather thin nowadays. Whether we at WP:RFA2011 actually launched any formal proposals for change or not it certainly sent the right message to those who were determined to disrupt RfA and/or turn it into a drama fest; we're also more active now at telling the trolls where to go with their votes. I think it's more a case that some would-be nominators are afraid of losing face if their nominee fails to get the mop. However, with very few exceptions RfA does what it says on the tin.

It's also interesting to note - something that WereSpielChequers might not yet have noticed - that participation in discussions here at WT:RfA has dropped in direct proportions year on year to the drop in promotions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kudpung here, I'm just not seeing this broken soul destroying process that RfA keeps being referred to anymore. Sure it has a few issues here and there but when was the last time you say a drama filled RfA where a candidate who was good enough didn't receive the tools? Of the RfAs this year candidates have either received the tools or obviously not been qualified, of the two users who had debated RfAs one is still editing as strongly as before their RfA and though the other has dipped that's more likely because they're a student. I think the time of horrific RfAs has passed and I would encourage you to nominate a user if you think they would make good use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also should we be weary of those who want the mop? I don't know how Admin nomination process works, but those seeking power of the mop, might not always be the ones who are best in utilizing it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no Admin nomination process. What there is, is completely informal. It's assumed that those who nominate a candidate will have done their homework. Most candidates with a strong nomination from a respected user will pass, though there have been a few surprising exceptions. Those who are seeking power of the mop are generally self-noms and they soon get caught out by the community, although that does not mean to say by any means that all self noms have a dubious agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone was seriously "seeking the power" they would get most of the boxes checked and then find a respected user to give them that strong nomination. Anyone with sufficient competence and self discipline to pull it off would probably end up making a good admin anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I find saying there is no point in trying a poor substitute for trying.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

What is your strategy to learn about RfA candidates previously unknown to you?

The majority of new RfA candidates are unknown to me prior to their candidacy. I don't know how typical that is but my editing largely revolves around the technical maintaince and upkeep of the project rather that the content curation which may explain why. I'm curious how other editors, admins in particular, go about forming an educated opinion about the candidate and roughly how much time you typically are willing to invest in such a situation. I have my own way, I can mention later. If other people have wondered about this too, it might be worthwhile to craft a page with guidance about how to efficiently form a good opinion on candidates. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I would look at the logs of the user to see if they have tried out and have some familiarity with features like uploading, moving, patrolling. Next I would look at deleted content to see successful nominations for deletion. However I would come down heavily on deletion nominations, that get deleted and then make a comeback. (bluelinked in deleted list). This should also show if the user uploads copyright violations. Also I may look at the last few hundred contributions to see if they are automated or significant. If automated, may as well divide the contribution number by 10, especially if they are from huggle. I expect to see at least one article created. Also the talk page for the user is important, to see what people complain about and also history to see if the user is hiding stuff. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue links in a list of deleted items may be redirects. But otherwise, you describe the routine proceedings to check the "track record" quite well, Graeme. One should also mention the AfD stats (there is a link in the RfA tool box) which is something that's viewed by many !voters, and causes at times controversy as to how evaluate them.

I'm a bit surprised that if an editor flags an article for CSD on the basis of, for example, being a blatant copyvio or an attack page, and then it later gets recreated as a legitimate article, that you'd hold it against them. Similarly, what about articles that are deleted for WP:TOOSOON, but later get created when significant coverage exists? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking if a user is totally unknown to me I ignore the RFA and don't comment. If I've seen them around and/or interacted with them I base my !vote largely on my knowledge of them and their answers to the questions. I do try to look at a selection of random diffs from their edit history, but I don't dig too deeply. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Like you, I usually !vote only if I know the person, or if the vote count is in the "yellow" range. If the outcome is obvious I usually don't pile on unless I have previous experience with them. In the cases where I do decide to !vote, I look for a clean block log and a goodly number of contributions (I would hesitate to support anyone under 10,000). I like to see significant content creation, although I will make exceptions if the person has focused on a particular Wikipedia function and intends to work mainly in that area. I look for helpful AfD contributions, or helpful work in whatever they have identified as their specialty. I look at their answers to questions and people's comments at the RfA, particularly to see if the opposes seem valid. I look for evidence that they have a calm and civil demeanor, that is important to me. If I have a pre-inclination, it is to support. We need admins, and they don't have to be perfect. Oh, and I do take into account who the nominators are; if they are nominated by highly respected admins who have a reputation for vetting their nominees thoroughly, that inclines me toward "support". --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, I would not favor drawing up a "guidance page" for how to judge candidates. IMO one of the strengths of the system is that different people evaluate the candidate in different ways. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

With exception of Wikibreaks and the rare times when I might have missed one that was closed early or I wasn't near an Internet connection for over 7 days, I have systematically voted on every RfA over the past 5 years. My criteria are known to be among the most stringent but they are flexible and on that page I already say a lot on what I think about RfA voting in general (It was the basis for my launching of the WP:RFA2011 project). Depending on who the candidate is and who the nominator(s) are, I spend between 20 minutes and one day researching for my vote.

Like MelanieN, I do not feel it would be useful or even appropriate to draw up a guide on how to judge candidates. If it were, I would have written it but all I wrote was WP:Advice for RfA voters which is intended to address voter behaviour, particularly of new users.

A fairly complete list of the criteria of regular RfA voters is linked at the bottom of WP:Advice for RfA candidates. I think it's good that we all have different criteria, but the RfA process is marred by the high number of votes that come from one-off or drive-by participants, especially the fan/vengeance voters, obvious trolls, and those who just don't have a clue what adminship and RfA is all about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I go back and read their interactions with other editors, especially newer ones that don't understand policy well. That generally tells me everything I need to know about their understanding of policy and their manner of dealing with people, the latter being more important because the former is more easily learned. Chuy1530 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The nomination statements and early pile-on support votes already compose most of my research on a candidate's merits, sometimes even in a pretentious way. I do some further research on their positive traits, then I go critical (not necessarily on negative traits, just not focusing on positive traits anymore). Then, I come up with my final decision. Esquivalience ^t 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

When did this become OK? I have redacted it. I didn't know that it is appropriate for someone with the mop to make a negative statement of myself for making a non-support statement. When did this become appropriate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

i'd say you just proved mastcell's point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Since when is saying that a statement says a lot about a person a negative statement? It did say a lot about you, the redaction even more. Chillum 06:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an argument against the editor, and not the edit, which based on the image on Spartaz's userpage is not on the high order on "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement". My point is the subject of the AfD by their edit count does a great deal of defending certain articles, but doesn't do a great deal of defending other articles (even if they occasionally do so (just not nearly as often)). To say this is why I am neutral, but not opposed, is my opinion.

I do not see why every oppose or neutral opinion must be challenged. It would not be appropriate, or it appears not to be the norm, for there to be a strong force of editors attempting to rebut even a few support opinions, then why must there be a strong effort to go after those editors with neutral or oppose opinions.

Perhaps it would be better than no rebut attempt occur at all. And let the opinions stand on their own. Unless the idea is make editors think they have made a poor judgement, or that they should not be attempting to contribute to the project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I've seen rebuttals for both opposers and supporters. It largely depends whether you fall into the minority of public opinion or not. Additionally, I've seen plenty of editors change their position based upon the subsequent discussion. Further, when "challenges" are made, a lot of people including myself, follow those discussions and in some cases reformulate their position on the candidate. When the community is asked to review an editors body of work to determine if there is a consensus of trust, especially for editors with years of editing history, then not everything can be captured or properly portrayed. Since candidates are largely discouraged from "clarifying" situations that have caused editors to oppose, and the very process of consensus usually requires consensus, then I think there needs to be a mechanism in place. Mkdw^talk 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The "neutral" comment at the RfA was challenged because it expressed a terrible idea: that an editor cannot be assumed trustworthy of the admin tools merely based on their set of favorite articles to edit. This by itself shows very poor judgment but, worse still, the comment obviously had a political bias and was even suggestive of bigotry. It was so confoundedly bad —and violates the free, open, and neutral spirit of Wikipedia so egregiously—that that Abecedare assumed it must have just been poorly worded and therefore offered a gesture of good faith by asking for clarification. Another editor, MastCell, merely took the meaning of the comment at face value and responded by saying the comment "says a lot about RightCowLeftCoast" while seconded the call for clarification. This in no way qualifies as a personal attack under any reasonable definition. Taking such offense that RightCowLeftCoast redacted it from the record shows these things: very thin skin, and unusual quickness to censure others' views and therefore more poor judgment. And since it was confirmed that the quality of the edits were not being questioned ("the edits are fine"), it turns out that MastCell was right. By the way, RightCowLeftCoast, I looked into the edits by the candidate at Talk:Barack Obama. They fall somewhere around #50 in rank by number of edits on that page and a large number of the edits (only 86) are just reversions of vandalism; so whatever implied accusation you were making with "heavily involved" is tenuous too. I am a little bit stunned that you feel like you were being personally attacked after making your comment. You are way off base here and I think you should reflect on it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason said it better than I could have, so I'll simply endorse his post. For the record, RightCowLeftCoast removed my comment—which was obviously not a "personal attack"—in violation of the relevant policy. He didn't bother to notify me of the removal, nor of his decision to discuss my fitness for adminship here, which likewise breaches site etiquette and basic common courtesy. (I became aware of this discussion when Jason linked my username above). I don't want to belabor the point any further, since it's a distraction from NeilN's RfA, but this is very poor behavior and shows poor judgement on multiple levels. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if MastCell is of the opinion that this is a personal attack, but it is as much a question about their statement as their statement was a question about my statement. Apparently I cannot withhold support of someone at an RfA based on the statements above.

By heavily involved it is due to the fact that the editor who is the subject of the RfA had a large number (based on their edit counts, and not the counts of the page total) of talk page edits on those particular pages.

I sincerely hope that "free, open, and neutral" also means tolerating opinions that a specific editor may not agree with; yet my reasoning for not opposing, and not supporting was called out, and my reasoning questioned. I can be neutral about potential admins while not being opposed to them, unless we're saying that neutral is no longer a valid opinion to hold; if it is, then this needs to be stated clearly.

I am accused of bigotry by Jason Quinn. How am I bigoted if I am neutral, but not opposed. It is a tolerant view IMHO. When did support/acceptance=non-bigotry? Are we all suppose to only think a certain way, or remain silent if our opinions do not agree with the majority. If it is, that does not make it "free, open, and neutral".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When replying to comments, please read them first. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you list a fellow editors most frequently edited articles you can sometimes come to interesting but not necessarily true conclusions as to their interests and biases. Some of my most frequently edited articles are ones where I cleaned up old vandalism, watchlisted it and then found myself dealing with many subsequent vandalisms, without actually giving two hoots about the subject. At RFA it is very useful if an editor goes through the candidate's edits and either says "Support, makes some nicely neutral edits on controversial subjects such as x and y" or "early edits to x and y were a bit POV, but in the last few months the candidate seems to have mastered NPOV" or "Oppose, diff1, 2, and 3 are recent POV edits". !voting based on the subject someone edits without checking to see whether the actual edits are good or bad is IMHO unhelpful to the RFA process. I'm reminded of people who vote based on various statistical measures such as edit count or percentage of automated edits, no doubt that sort of !vote takes less time than actually checking a proportion of the candidate's edits; But I fear it makes RFA a less effective way to sort the suitable candidates from the unsuitable ones. ϢereSpielChequers 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

RFCs

I'm pretty sure I want to get more involved. It's asking a lot of Wikipedians to let a closer get involved in any way at all, but it's worked for me before; please say something if you object. I'm going to do absolutely the minimum that seems to need doing, then sit back and see if anything happens. It seems to me the first two steps are gathering data that AFAIK we don't have: how many of the admins who returned from inactivity (i.e. made 30 edits over two months) over the last half year are helping with potential backlogs? And why do so few people run at RfA compared to previous years? (We've got lots of anecdotes, but as social scientists like to say, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" ... to get an answer that people are going to buy, we need to ask a lot of people and tally the answers.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin actions over the past 2 years

Hey Dank. Feel free to nudge me if I can be of any help. I'm currently on a bit of a nomination spree (or rather a nomination request spree) - and would happily help out with other adminship work. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dave! Consider yourself nudged. This is a diff of the list of active admins since Nov 30. (I'm using that date because the chart here is supposedly good up through November.) For some reason, the net number of active admins stopped dropping over the last six months ... so the question is how many of the admins in that diff who returned from inactivity have been having an impact over these six months on backlogs and potential backlogs. Some judgment calls are needed ... do you want to tackle this? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll put something together, see if it's what you're after. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, well after a quick look - I've got a bit of data which might be a starting point - I've displayed it to the right in a graph. Rather than looking at the active admins returning, I've looked at the whole admin group for the past 3 years. The number is how many logged administrator actions have been taken by the entire administrator corp each month for the past 3 years. It's remained fairly consistent throughout 2014, at about 75k per month. Yet, this year, it's picked up to over 100k per month. The massive outlier is an auto script for user-renaming, but otherwise actions have definitely picked up. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As new adminbots come online, I suspect we'll have all kinds of spurts of activity, but that's not where I'm going. The common thread in all the discussions about backlogs and potential backlogs is that there's no common thread: no two people agree in all cases what to do, who should do it, who's likely to do it, or when we can afford to let it slide. Per the part of WP:CONSENSUS that deals with policy, we need a stronger-than-usual consensus in any RfC to be able to do anything at all ... and that's never going to happen if we keep picking RfC questions that everyone disagrees on. This isn't a criticism ... depending on how the first RfC goes, I might be able to say in the closing statement that there's evidence that we've handled this whole mess better than people generally give the community credit for. OTOH, if we're looking at some simple math, there's a chance we can get broad consensus. Last November, we had the simple math ... we were gaining 22-ish admins a year, of which we could expect maybe 7 or fewer to stay focused for years on the critical admin workload, against the roughly 80 admins (net, whether they did admin work or not) who became inactive each year. No one has even suggested that those numbers are sustainable going forward. Over the last 6 months, two surprising things have happened: that 22 per year has dropped to a projected total of around 12, but the rate of net admin attrition (as measured by editing, not button-pushing) has dropped to zero. That might mean that formerly active admins have heard the call and they're coming back to help out in droves ... in which case, we're golden (for now) ... or it might mean they're coming back just to edit, in which case the problem that was significant in November is twice as bad now ... or something in between. If we don't have the answer to that question, then we don't know whether there's a problem to solve. If anyone wants to frame the question a different way, that would be great ... as long as you're framing it so that a broad cross-section of Wikipedians will immediately grasp that there is (or isn't) a long-term problem that does (or doesn't) need action of some sort. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, my projection of 12 new admins for this year is for first-time admins ... we've also had 3 former admins pass RfA this year, more than usual. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my case, I was of the view that the longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more disputes you will uncover, and inevitably build up a closet of skeletons just from forthrightly stating your views. Things didn't turn out as bad as I thought, but there are other candidates who I think would make fine admins but aren't interested in RfA because of concern over past enemies turning up and throwing spanners in the works. Plus, there's a group of people who are perceived as hating admins (I think it's more hating admins who don't contribute to content but block first and ask questions later myself), and nobody really wants to join that "hit list". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds about right. So, multiple choice or free-form? Do we come up with a list of likely answers, including those, to present to the people we're asking, or just ask why they didn't run, and sort the answers into categories later? There are advantages both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dank, I look forward to looking at your data and seeing what you find. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dank, as I've mentioned before, I support your getting involved in guiding discussion, but if you do, I believe you should let someone else close the discussion. isaacl (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If things look promising, we could easily get two more closers ... I'd like that, and it would be fine with me if they make the calls. I'm not going to push for any outcome. But I want to be talking with the closers while they're making the calls ... one reason is that I've read everything everyone has said on this subject for many years, and I think it's easy to slip up in a closing statement if you don't know what's going to push people's "buttons". So ... I want to be on the closing team. I'm happy to stop talking now if that's what it takes. This isn't my first rodeo, and I have a sense of how much rope I've got to operate with (in general, maybe not in this case) ... see for instance User:Dank/RFCs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The answer to the first question looks like it can probably be obtained by a straight analysis of data from Admin stats. But how will data be gathered to answer the second question (about why more experienced editors aren't submitting to RfA's, esp. compared to pre-2010)? --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[inserted] The problem is that people haven't been running for adminship, maybe because of one of Ritchie's reasons above, or they didn't think they'd pass, or they didn't think they had the proper training and experience, or they were happier in whatever niche they had found on Wikipedia than they would be doing admin work (particularly if they had waited long enough that their RfA was likely to go smoothly). I don't have any preference on the polling method ... I just don't want us to waste time trying to solve a problem that turns out to be the wrong problem. All of those different reasons would call for different fixes, if it turns out a fix is needed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The first question posed here is probably simple enough to answer, but what do you do with that answer? The community has no meaningful leverage when it comes to the activities of people who aren't participating in it. Might as well think of returning from inactivity as an essentially exogenous process and focus on matters that can actually be changed by community action. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If it turns out the admins who have come back from a period of inactivity (who are equal in number to those going inactive, since November) represent something new, if there's an unexpected surge of interest by old-timers in helping out in the problem areas, then that does undercut my argument to some extent. (There are other good arguments of course for being supportive of people who might want to help with the workload, but I have to stay silent on all of that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (until I have an actual RfC to close :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading back over all this ... I've said everything I wanted to say, now. Unless there's an emergency, or I said something unclear or stupid, I'll sit back for a while. Isaac is right, and by tradition, I should say as little as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, just one more thing. I'm not trying to stop the discussion of other problems, or saying that declining admin numbers is the only thing I want to look at. I'm saying that we'll never get the necessary broad support unless we tackle the big questions one at a time, starting with the ones that are going to be the most persuasive for a broad cross-section of Wikipedians who don't usually think about this stuff (and may not want to think about it). The problem with talking about adminship is, and always has been, that everyone wants to talk about something different, and that's a self-defeating strategy. See for instance the recent discussions (linked here) on unbundling some of the admin userrights, and vigorous discussions currently at WP:AN and WP:VPI. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've created a structure that may be useful for a future RFC. Each numbered item in the sections can be followed by Support/Oppose/Discuss headers. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Structure

Problem RFAs Too few successful RFAs lately The current status is not good for the future of adminship on enwiki Admin backlog is high Cause Process RFA is more of a vote than consensus The voter base consists of a large number of immature/trolls/fans/drive by voters which changes the outcome significantly RFA is difficult to pass for relatively new contributors: High edit count standards Community wants a candidate to give time for understanding of policies to sink in Community wants more scrutiny of candidates after bad apples like Wifione RFA is difficult to pass for candidates who've spent the time spent by an average successful candidate Singling out of past mistakes Contributions are slanted towards a particular topic/namespace RFA is difficult to pass for veteran editors Working in contentious areas earns a lot of wikienemies who turn up as a team at the candidate's RFA Possible Solution Adapt the current system Encourage more participation at RFAs Create a minimum eligibility requirement for voters Drop the adminship bar (How?) Make a cratchat compulsory at the end of any RFA Create a new system Do away with the voting system, replace it with a section headed discussion about the candidate, thus leading to a better consensus. Representative democracy: Create an elected group of editors who will scrutinize the candidate (Similar to cratchat)

Some thoughts on what Fauzan put above: Under "Cause", 1.2 is absolutely not a problem than I have ever seen (it may have been an issue years ago, but it's not one now). "Causes 2.1 & 2.2" are how the process is supposed to work, IMO – I've been editing heavily for two years, and I'm still learning plenty, so I really don't see how the vast majority of editors with under one year of experience and under 10,000 edits can possibly be well-versed enough in policies to be a good Admin. I haven't seen much evidence of "Cause 2.3" being an issue, though certainly within about the last year there seem to have been a number of spectacular Admin flameouts before ArbCom, etc., so it is something to keep in mind. I do worry some about Causes 3.1 & 3.2 – I think if you're an experienced candidate (see: NeilN), they won't be an issue; but if you're on the "greener" end of things, that's when RfA's seem to turn into a cudgel to make candidates feel bad about their contributions to the project... And I think "Cause 4.1" is perceived as an issue, but I have seen no evidence (yet) that it actually is an issue that's affecting the RfA's that I've looked over. On your "Possible Solutions" end, I think I would only support "1.1" right now, and I think that actually has to come from the Admin class itself. All the other proposed solutions I fear would make things worse. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what IJBall said. The only "problem" identified that I think is a real problem is 1.1, too few successful RFAs. By far the best solution for that is for more of us to make it our personal business to identify people who would be good admins and encourage them to run. Of the listed "causes": RfA OUGHT to be difficult to pass for relative newcomers. As for "people who have been here as long as the average successful candidate" and "veteran editors", RfA is difficult only if they have a checkered past or an unsuitable temperament. In my observation, "old enemies" and "past mistakes" (if they are minor) do not stand in the way of an otherwise qualified editor. And I agree with IJBall that there really isn't a big problem with trolls and vandals at RfA. That's thanks in part to people like Kudpung and others who have worked for years to clean up the process. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Cause #1.2 (Structure) is an extremely accurate description of the main reason why RfA is sometimes not a pleasant place, as anyone who has followed the ills of RfA over many years will be perfectly aware. The fact that it is sometimes not a pleasant place is the reason why the majority of users of the right caliblre are not interested in running for adminship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is it really accurate of recent RfA's though? I gather it was a much bigger factor in the past... But when was the last time that Cause #1.2 was actually a factor in a candidate going down at an RfA (or even having a relatively rough go of it)?... I'm genuinely curious as to when this was a problem, and roughly when it started being not as much of a problem anymore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You've said this a few times in these threads and I went looking for the data underlying this conclusion but haven't been able to find it. I was obviously not here for the WP:RFA2011 project, but a poke through those pages turns up data on the properties of candidates, and on voters in the aggregate, but I don't see any stats on the "trolls and drive-bys" issue (something like, number of annual RfA votes per voter? correlation between number of infrequent voters and unsuccessful candidacies?) that might be compared to current data. Did I miss it or did that conclusion come from something else? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:, @IJBall:, I've said these things many, many times, and not only here on WT:RfA but also in other talk pages and discussed at length over meet ups and at several Wikimanias. Without writing a TL;DR post or an op-ed for Signpost, it would not be practical for me summarise here my and others' many years of research, opinions objective and subjective, and conclusions for those who are late to the party. Don't get me wrong - every new opinion and suggestion is valuable and I accord it utmost attention as I'm sure Dank, Worm That Turned, and WereSpielChequers do too, but the only way to get up to date is to literally take a few hours to read all that was reported and discussed at WP:RFA2011 and read every major RfA of all the ones that both passed and failed over the last 5 years. I don't now if there is anyone who has joined Wikipedia or WT:RfA since is prepared to invest that much time, because as I've said already, even talk in this forum has dwindled at the same rate as the number of RfAs; I don't know exactly what that stat reveals but I'm sure it's significant.

Cause #1.2 might not have greatly swayed the final outcome of many RfA, and as I have stated many times too, RfA usually does what it says on the tin even if it is a week of hell or a walk in the psrk (we get many more of those now, and 100+ supports is a regular occurrence rather than somthing to jump up and down about, but Cause #1.2 is certainly a major contributing factor to the predicament we are in today.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking more for the underlying data than for a summary of it, because data is fun to play with ;) Of the 10 RfAs than ran to completion in 2015:

• Participants !voted in an average of 2.7 RfAs.
• Just under half (46%) !voted in only one RfA.
• The average edit count of the singleton voters is ~32,000. Most are identifiably experienced users.
• Only 15 of the singleton voters currently have under 500 edits. Three of those are alternate or renamed accounts of experienced users.

You can't detect trolling, meanness, or poor research with 15 minutes and a regex, but I would say that the pattern of one-off drive-by participation, where a new collection of participants reset the standards every time, seems to have abated in recent experience. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's some neat data. Very cool, Opabinia regalis... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable about an RFC that tries to shoehorn something as complex as our RFA problem into one tight RFC with only one short subset of the possible problems and solutions are hardcoded into the RFC. I have listed a couple of dozen of the more commonly proposed changes to RFA at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform but wouldn't suggest trying for an RFC that delves into the whole problem - better to focus an RFC on one of the more deliverable reforms and even then I'm not hopeful we can get consensus for reform. The most positive thing about RFA is that the few candidates who do pass often do so with over a hundred supports. I suspect the best solution would be to identify and persuade to run a bunch of candidates who if they ran now would scrape through on about 80% and then turn out to be good admins. The solution to the inflation of arbitrary standards is to find and nominate some candidates who can prove that 5,000 edits and 15 months tenure is still more than enough to qualify a good candidate for the mop (better still persuade more of the RFA !voters to actually check the candidate's edits rather than casting votes based on some arbitrary statistics). ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Was just re-reading everything said this year ... ugh! Anyone who wants to close, please go ahead and volunteer. You'll need every bit of the time between now and whenever we have something to close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'll put my hand up here. I'm more likely to find time to close than actually participate. Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. Reading that again, I made it sound scarier than it is ... some of the tougher RfCs of the last 3 years took months to close ... but it wasn't because closers were working 24/7, it was because closers had different schedules and needed a while to read everything. - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A thought experiment

Yesterday, I thought of an interesting thought experiment, and I'm curious to see how others would answer the question. Let's imagine that before signing up, a new user spends a great deal of time carefully reading every policy and guideline and familiarizes himself with the overall culture here. We'll also imagine that this user is very good at writing. So, when this person signs up, he jumps right in. Now, suppose that this user is able to bring an article to FA status with fifty edits, and he does this for ten articles. So, after about 500 edits, the user has ten FAs to his credit. He also nominates 100 articles for CSD (a total of 200 edits, due to talk page notifications, !votes in 150 AfDs, requests ten page protections at RFPP, makes 50 reports to UAA, and 50 reports to AIV. He does all this with a good accuracy rate. Now, adding a bit of space for a few miscellaneous edits, this totals to about 1000 edits. If he makes five edits per day, he could do all this in roughly 6.5 months. Now, let's suppose that this user runs for RfA. Would he pass or fail? After all, he only has 1000 edits and just over six months of experience. But, on the other hand, he has almost all the other qualifications that we expect from candidates, and perhaps even more so. --Biblioworm 15:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That, to me, sounds like a model candidate Biblioworm, but unfortunately, devoid of reality. Today's rules are that whilst it is desirable to have a candidate who knows a thing or two about how to author a featured article, sadly, it is not essential. What is essential, it seems, is knowing how to appease the Jimbo sycophants among us who couldn't give a toss about article creation and who care more about how to be lovely to other editors. Once they have been seen to do that, they are then given the tools and then continue to ignore article writing, choosing instead to loiter around ANI ready to console whinging editors who complain about incivility during a content dispute. Having wrapped the complainant up in cotton wool, they then turn up at the featured article writer's talk page, eager to administer their first block. The result is that they then gain the necessary criteria to enter the Administrator's mess and guffaw with their fellow newbies over a glass of whiskey. Now obviously, they doesn't apply to every admin, but if you adopt that path, you're certainly onto a winner. Cassianto^Talk 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know that such a candidate is unrealistic. That is why this section's title is "A thought experiment". The purpose was to see if a well-rounded good candidate with a low edit count (because of focus) would be judged based on their merits or a quick spot-check of "experience" and edit count. --Biblioworm 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to be so patronising, I'm well aware of what the section is called. I was just pointing out that sadly that sort of candidate doesn't seem to exist. Cassianto^Talk 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to AGF, but I'm sure many of us would be suspicious of a "new user" who demonstrates an uncanny ability not only to edit but to write articles and get them to FA, request page protection, report to UAA and AIV, tag for deletion, and comment at AFD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only think of a handful of editors who tick those boxes. Old-school admins such as Wehwalt, Chris and Casliber spring to mind immediately, and of course, now we have the newly elected Ritchie333, who I think will be very good. Cassianto^Talk 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Very true. The user would probably fail just for being competent. I've always wondered why we greet constructive, capable newbies with suspicion, SPIs, and checkusers rather than trying to retain them. Of course, such a candidate as I mentioned is unrealistic fantasy, and would likely never happen (not even most experienced user do all that). As I mentioned in a comment above, it was intended to be a metaphor for a focused, well-rounded candidate who manages to be productive with relatively few edits. This could, for instance, apply to those candidates who improve articles with large, sweeping edits rather than small ones in rapid succession, as some prefer to do. --Biblioworm 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If such a user was to exist and they were able to turn around a featured article in only 50 edits, my only question would be to ask if they had been here before and were in fact a banned user. I don't think a fish out of water could get to grips with policy and writing within 50 edits. Cassianto^Talk 16:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I agree with Melanie – if a candidate magically appeared with only 1,000 edits, but exactly 1,000 of the "right" edits, I'd be very suspicious and thinking to myself "block evading troll"... While this is an interesting thought experiment, I don't think it reflects anything close to what really does happen. Even someone "savvy" in the ways of the internet isn't going to immediately show up at Wikipedia knowing exactly what needs to be done (and how to become an Admin!!). That's why I think, in reality, 10,000 edits is the more realistic benchmark before considering anyone to be an Admin (it'll take 10,000 edits before people even know how to do GA, FA, AfD, etc.) – and, on my end, I'm starting to think it's really more like 20,000+ edits before you're really "there"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. I only have 7.5k edits and already have two GAs (short, admittedly, but a GA is a GA) and seven DYKs, with one currently pending. I've also extensively participated in (and understand) various administrative aspects of the site. I'm currently researching for certain articles I want to work on, with the intention of ultimately becoming much more content-focused. So, I disagree that thousands upon thousands of edits are required to be a good, clueful editor. --Biblioworm 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think my point is that, even with 7,500 edits, you probably don't know all the subtleties and vagaries of the policies and guidelines. I know I don't – I am still coming across stuff either, 1) I thought I knew, but didn't know (or didn't know in enough detail), or, 2) just plumb didn't know!! There's no way somebody with just 1,000 edits, even "1,000 of the right edits", is going to know "all the right stuff" either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any user really knows all the minutest details of policy. That's an unrealistic expectation of a candidate. --Biblioworm 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, somewhere between "well versed" and "very well versed" in policies and guidelines, then. Sure, it's unrealistic to expect someone to know all of them. But an Admin needs more than a superficial or cursory knowledge of them, and I don't think you can possibly get to the required knowledge level until you've been poking around here for a while (i.e. a year or more, and probably more)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more than 50 official policies and a couple hundred guidelines (not including WP:WikiProject advice pages that may be treated more or less like guidelines). I don't think that any human has ever read them all. Apart from the basics of the core policies, what admins and other good editors actually need is (a) to know how to find out what the "rules" are, and (b) a willingness to do so. It's more important to "know that you don't know" the policies and guidelines in detail than to know the ever-changing pages themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW article creation and content expansion are not the only criteria for becoming an admin. Many of those who vote in RFAs also expect participation by a candidate in AFDs, CFDs etc. Some also like to see involvement in RFCs. While none of these is an absolute necessity it is difficult to show that one has an overall understanding of how Wikipedia works if one has only created articles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, 1000 edits is pushing it. (Does this person never, ever make a typo? Or 'waste' an edit on a dumb post like this one?) But I'm pretty sure that back in the mists of ancient history 2006, people with six months and 2000-2500 edits and a content-heavy record were passing RfAs without a problem, and most of us turned out fine. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that a) users who passed RfA in a time of higher 'standards' turned out to be systematically better admins, or b) learning the policies, guidelines, and common practices that actually matter has gotten any harder.

If I were going to put anything in the 'causes' section in the above thread, it'd be that the apparent standards for new admins have unnecessarily inflated beyond the available volunteer time of otherwise capable candidates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the flip side of that is: just because this is a "volunteer" project is no reason to lower standards. But it's a fair point – ultimately, the people who will be the best candidates for Admins are those who have... more than the profile of just a garden-variety "volunteer". Which may end up being a problem for a "volunteer" project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Its a tough question, but if the entire community can't find anything wrong with the editor, including at the almost certain to be filed SPI, I would support. I have only once opposed an editor requesting a permission for being too good at policy for their edit count, and that was for edit filter manager; that editor has since passed RFA, and I would have supported them if I hadn't missed it. The previous editing question was a major source of opposes, though they had many many more edits than suggested in the hypothetical. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Two words: hat collecting. ansh666 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

From who? --Biblioworm 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your hypothetical candidate. I don't think anyone would just do that without a clear goal of becoming an admin. ansh666 23:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just a thought: if anyone were really good enough to achieve 10 FAs in 500 edits, why the heck would they want to mess around with a mop? The best content writers are the kings and queens here. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to those who step up to look after reverting vandals, spotting and dealing with copyvio, shutting down edit wars, deleting garage band articles, smoothing out squabbles and all that, but none of that is really the big deal with Wikipedia. The big deal is that there are fine articles that people find on the top page of a Google search, or can jump into from the Kindle reader on an iPad, and learn stuff. They had to get written. So I think the big question in this thought experiment is: do we give too much recognition to adminship as a status, and not enough to a great track record in content? (By the way, many of those fine articles never get nominated for GA/FA. That they get written is what matters.) --Stfg (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• I think hat collecting is the pretty obvious motivation of such a track record, or at least an unhealthy ambition to become an admin. I'm always extremely suspicious of new(ish) users who start making an undeniably prominent participation in meta areas. Often they start quietly at the VP, then go through ANI and then Arbcom (as an uninvolved editor) then end up commenting here at WT:RfA. It generally takes RFA reform-obsessed users like me and a tiny handful of others who regularly frequent those area (or at least watch them) over many years, to recognise these trends. I'm still a firm believer that people who are genuine admin material are the ones who came (at least at first) to add content and/or create new articles rather than to police the project from the very beginning of their Wiki careers.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• A user that is willing to read (or already knows) most of Wikipedia's 200+ policies and guidelines, knows about AfD, NPP, etc. in his/her first 1,000 or so edits, uses his/her prolific writing skills for solely unpaid writing (who would take the time to promote 10 articles to FA in 500 edits), and acts so precociously is either a sockpuppet or hat collector. Esquivalience ^t 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• The only person I can think of who was like this was Pastor Theo, registered to admin in less than six months. And of course he turned out to be a sock. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• For all the comments about shooting down "non content creators", absolutely no one brought that up at my RfA. My significant content contributions at the time were the following; not starting but writing most of Zoya Phan, inau, and Autobiography of a Geisha, and creating the short article Noh Poe. Yeah, I added a couple of sentences to a few articles here and there (e.g. Mariano Rivera, Chihiro Iwasaki), but that was it and I openly said as much then. Why I got no trouble at all, as opposed to a great deal of fine candidates (I'm happy to give names), I couldn't tell you; all I know is that I'm not so remarkable that this should be the case. As of yet I haven't been a significant contributor to a single DYK, GA, or FA, and I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future (I couldn't possibly care less about some arbitrary designation of what's "the best", and as to the article I've put by far the most effort into I have absolutely no intentions of ever submitting it to any of these processes because, for reasons that should be fairly obvious, even if it qualifies I'd prefer it to remain obscure and low profile). As far as I can tell I've done very well as an admin "despite" this, and I fail to understand why anyone else would be different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You Blade, are just one of that rare breed of Wikipedians that is the almost perfect Sysop material, that's why your RfA was so successful. The trolls and anti-admin brigade of that era stayed away from it - probably because they couldn't justify making any of their snide and snarky comments, and there was an excellent turnout of highly experienced editors who must have been seeing you around a lot or appreciated your hard work on some complex meta projects that you and I were trying to box through. It was just a shame that one isolated editor (someone I know personally and whose work I appreciate and he's actually a really nice guy) dropped a single fly in the ointment that became rather a long oppose thread. I wasn't so lucky on my RfA although I also finally passed with flying colours and some of the noisy ones (including an admin or two) have since been desysoped, but I hadn't really done a lot of content work either, and I certainly haven't done much since ;) We need more candidates like you - can you help us find them? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a couple of people in mind, whether or not they're willing to do it is another matter. I hope I can convince at least one of the users I'm interested in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

IPs don't belong here

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.

---

Part of correcting the RfA process is to keep it as a matter relegated to the Wikipedia community and not open to the general public. IPs fall into the latter category...if they want to become members of our community then they need an account. Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people as an essay states that IPs may not participate in RfA at all but under the heading Expressing opinions on the main RfA page, it states "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA..." <== That needs to be removed. IPs are not Wikipedians because they have chosen to edit but not join our community. I have no problem with IPs editing and commenting in article space and other places on the Wiki but participation in RfA needs to be confined as a benefit to those who have actually joined our community. That would go a long way towards preventing the disruption in this process. IPs commenting here are generally IP socks, indeffed/banned editors or possibly legitimate editors avoiding scrutiny.

I would like to see the main RfA page amended to exclude IPs and "new" editors. Thoughts?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• There is a recent discussion on the topic at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 232#IPs: This is getting ridiculous.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Poll

• I could support being quick with semi-protection at RFA when we get IP disruption, but we should accept constructive IP comments, and not preemptively protect or ban them from the whole process. While we shouldn't make RFA a hazing process, at the same time, future admins are very likely to be targeted by abusive IP editors based on their admin work, and so it seems odd to be overly protective during the RFA process. Monty₈₄₅ 13:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Since this has turned into a !vote, let me identify my comment above as an Oppose. Monty₈₄₅ 16:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support IP ban at RFA's - per proposer BH, who makes a compelling case. Jusdafax 13:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I could support limiting IPs to commenting only and not !voting - however closing 'crats should be able to disregard any IP/'new' editor who they feel are !voting with poor intentions. GiantSnowman 14:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For clarity, IPs already cannot !vote. I'm looking to curtail disruption. In the three most recent RfAs which passed as well as the one that ends soon, the majority of IPs were disruptive (several still being blocked). In the thread that kelapstick links to above, JamesBWatson brought up excellent concerns about new accounts. I'm glad that I also mentioned above that "new" editors should be excluded as well. I believe that semi-protection should become standard to prevent new users as well as IPs from participating. Our protection policy disallows preemptive protection for article space and certain other areas but does not exclude preemptive protection from others such as the main page, user pages of deceased Wikipedians etc. Those are full-protected but I'm thinking that semi-protection would be good for the candidate's RfA page. Let IPs and new users comment on the candidate's RfA talk page if they have something constructive to say...and then semi-prot that if it becomes too disruptive there.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I don't think IPs should participate in any way at RfA. An RfA is a way for the community to decide who they trust with the tools. Someone who has deliberately chosen not to be a member of the community should not participate IMO. I believe enwiki is the only wikipedia that allows IPs to have any role at all in the RfA process. And what do we get with this laissez-faire policy? At a recent RfA, that of User:Ritchie333, there were three separate questions from IPs, and it turned out that all three of them were from the banned "Best known for IP," a longtime enemy of Ritchie's. But... having expressed my opinion, I should note that this same topic was discussed only last month. The proposal was at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 234#IP participation at RfA. It was closed as unsuccessful but was quickly followed by Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 234#IP participation at RfA: observation. So even though I think RfAs IPs should be excluded from any participation at RfA, and enough other people agree that the topic keeps coming up, I have to concede that this proposal does not have consensus at present and should probably be dropped. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "So even though I think RfAs should be excluded from any participation at RfA"...you mean IPs? :)
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Hadn't had my coffee yet. 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • I should add: I agree with Berean's suggestion that the ban should also apply to brand new (non-auto-confirmed) accounts. That's a new idea, and it's a valuable contribution to the discussion. Anyone who registers a new account and immediately goes straight to the RfA pages is not a new user. They are likely a sock, or an IP evading the IP ban. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support I have mixed feelings about IPs. Allowing somebody to edit an article without a stumbling block of registration to fix minor typos and things, that's fine. If you want to take part in the admin side of things, you should register. It's not hard. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• In order to properly achieve consensus on this, please ensure to advertise this discussion. Since many editors have long taken this page off their watchlist, the discussion should (at least) carry an RFC tag and be listed on CENT and at one of the pumps in order for any result to be considered legitimate. –xeno^talk 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per proposer's rationale, and cogent observations by MelanieN. RfA is a discussion among members of the Wikipedia community, and if one wants to participate in RfA discussions, one should take the small step of joining that community. It is a very small step, and might even encourage a few fence-sitters to register. Moreover, when one is a registered user, that user's account comes with a public history that allows us to include the perspectives, biases and past actions associated with that account when we consider how much weight to attribute to that user's opinions expressed at RfA. Bottom line: as I've said many times before, membership has its privileges, and participating in RfA discussions should be one of them. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Question – Would the ban of IPs just cover the "main" page of an RfA (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NeilN)? Or would it include the Talk page (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/NeilN) as well?... I can definitely support the former. If it includes the latter as well, I'll need to think about it some more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the latter as well. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think so, kelapstick. Berean's proposal clearly says, "I would like to see the main RfA page amended to exclude IPs and "new" editors." IMO there's no reason to ban anyone from the talk page, and I don't see that as part of the proposal. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you are correct, I misread what IJBall wrote. No it would not be extended to talk pages.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as long as this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." Otherwise don't let IPs do anything, require that every post be from a registered account. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, because I am automatically against anything that is justified by the tribalistic meme "not (a) Wikipedian(s)". I'd hazard a guess that there are a half dozen IP editors who have contributed to this encyclpedia more than any of you. I don't understand their refusal to create an account, but saying they're "not Wikipedians", with no objections from the peanut gallery, makes me kind of not want to be one either. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose We don't allow IPs to support/oppose at RFAs due to obvious sock/meat-puppetry and vote-stacking concerns. But why would we reject potentially constructive input or evidence about a candidate, just because the person providing it doesn't have a wikipedia account?! Also keep in mind that IP-editors are certainly affected by who we choose as admins, and if a candidate systematically mistreats IP-editors, we would want to know that at an RFA. Other participants at an RFA can use the input when deciding whether to support or oppose, as they see fit. And outright trolling (like in the current RFA) is most easily dealt with on an RFA page that is typically watched by dozens of experienced users,, admins, and bureaucrats who can revert, block, or protect (ideally for very short periods) if necessary. Also second what Floq said. Abecedare (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" includes in its remit the ability to comment on RfAs. We (generally) do nothing preemptive to stop IPs vandalizing articles so why should this be different?  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Electing an administrator is a privilege far greater than just making edits. I think any editor who wishes to even comment in the process should register. It is not like having to provide documents to cross a border or registering to vote. Fylbecatulous talk 16:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per GregJackP, Floq and Abecedare. It is relatively easy to semi-protect a page when there is excessive disruption so this isn't a serious enough problem. It is worth noting that anyone can edit the encyclopedia and that becoming a registered user is merely a convenience. And, of course, when the sock drawer can't stay shut as in the case of the current RfA, it tells us that the candidate is doing something right and will likely make a good admin. All information is useful information!--regentspark (comment) 16:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom and others. The argument that it goes against the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" philosophy doesn't make any sense to me, because RfA is not part of the encyclopedia; it's a governance mechanism. On that argument, you might as well say that IPs can delete articles. Hell, this is no more than a proposal for automatic semiprotection of RfAs. --Stfg (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Struck my support. Opposes are somewhat convincing. --Stfg (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Restored my support on realising what's going on here. It's not a question of whether IPs are as much people as accounts are. Accounts are accounts, not people, and IP addresses are IP addresses, not people. Neither are people. It's not a question of what kind of people we allow to voteedit the RFA page, but what access mechanisms we allow people to use when they votedo so. Account names can simply be meaningless numeric strings if the account owners want; it's more anonymous than an IP, since an IP can be geolocated. The notion that Wikipedians should be able to voteask questions and discuss other editors' votes on the RFA page without signing into an account in good standing seems absurd to me. I also object to some of the ABF that's been expressed by the opposers. Please forget the notion that people are bad people just because they disagree with you. --Stfg (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  They already aren't able to vote. That's not what we're discussing. We're discussing whether they're even allowed to discuss. —Cryptic 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, Cryptic, you're right of course, and I've refactored my comment accordingly. I still support keeping all IP edits from the RFA page. More often than not, the questions and replies are hostile and disruptive, and the use of an IP address probably intended to evade scrutiny. (With others here, I dislike the whole idea of unregistered editing anywhere on Wikipedia. But that's another issue.) --Stfg (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - administratorship should be a community decision, and getting an account = joining the community. Also, easy to implement by semi-protecting. So, makes sense and easy to implement. Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC) (would want to consider this more, especially in light of comments from Dank. Jytdog (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC))
• Closer's comment. My preference would be to close this RfC now, with no prejudice against reopening a related RfC after we've had some discussion on the opposers' points. I've never closed an RfC early before; roughly speaking, my arguments for doing it are: 0: Even from the short discussion so far, I think it's likely there's a way to give both the supporters and the opposers the main things that they're looking for; 1: It's very easy to misinterpret the wording of the RfC, and that misinterpretation may make it less likely that the larger community will respond to future RfCs; 2. The opposers are on very solid ground, with policy-based arguments that trump some of the other arguments, and 3. It's entirely possible that, no matter what the outcome is, the RfC will have no lasting effect on RfA, but may contribute to an atmosphere where productive editors feel unappreciated and stop editing.
• So: is there any objection to closing this RfC and continuing the discussion without the RfC and the WP:CENT notice? - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I object. Please let the discussion run. I see no more validity in the opposers' "policy-based" objections than the opinions expressed in the supporters. This is democracy in action; don't try to derail it. It's a very healthy discussion to have. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • With one oppose and no supports to my unusual request, I don't feel comfortable closing it up yet, but that saddens me, that is, I feel a sense of loss here; I hope others will think about what Floq and I have said and consider supporting my request. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • support early close. Dank has shown good judgement on contentious, community-wide issues like this. We should allow him to shape the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dirtlawyer1, this needs to run its full course. I oppose an early close. GregJackP Boomer! 18:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. It's too late to stop it at this point, and I've had much more than my 15 minutes in the spotlight lately, so I won't close it, or comment further. - Dank (push to talk) 02:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see any point in keeping the RFC or CENT advertisements going, but removing the RFC template (which Bearean can do at any time, should he wish to withdraw the question) doesn't mean that the discussion itself needs to stop. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I know it can seem like they are few and far between but there are IPs that have been productive editors who ARE part of the community over the years. Conversely, there have been plenty of registered editors who have not had the communities best interest at heart. WikiP does not require registration and that applies to the entire project. Along with temp protection the {{spa}} template is always available for use. MarnetteD|Talk 17:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - As per previous editors, IPs are not exactly members of the community, except that many IPs who express strong opinions are not members of the community because they are likely to be socks. The right of IPs to edit should not be a right to edit everywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, pretty much exactly per Floquenbeam. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support in light of the clarification posted to my question above – as long as IPs can still comment on the Talk page, I'm comfortable with them not being allowed on RfA "main pages". I mean, let's face it – they're already barred from voting (yes?), so it doesn't make much of a difference. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll condition my support in the same way as IJBall: as long as IP users have the ability to edit the candidate's RfA talk page and bring relevant facts to light there, I see no reason why they should be permitted to edit a candidate's RfA page. It is the difference between choosing to join the community and not. Direct participation in RfAs, either by !voting or discussion, should be one of the small privileges of community membership. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Some IP editors are effectively part of the community with their input. I do understand the concerns about them actually voting but nothing beyond that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose semi-protection may be cheap, but it's not free. As long as IPs are allowed to contribute to Wikipedia, they should be allowed to contribute to the RfA process. While it is entirely logical that they not be able to actually cast a support, neutral, or oppose, they should be able to ask (valid) questions, and not be mandated to do it on the talk page. We are able to block and protect as required, but I don't see the need to preemptively stop IPs. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No basis for the proposal. No requirement for a user to sign in or register. Minor4th 18:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment on a comment above: WikiP does not require registration and that applies to the entire project.. That's not true. IPs can't create articles, and they can't !vote at RfAs, and I imagine there are other restrictions. This is simply proposing one more. --MelanieN (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose this shameful, elitist proposal. IPs already can't cast a !vote at RFA, now we're going to tell them "go away, no matter who you are or what you have contributed to this project, if you don't have an account you aren't a real Wikipedian and your questions or comments are worthless". Really? I don't want to be a part of a Wikipedia that would do that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, they can still comment on an RfA's Talk page. This really is not much of a change, at all. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Oh, sure, they can still comment on another page that nobody looks at, that is used as a dumping ground for flame threads from the RFA itself. That won't imply that we think they are just worthless pieces of shit whose opinions don't matter at all... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Beeblebrox, you are wrong. Look at the stats for NeilN's RfA talk page. The talk page was seen 724 times and has 81 watchers still. The main RfA candidate page was seen 4735 times. It is hardly a page that no one has seen.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose what would Jimbo think? An encyclopedia "anyone can edit".... Registration is and should be optional. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  IPs are treated like second-class citizens (or worse) over at the good old reference desks, they are generally viewed suspiciously, hunted down, and treated as persona non grata, regardless of their contributions. Some users there seem to use it as a playground to chase and belittle the contributions of our IP editors, ironically while some named users contribute nothing but personal commentary to the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Beeblebrox and this is shunting them off to a talk page where 90% of contributors will not see them. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  Also it gives me no confidence that IP users will be able to comment on talk pages, when at the latest RFA the talk page was semi-protected the day after the only IP who had caused any disruption had been blocked. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  You are either confused or misrepresenting things. It was protected less than 12 hours before it finished. And it was disrupted on:

  • June 3 disrupted twice by 87.81.147.76
  • June 3 disrupted talk page (87.81.147.76)
  • June 5 (no diff because it was oversighted) by 104.156.240.143 but this is the person who blanked AN with the edit summary "i like boobies :D"
  • June 6 by an admitted sock different IP (101.190.36.129)
  • June 6 (87.81.147.76)
  • June 6 talk page (87.81.147.76)
  • June 7 (87.81.147.76) less than 12 hours to finish. I semi-protected less than an hour after the last post. Not a single one of those IPs or any other IP for that matter contributed anything constructive.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  We are talking about different things, the only disruption on the talk page was from 87.81.147.76, yet it was semi-protected after that IP was blocked. The other disruption was on the main RFA page. My comment above was only about the talk page, not about the main RFA page. Davewild (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I started a thread on this subject in April although it was a discussion, not a vote. My concern wasn't voting (because IP votes get quickly removed) but many of the candidate questions, and sort of hostile questions, in the RfA were from IPs. I had the feeling that they might be editors who did have user accounts but wanted anonymity to ask the candidate very challenging and difficult questions. If this is the case, I don't support it as an editor should be willing to be identified if they are going to ask hard-ball questions.

But they could have been blocked or banned editors, too, there is no way to know without CUs. They were the kind of questions though where any answer offered could be criticized, sort of no-win questions, so I was arguing that IP accounts can discuss the RfA but not post questions. But, like this discussion, people had all sorts of different opinions and there was no consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is nothing about being an IP that prevents you from making a valid point in an RfA. To handle people who use IPs to avoid being identified as the questioner, I would not hold it against a candidate who chose to not answer a question or require it be "endorsed" by an active user if it seemed likely the questioner was attempting to avoid identification. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest oppose: It's much easier to track down IP socks, as all you need is a geolocation and some behavioral evidence; with multiple users, you need a CU. Also, assuming that an IP participating in RfA is acting in bad faith goes against WP:AGF, which this proposal does. Esquivalience ^t 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  At my RfA, I answered two IP questions in good faith and ignored the third as it was a "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question. I don't believe tracking IP socks is easy, maybe if you do a huge rangeblock and forget collateral damage, but I don't think that's working for JarlaxleArtemis / Grawp. I recall a report on Wikipediocracy (I forget the thread) where a now-retired editor tried some fixes as an IP and was shocked at the graveyard of vandalism and warning templates on the IP's talk that had nothing to do with him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm going to breakdown my oppose for two reasons. IPs are Wikipedians and I think bringing that into question is almost an entirely separate RFC. Generally speaking, in my experience of participating at RFA over the years, IPs have for the most part been a negative force. They're almost always trolls or editors trying to comment anonymously. I can only think of a few times where it was a legitimate IP, had a solid editing history, and they were actively participating in the discussion (not voting). A ban would save the community time and headache but the fundamental principal of sweeping all the IPs into this rule is not what Wikipedia is about to me. If we were blocking scores of IPs and protecting the RFA talk pages on a consistent basis, then maybe we would need to examine the issue again. At the moment, I just don't see this being a large enough issue to the RFA process that it needs this type of fix. Mkdw^talk 20:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - The arguments that you (the proposer) have made are very weak. You say that "if [editors] want to become members of our community then they need an account," and that "IPs are not Wikipedians because they have chosen to edit but not join our community," but this is only your opinion, one that is not shared by the community. Wikipedia:Wikipedians says that "Wikipedians or editors are the volunteers who write and edit Wikipedia's articles, unlike readers who simply read them. Anyone—including you—can become a Wikipedian by boldly making changes when they find something that can be improved." Hence editors who choose to contribute without creating a username are still Wikipedians, no less so than those who edit under a username. Anyone can write essays like Wikipedia:IP addresses are not people, and these essays do not have to go through the kind of community scrutiny and consensus-building process that the content at Wikipedia:Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship have gone through, which is why the former has content that is at odds with the latter two.

  You have provided no evidence of the disruption that you allege IPs are causing, nor anything to show that these problems are solely because of unregistered editors. You mentioned "IP socks, indeffed/banned editors or possibly legitimate editors avoiding scrutiny", yet all such editors can escape scrutiny more easily by creating an account rather than revealing their IP addresses. Unregistered editors already cannot vote in RfAs, and are otherwise bound by the same restrictions that affect registered editors. Criticism and comments on proposed administrators should be judged on the merits of the comments themselves, not those who made them; why should a candidate escape scrutiny just because the said scrutiny is by an unregistered editor? --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not think it is fair to lump all IPs into the same bad editor group. Some editors may also be logged out for w/e reasons. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose IP editors are part of the community too. I don't dispute that there may have been an RFA or two where this has been an issue, I don't remember those RFAs but I don't follow every RFA. However I'm not aware of there being a sufficient problem to merit such a solution. Happy to review my position if someone produces stats to indicate we have a significant problem here. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've been trying to figure out what exactly this proposal is meant to accomplish. IPs already can't vote here, so that's a non-issue. Interacting with IPs is one of the few things that all administrators have to do, so insulating the candidate from them is actively counterproductive. If there's feeling that early IP comments will poison a discussion, the problem isn't with the IP; it's with the logged-in users whose research consists solely of reading previous votes at RFA. We'd be better off banning them from RFA instead. —Cryptic 21:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Not because I think IP contributions to RFAs are particularly helpful (most of them are not), but because I don't see the problem this is trying to solve. Any disruption to an RFA can be quickly dealt with using simple protection, which is pretty much what always happens. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose IP's normally are people, and I suspect that only IP with people behind them are editing on these pages. (I am on of the admins that blocks the non-people IPs.) The process should be as open as possible. If any comments are truly offensive they can be removed. I do not think that disruptions is limited to IPs only. We should assume good faith and allow their contrubition where possible. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I was initially inclined to support this, but after thinking about it a bit, I believe that restricting IP comments to the talk page will more likely reduce the amount of helpful IP participants - the ones who wish to stir up drama or whatever are more likely to go the roundabout way of commenting on the talk page. ansh666 22:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear: I support a full ban and oppose a partial ban (i.e. can post on talkpage). ansh666 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the reasons Abecedare has articulated clearly above. WJBscribe (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Anyone Can Edit, the most important tenet of this site. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 22:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support due to inherent sock puppet security issues. I also think all IP editing should be forbidden, for what it's worth. Registration is free and easy. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose We are the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and I see no reason why IPs should be prevented from making constructive contributions to RFA discussions. Also, I know that there are a number of IP editors who have made extensive contributions without ever creating an account, and it seems rather inappropriate to just write them off as not being members of the community. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Four words: IPs are editors too. And all editors have the right to discuss what they believe is right for the encyclopedia. Sure the system could be abused, but we must always assume good faith. Besides, we have plenty of IP editors who are experienced editors. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose IP editors are not an underclass. The abuses of a few individuals should not result in a stigma against the entire group. Altamel (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's not a major issue, as IP editors can post to the talk page if they have legitimate concerns. However, I don't think they should have to resort to this by default. They're still members of the community, even if they don't have a user account. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - actually disruptive (questions/comments) should get removed, whether by IPs or registered accounts. Otherwise, that IPs also float in water is not relevant. It was asserted that IPs are generally people engaging in bad behaviour, but no evidence of this was offered. I assume that's because it's just a superstition. WilyD 11:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  I assume you haven't noticed the disruptive or bad-faith IP contributions at the three most recent successful RfAs. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  To make it simple, here is what I'm talking about : here, here, ESPECIALLY here, here (and a follow up here) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  data ain't the plural of anecdote; beyond that, those examples show exactly how wrong-headed this approach is - bad faith actions were removed for being in bad faith, which is exactly why they should get removed; not because of some sort of bigotry towards the class of editor in question. WilyD 07:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Emphatic support — I agree with User:Carrite that anonymous editing should not be allowed. At the very least, anonymous input into decision making should be prohibited.David Cannon (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Emphatic oppose: The very fabric of Wikipedia is based on the absurd notion that we have an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone. Let that sink in for a minute. The moment you click "edit this page" you become a member of the community. Some have more recognition than others, but an IP is no less a contributor than someone with an account. A very significant swath of the project exists because of the hard work of IPs. Demonizing them helps nothing, and actively works to harm the project. Sure, have an account to vote; we have to avoid stacking. But to comment? Absolutely not. Completely antithetical to what we are trying to do and have done for years. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it is frustrating to see off-site agitators and other trolls periodically disrupt processes while hiding behind pseudo-anonymity of an IP address rather than use their regular accounts (assuming they aren't blocked/banned), it is still important that legitimate unregistered editors be given the opportunity to speak. Semi-protecting the page, as happened in the incident that led to this discussion, is the preferable option, imo. And while that would have the same result of largely disenfranchising an IP editor who wishes to leave a good faith comment, we can at least control that on a case by case basis rather than deny all in a blanket prohibition. Resolute 15:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. IPs are human too. They are completely a part of the community and often interact with people who would be admins. Their perspective on an admin candidate can be valuable and shed light on how the person in question treats those who are vulnerable. I reiterate my comments here and here. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Voter profiles#Comparison RfA other Wikipedias. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, against the unlikely utility of an editor that is currently in ill-odor, or an editor in fear, needs to be a whistleblower and drop us a hint/pointer/evidence that someone is not as appearances would seem. Yes, this is the same as saying we must accept the balderdash the haters and trolls dish out. But we need the escape hatch for "just in case". Makes me sick, but do you really want to enable the situation "I tried to tell you guys, but no..." (which I've seen happen at WP). Shenme (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Shenme that wouldn't happen. All the IPs have to do is leave a note on the candidate's RfA talk page. It would certainly be seen. No one is attempting to silence them; the idea here is to prevent IPs from disrupting the candidate's primary RfA page which is what happens most of the time.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support given Berean Hunter's reminder that 'speaking' (on talk pages) is not impeded by saying IPs can't !vote. Shenme (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support IP editors should not be allowed to participate in the background running of the site. They can add (poorly sourced) content, and that's it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It is reasonable to limit IPs from doing certain things, like participate in Arb hearings, etc (BTW, I'm the original author of the essay that is misquoted once or twice above). RFA is one more area that would be reasonable to exclude them. We are here to write articles, and IPs are free to write articles (except those protected due to vandalism, which is often done by IPs, ironically). There are no "rights" here, for any of us. To restrict certain processes to registered users is not only reasonable, it is pretty much how every website in existence operates, so doing so here would be far from extraordinary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Beeblebrox. Reading this proposal actually made me angry: "members of our community"!??! I thought for a moment that it had to be a troll, but I see it was made in good faith. :( ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Too often IPs are mere shields for the cowards among us without the backbone to leave comments under their actual accounts. It's a shame that leaves out the prolific editors who choose not to register. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:IPs are human too is an essay that states that IPs are given the same rights as registered editors in the writing of Wikipedia. It basically says that IPs are also humans. I've seen that even IPs can make useful contributions to Wikipedia. Therefore, they should be able to partake in voting on RFAs, so long as they don't vandalise. Sure, some folks do not wish to sign up for an account for various reasons, even though it's easy to sign up for one, but still wish to vote on RFA. It's like keeping an open government so that everyone's voice can be heard, even if they wish to keep their names aynonomous. Sam.gov (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Sam.gov, IPs aren't allowed to !vote in RfAs at the present; that isn't what this thread is about. The outcome of this RfC will not affect !voting. Supporters want IPs to place their comments on the candidate talk page rather than in the main candidate RfA page which is the status quo.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification. Sam.gov (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support We already limit IP's from doing potentially destructive things like editing semi-protected articles, move pages, create pages, etc. Swaying an election for someone with more dangerous tools should be counted as one of those potentially destructive things. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not the encyclopedia that anyone can govern, and the bar for creating an account is so low (all you need is a throwaway email address to provide is a username and password, not any personal information). I don't buy the "I want to vote for admins, but I don't want an account for privacy reasons" argument, as a username is arguably much more anonymous than an IP address. That said, if we required usernames our sockpuppet policy would at least provide some recourse for voter fraud, so they are useful. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: IPs should be allowed to comment and participate in an RfA as much as any registered user. IPs are human too: these are real people who might want to make valid contributions to the discussion; even if it's unlikely or rare, they should still be allowed to do this. Allowing them to comment is the equivalent of allowing them to post on the talk page of a semi-protected article: we shouldn't prevent them from making contributions altogether, but we should prevent any potential damage that would happen if we didn't have these restrictions (i.e. vandalism of article / user making sockpuppet votes to become an admin). The title of this section and original proposal is far too hostile and so are several of the comments, making sarcastic remarks about IPs' "poorly sourced" contributions or otherwise demonstrating the stigmatization we have against people who just don't happen to have created an account. When I started editing with an account, most IPs were probably about as useful as me. Even today, many IPs are just as helpful as me and I've come across many whose contributions have been nothing but positive. WP:AGF applies to IPs, too and saying IPs aren't/shouldn't be part of the community is ridiculous and horrible; many IPs deserve to be part of the community more than most users. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support. When's the last time an IP had something constructive on an RfA page, rather than just stirring the pot? Indeed, it's the ENCYCLOPEDIA anyone can edit. That's the key word. Trying to pick admins and understanding editors isn't building an encyclopedia, but discussing community matters. Someone who chooses not to register, whether because they're sockpuppeting or are trying to hide something, isn't part of that community. No one is saying to ban IPs everywhere, which a lot of opposers seem to claim for some reason. IPs are plenty helpful on articles, but on project space? Virtually never. Wizardman 00:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support As per BH who makes a compelling argument.--5 albert square (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Abecedare and others above. Some IP edits are disruptive, Tose we can remove, and block the sources of. Many registered users are disruptive also, or at elast unhelpful. We deal with thsoe individually, not as a predefiend class. The very nature of this proposal demonsrates its impropriety. It is proposed to allow IPs to edit the talk page of an RFA page. Why won't they be disruptive there? Is it because no one cares, that page gettign far fewer edits and views, so disruption there doesn't matter? But that only indicates tha tthe commetns ther won't matter (or at least not matter much) either. so the "consession" of letting IPs edit the talk page is shown to be hollow. An admin must interact with IP editors with some frequency. If (as others have said above), a candidate can't do so well, we need to know befre the mop is given out. Any IP editor who has intracted with the candidate shoulod be free to post about that interaction. Moeover, IP editors are part of the Wikipedia community. An often downtrodden part, yes. A perhaps disproportionately unruly part, yes. But also the saource of many many valuable edits. We should not simnply exclude such editors as this proposal would do. DES ^(talk) 12:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support - IPs 9 times out of 10 only come here to disrupt the process, As others have said If they wanna participate in RFAs they should create an account, (Personally I believe IP editing should be done away with entirely but we all know that'll never happen) –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - IPs are not people. If a person has an interest in the project and wishes to vote on admins, vote for Arbcom members, and the like, then a vote needs to be tied to a single identifiable account. I would also strip IP editing away completely if that ever comes to a vote again. Tarc (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  Exactly right, Tarc. IPs are not people — they are random screeds of numbers with an uncanny ability to type out coherent thoughts as though they were somehow sentient like you or I. They are faceless, nameless entities whose mere presence creates a cognitive dissonance of sorts, in that there is something almost human-like about them. These mysterious beings lurk within the shadows of our community-based project, tainting its sanctity with their identities of integers. They have no business editing in non-IP namespaces, where only us real editors should be participating. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  A shame those stubby fingers flew straight to sarcasm rather than allowing the brain a moment to comprehend the point, which is that the problem with IP editors is identity. There's no certainty that the person posting as 123.123-whatever today is the same person that posts as 123.124-whatever tomorrow. Or that the person who was 123.123. yesterday is now 186.254 today. Establish an identity, stick to it, and join the Wikipedia, or forever be considered a 2nd-class editor. That is what someone who posts by IP faces. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your point, I just thought it was a bit comical for someone to say that IPs "are not people". Even without the privileges that come with registering an account, IP editors are still human beings. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Editors (IP or otherwise) who are disrupting the process should be dealt with accordingly. Banning a whole class of users from the main page of the RFA (without evidence [presented] that the whole or a substantial part of the class is disruptive) is the incorrect approach. --Izno (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  I think that's technically impossible - you generally cannot indef an IP, and if they are on a dynamic IP, you cannot deal with them. Just look at some of the lengthy WP:LTA archives. You're describing something that cannot be done without major changes. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

  Jumping to "let's indef an IP" from "dealt with accordingly" is quite the jump of logic. --Izno (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per regentspark, and opposing the idea that IP editors are not real contributors. as long as we can semiprotect a page from disruptive IP editors, this proposal is taking a hammer to solve a problem that needs a screwdriver. better to have some disruption and more dialog, than limit dialog out of fear of potential disruption. I do appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, and I am blissfully unaware of how bad this disruption may be at times, so i might change from "liberal" to "conservative" if i was "mugged" by an IP vandal..., but probably not. personally, im just afraid of the whole admin scene, including RFA, so i avoid thinking about it. I am convinced i would be torn apart here for every imperfect edit ive ever made (including making this comment! help!)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose — Unless I'm reading this the wrong way, the proposal is to basically semi-protect RfAs so that IP editors cannot post any questions or comments whatsoever. They are already restricted from voting, and there's good reason for that. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with them participating in the other aspects of the RfA process, assuming they're doing so in good faith. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposal is to semi-protect the candidate's main RfA page and then IPs can post to the talk page of the RfA. This is a way of reducing disruptions by IPs but does not shut them out.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - the OP made a good case. I can't see why it's such a big deal to register a user name for loggin in. Atsme^📞📧 00:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This seems like a no-brainer. Either log in and let us know who you are, or join the community by creating an account. No matter how much they edit, IPs will always be outsiders, and they know that and have been told that numerous times. Even the most perspicacious and helpful IP editor can be someone's sock; not to mention, IPs change and it's hard to track their edits or engage them in consistent, meaningful dialogue. It's all-around troublesome and problematic for IPs to pipe up at RfAs. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeIP's are members of the community. This wikicentric xenophobia has gone way to far when we are barring stakeholders from discussion that effect them. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Strongly. The more willing a contributor is to let others know who he or she really is, the more likely others are to trust and respect that contributor. IP editing inherently comes with the impression of secretiveness. A willingness to provide the small amount of transparency that a regular user account requires, comes with the impression of transparency. I'll vote for transparency here. I recently saw a documentary where a certain commercially paid WP editor boasted of running no less than something like 36 socks. We need to reduce socks, not encourage them, especially in such important and sensitive areas as the decision making process of deciding who should be an admin. If one is not transparent enough to merely register, then too bad for him or her. We don't need more secrecy here but less. Scott P. (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  I disagree, Scottperry. As a person who edits without logging in permits easy geolocation, such a person is actaully less anomonous than an editor whose username does not correlate to his or her real identity. If an editor wishes to be obscure (i.e. non-transparent) then s/he should not edit withotu logging in, but rather via multiple useernames, that is, by WP:SOCKing. If we really want to encourage transparancy, we should require all users to identify to the foundation, or at least require use of a non-throwaway email address during registration. That would make creatign sock-puppets a bit harder and more sostly. Of course the costs of doing that would excede any possible benefits. But your reasoning here stikes me as very flawed. In anycase, we should evaluate comments at an RfA (or any other on-wiki discussion) primarily on their content, not on the signature attached. DES ^(talk) 17:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This discussion between User:Scottperry, User:DESiegel, and several others about the ease of undetectible sock-puppetry and its likelihood of affecting WP admin elections is continued below in the Impact of paid editors and false ip software on admin elections section

Impact of paid editors and false ip software on admin elections

(This section continued from post above dated 17:52, 13 June 2015 by User:DESiegel)

In an ideal world, where all do all in "good faith", I would agree with you User:DESiegel. In a world where a saavy paid editor knows how to create 36 socks (through IP's, IP gaming software, or whatever), I believe that we do best to err on the side of caution. For me, WP is far too precious of a process to not take every reasonable precaution against such system gamers. Scott P. (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much, Scottperry, that those 36 socks edited in a non-logged-in mode. Did this documentary say that they did? I agree that such paid socking is reprehensible, and detrimental to the project. I don't see how this proposal will do anything to stop it or even slow it down. DES ^(talk) 18:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The documentary was from last year I believe on Deutsche Welle. In it, somehow they dug up a paid editor who was grinning from ear to ear about his "little family" of sock-puppets. The guy was obviously a bit apprehensive about this whole situation. They asked him what he thought about the "ethics" of his "practice" and he just said something like "if they invite me to do it, I will gladly accept their invitation." Obviously such a person would not readily reveal how he did it on TV. Here is an idea for you of how easy it is to game IP's: "IPChanger Software". Scott P. (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Recently I am beginning to wonder if the "paid editors" do not outnumber us volunteer editors. A few weeks ago I was speaking with a full time media consultant who was happy to tell me that every politician, marketing company, and product pusher has at least 1 - 12 paid WP editors. Multiply 6 times the number of politicians, product pushers/ corporations/ governments in the world and you might get an idea of the numbers we are talking about here. This is a huge HUGE problem on WP, and unless it is properly addressed, it will eventually destroy WP. If WP is to survive, one day it will have to hold its editors to be far more accountable than it does today. Scott P. (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you're told. Have a look at some of the crud in Category:Politicians and tell me you seriously think these have been written by professional writers. Virtually the only article on a serving politician that's up to scratch is on some guy called Obama. (This is the full list of political biography FAs—note the singular absence of any current politician other than Obama and McCain.) – iridescent 18:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Come on now, politics = corruption. They go hand in hand. Advertising = "shape the messge". They go hand in hand. You don't mean to tell me that you honestly believe that politicians and sales people are inherently that honest? Please don't tell me you believe that a few more votes or paid purchases might would almost never justify hiring a paid WP editor? What was it that was born every minute? The guy who told me this does marketing for a living on a global scale. I tend to think he had no reason to lie to me. Scott P. (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic — I see no reason for a paid editor to contribute at an RfA (unless they also edit WP as a hobby). I'd also like to say that anecdotal evidence from a random media consultant is not a reason to start a witch-hunt, especially against IPs, who we haven't established are used by paid editors. Additionally, I imagine most (if not all) paid editors are hired by more than one company, so the number of people isn't 6*[stuff in the world] and that evidence from a media consultant in one country should not be scaled up to apply to the entire world. If you want to carry on the conversation, take it somewhere else (maybe someone's user talk). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would be willing to bet $100 that if a study were to somehow be done, we would find that at least 10% of WP editors are paid. How would you do such a study? Actually as it is now set up, it would be impossible to perform. Thus it is all a moot "angels on pinheads" discussion at this point. Still the documentary, and my Media Consultant friend could not be refuted until such a study might first be made possible, then performed. Scott P. (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no way 10% of editors are paid. Even if that were true, per the Pareto principle, they might not make much of an impact anyway. Additionally, the burden of proof is on you, asserting that there is a problem, and your anecdote from a friend is not good enough. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Check out this Deutsche Welle Global 3000 Wikipedia documentary. Then tell me if you still don't believe a single skilled paid editor couldn't significantly influence/ shape an admin election. Actually you might be "technically correct" about the percentage. If you were to separate the socks from the real paid editors, it might be a little less, but even one is one way too many. Scott P. (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note: According to Deutsche Welle, there are already a few "paid" adimins. I remember when the administrator Jossie was exposed, a member of the Prem Rawat cult. The admin's seat is a pretty good plumb in any company's pocket. This problem is only going to get worse, unless major, rational, and effective steps are taken to prevent it. This will necessarily involve requiring a little less anonymity in the higher levels of editors, than we do today. Not anything "cosmetic" will do as when a few IP's have been banned in the past. Scott P. (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

All that may well be true. The issue of paid editing has been discussed at length in the past and no doubt will be again. But how will this specific proposal -- that is, to forbid non-logged-in users from posting coments on RfA main pages -- help with that matter at all? DES ^(talk) 20:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that from a security standpoint, the more information anyone who has access to IP's and is charged with the tracking, has, the easier the tracking would be. If such a security tracker had both an IP and a username, that would be one more point of info to make their tracking job easier. No? Scott P. (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Users who use IPs have all of their associated information (the IP) available to every editor on Wikipedia, users who use usernames have all their associated information (the username and the IP) available to only a few users (CUs) and so investigations on them by most editors is limited to using the username. Usernames can easily be made to contain no useful information leaving only a handful of editors with the tools needed to be able to investigate the user. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in an ideal world, that is true, but these "trackings" are easily frustrated by anyone with an IP and a $20 piece of software to create a false IP, as documented above. Have you not been following this recent thread very closely? Then the only thing left to use is the username. With only a false IP and no username, that leaves all of us with absolutely zip to track. Have you not watched the documentary listed above? Other documentaries by Deutsche Welle show paid editors doing exactly this, intentionally falsifying their IP's, and laughing at us here as they are doing it. Scott P. (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The security requirements for Wikipedia registration were apparently written under the assumption of some kind of a fundamental "good faith" amongst editors. That was all fine and good in 2002 when the only people here were sports enthusiasts and bead salesmen. Now WP info has the ability to affect national elections and to sway public sentiment on many issues. The kindergartner-ish security mindset of 2002 (now everyone be nice to each other, share and don't tell things that aren't true, it's nap time now) should no longer hold, but unfortunately it still does. Scott P. (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What part of my reply are you saying is true only in an ideal world? Only in a horribly flawed world, where every editor has access to CU or one where paid editors have a complete lack of creativity, is any part of my reply not true and that is certainly not the type of world Wikipedia lives in. It is much more complicated than using $20 software to spoof your IP and edit Wikipedia, the most likely explanation for anyone "changing" their IP is using VPNs or proxies which should be dealt with using blocks, not bans on all IPs. Using multiple IP editors to run sock farms is silly, it's much easier with accounts. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever "holes" there are, there are holes in the account registration process, and there are holes in the IP tracking process. Whatever holes there are, ought to be patched, otherwise the ship slowly sinks. Scott P. (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to computers, there are always security holes and some are impractical to fix or a required but unwanted result of the programming goals. To continue your ship metaphor, some holes can only be patched with boulders, and if you patch enough of those holes, the patching itself will sink the ship so you're better off just dealing with the water. If you do what is necessary to fix many of the things in Wikipedia's registration process that allow for sockpuppetry, very few legitimate users will be willing to register. (This unsigned comment by User:PhantomTech at 00:14, 14 June.)

My proposal, and I've spoken to Jimbo about this, is not to change the "entry thresh-hold" for new editors, but to raise the standard for experienced editors who could, say for example, vote for new admins. That would stop no new editors from joining, but it would help to prevent bogus admins from being elected, and such things. Why not? Scott P. (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You ask why not but I can only ask why? Anyone can think up some kind of sideways conspiracy theory. The possible conspiracies are to numerous to mention. How ever you've brought the possible conspiracy but no actual evidence that it is happening. There no reason to make a new rule for something that may not actually be happening.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you've not been following this thread closely enough. Please see the Deutsche Welle documentary if you want proof. They have this "paid" editor there bragging about what a lovely little family of 36 sock puppets he has reared. Scott P. (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If I understand what you mean, there would be no change for normal editing of Wikipedia, instead there would just be additional restrictions on who can !vote in RfAs, requiring some sort of verification. If done effectively, this would also cause many legitimate editors to be unwilling to take the required steps to !vote whereas paid editing groups would simply have all their employees go through the process overwhelming legitimate editors in RfAs. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that this guy has used 36 sock puppets to vote for or against an Admin nomination? See I caught where you mentioned that a guy had 36 socks just not where he actually successfully used them to nominate and approve an admin.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Amongst the steps I would require for such "neutrality certified editors" would be their real world credentials supplied to WMF, their written declaration of any articles or agendas to which they might be partial to, and their agreement not to edit any such articles unless any such edits unless duly posted in their edit comments that they have personal partiality to the given subject. Now sure, that would scare away many, but those who would be scared away, would be the ones we don't want there in the first place. Why not? Scott P. (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Psycho, no that particular "paid" editor didn't admit to having gotten an adminship illegitimately, but DW said that it had verified a few such admins, and I personally knew one of them, a "Jossie" who was permanently banned once his special interests and various trickeries were exposed. Scott P. (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you all for your interest in this subject. Good night for now. Scott P. (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's Serialjoepsycho. I again note the absence of evidence that there's an actual problem here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you don't think a guy who undetectably manipulates 36 sock-puppets in WP is evidence of any kind of a problem, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Good night Mr. Last Worder. (I mumble as I vainly attempt to edge my way in to have the "last word". Hah!) Scott P. (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What prevents a paid editing group from hiring low wage workers to supply their real world credentials and a written declaration of whatever WMF wants, only to replace them should they ever be blocked? Requirements like these do not significantly inhibit paid editing group, there are however plenty of users who value their anonymity and do not want to risk losing it due to something as simple as a WMF data breach. With WMF not storing much personal information (probably all in revdel/oversight) as it is, it isn't much of a target but it would be if it held the information necessary to verify that "neutrality certified editors" were unique. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Scott P, That's not my position. I do see a guy who undetectably manipulates 36 socks as a problem. I see someone detectably manipulating one sock to be a problem. However I see that as a different and unrelated discussion. IP Changing software is about as old as wikipedia if not older btw. This is in addition to numerous other methods of changing or hiding your actual IP, all of which are old.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As I expected, two against one, and a huge volume of words, none of which exhibit any real concern for the serious "holes" in the hull of our ship that I just pointed out. May you both rest merrily on the bottom with the ship you would sink. Good night. Scott P. (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I welcome you to present evidence of an actual problem or show what you propose has actually been a problem. Your dropping hypotheticals at the moment. Anyone can come up with a hypothetical problem. It's better to deal with actual problems. Chasing your hypotheticals will more likely sink the ship. Doing nothing in the absence of evidence is actually a very reasonable.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Responding to a claim that your solution is ineffective by simply reiterating that a problem exists adds nothing to the discussion. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I would refuse to give WMF any information about myself to vote in an RfA, and I see the idea that I should as ridiculous. It's a far more extreme measure than this proposal, which (at my last count of votes, although that's admittedly not how we should measure consensus) seems to be being rejected anyway. I do not care enough about RfAs to disclose anything or go through such a lengthy process, and most of the people that would would be paid editors/socks. You've scared me away — am I the sort of the person you don't want voting? Why not? (Also, what stops people just making up information? There's no way you can verify that I'm a teenage male without visiting me in person, which is not going to happen, and you'd need a CheckUser just to determine which country I live in.) — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 09:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but if I had to guess, I'd say three folks who believe so animatedly that there is nothing more we can do to stop sock-puppetry and the election of rogue admins (read sock-puppetry and the now confirmed existence of active rogue admins as just exposed by Deutsche Welle are just fine) against one who thinks more can, and must, and therefore will be done to stop these things, here in an admin discussion, seems just a bit like the potential recipee I provided earlier..... for a ship at the bottom of the sea. Scott P. (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

None of us believe anything of the sort. You're misrepresenting our views to try and help your case. Your complete lack of acknowledgement or counter-arguments against our points (WP:IDHT) show your premise is just too flawed to work. If you find a sockpuppet admin on the English Wikipedia, or substantial evidence that there is one, that's a big problem and we'll have to do something about that. But I struggle to believe there is a problem at all, let alone on such a scale we need to take extreme action that violates the founding principles of Wikipedia ("...that anyone can edit"). — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

IP doesn't mean unregistered

Comment Given that Wikipedia:Sock puppetry specifically uses "logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" as an example, it is naive and perhaps disingenuous for experienced editors to assume that every edit from an IP address is by someone who hasn't registered. The correct term is not logged in. Whenever I see something from an IP address in an unexpected place such as RfA I always consider the possibility that this is an experienced registered editor hiding behind anonymity for some reason. - Pointillist (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is also all to easy tor a registered user to be logged out without intending to be. It has happened to me many times. DES ^(talk) 11:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite so, in fact this google search suggests it happens quite often. I've nearly done it several times myself, but I use custom CSS to override signature formatting so it's easier to see when I'm not logged in. You can also use CSS to change the color of the Save button when you're logged in (instructions here). Also, some registered editors routinely contribute without logging in, e.g. "I don't bother to log in for a good 90% of the things I edit", "I often don't bother to log in, so don't judge me by my number of edits.", "for such small stuff, I usually don't bother to log in...", "I don't log in a whole lot so I have quite a few anonymous posts out there.", "I've corrected spelling mistakes etc. in many articles (I don't log in very often though, so it won't show)". This combination of accidental and deliberate edits without logging in means it's impossible to prove whether unregistered users actually make a significant number of useful edits. I think that's more of an article of faith for some people! - Pointillist (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? The good stuff is still coming from IP addresses. Looking at the survey, I see that 30% of vandalism reverts are from IP addresses. Even banned users are allowed to revert vandalism and BLP violations so introducing this new rule that IPs cannot post on RfA would be a sea change in how this site operates. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying the case for blocking IP comments at RfA has been proven. But I think the statistics at IPs are human too are deeply misleading. The source is eight years old (Feb 2007). The "30%" was incorrectly calculated in the essay: the correct figure is 18% (four cases of vandal reversion by IPs out of 22 instances in total). Anyway the sample size is ridiculously small. If the table had used numbers rather than percentages its weakness as a source would be much clearer. - Pointillist (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of 248 edits to English-language Wikipedia articles from 04:43 to 04:46 UTC on 18 Feb 2007 (Source)

Change type	Count of edits by all editors	Count of edits by registered editors	Count of edit by anonymous editors	Percent of all registered edits (n = 159)	Percent of all anonymous edits (n = 89)
Substantial content changes	13	10	3	6.3%	3.4%
Minor content changes	71	43	28	27.0%	31.5%
Copyediting/formatting/wikilinking	101	68	33	42.8%	37.1%
Tagging/maintenance	21	16	5	10.1%	5.6%
Vandalism reversion	22	18	4	11.3%	4.5%
Vandalism	20	4	16	2.5%	18.0%

According to this [2] most of the content comes from IPs.

This quote is revealing:

If Wikipedia is written by occasional contributors, then growing it requires making it easier and more rewarding to contribute occasionally. Instead of trying to squeeze more work out of those who spend their life on Wikipedia, we need to broaden the base of those who contribute just a little bit.

Unfortunately, precisely because such people are only occasional contributors, their opinions aren't heard by the current Wikipedia process. They don't get involved in policy debates, they don't go to meetups, and they don't hang out with Jimbo Wales. And so things that might help them get pushed on the back burner, assuming they're ever proposed.

Out of sight is out of mind, so it's a short hop to thinking these invisible people aren't particularly important. Thus Wales's belief that 500 people wrote half an encyclopedia. Thus his assumption that outsiders contribute mostly vandalism and nonsense. And thus the comments you sometimes hear that making it hard to edit the site might be a good thing.

"I'm not a wiki person who happened to go into encyclopedias," Wales told the crowd at Oxford. "I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki." So perhaps his belief that Wikipedia was written in the traditional way isn't surprising. Unfortunately, it is dangerous. If Wikipedia continues down this path of focusing on the encyclopedia at the expense of the wiki, it might end up not being much of either.

5.150.92.20 (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment responding to "Even banned users are allowed to revert vandalism and BLP violations so introducing this new rule that IPs cannot post on RfA would be a sea change in how this site operates" above: "Sea change" is a good example of the gross exaggeration that has been happening in this discussion, about how big a change this would be in treatment of IPs. In fact the proposal is to go from "IPs cannot create articles, cannot edit semi-protected pages, and cannot !vote at RFAs" to "IPs cannot create articles, cannot edit semi-protected pages, cannot !vote at RFAs, and cannot comment at RFAs except on the talk page." This is not an enormous new form of discrimination against IPs; rather, it's a trivial addition to the discrimination in place now. --MelanieN (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks for that @5.150.92.20, though I think it's describing the old days when 'invisible people' could spend 10 seconds dropping in an unverified claim and what your source calls 'insiders' would then spend hours trying to find references to support it. I was the dutiful insider sometimes on new page patrol/AfD, and maybe this has bleached my rose-tinted spectacles. But anyway, your source can't tell us whether the IPs were people who never registered; or registered after making some productive edits; or had already registered but forgot to log in (examples above); or registered but prefer to edit anonymously (e.g. Clarka who said in January 2003: "WARNING. I often don't bother to log in. This is because I believe that valuable contributions are made by random people who may not be wiki-fanatics.") – arguably a relatively safe decision to make if you have outed yourself as an editor anyway. There are a few editors who specifically claim the edits they made while logged out, like Mercurywoodrose with over 4000 IP edits, JesseW with about 600, etc, but not enough to measure that pattern. The only conclusion is that we just don't know how many valuable edits are currently being made by people who have never registered vs editors who have registered but didn't bother to log in, and we can't predict how people's editing behavior might change if policies were changed in future. The "statistics" and "analyses" we have so far are utterly unreliable. - Pointillist (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad that my effort to log my IP stats can be useful in some way somewhere, and not just a vanity project. I dont have an opinion yet on this issue, will think about it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• It appears that editing patterns have changed since 2007. In terms of contributions that stick around (unreverted, not copyedited away, etc.), IP contributions are much less dominant than they once were. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• OMG. I made that table. I was surprised enough to see the 'mentioned in the press' tags on its talk page, and now that I look at what links to it, it's apparently been mentioned in all sorts of project discussions. Ugh. Surely the foundation has managed to come up with some better data than a single person looking at a few minutes' worth of edits once in 2007, in the context of a specific ongoing conversation. (FWIW, I would not take the observation that fewer IP contributions stick around than in the past as evidence that those contributions are low quality. People are way more trigger-happy with the reverts these days.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're at fault: you stated the limitations clearly when you posted your results. It's disappointing how many experienced editors (people presumably capable of assessing sources neutrally) have misused the data. As for the Foundation: perhaps they didn't see any advantage in collecting more precise data than yours? - Pointillist (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The foundation has buckets of data on new user retention issues, so I imagine they must have put some effort into figuring out which newcomers are worth retaining. (Though what I can find rummaging around meta looks at good registered newcomers, and anon inducements to register, but doesn't seem to combine the two.) In any case I'd be surprised if that old distribution was really all that far off: 60% tweaks, typo fixes, and good-faith efforts (even if poor); 20% vandalism and stupidity; 20% other stuff. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Melanie, discrimination is never trivial, especially when you're suggesting that the people who put their hands into their pockets to keep Wikipedia going shouldn't be allowed to edit the wiki they are funding. The really bad behaviour comes from registered editors - there may be thousands who have been banned, but the number of banned IPs was one the last time I looked.

You also say that newly - registered accounts which go straight to the RfA pages should be banned. How would you allow a long - term IP editor who decides to register, makes eight edits to mainspace and on the ninth goes to RfA, to participate? 5.150.92.20 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

My point was that THIS ADDITION to the existing discrimination against IPs is trivial - compared to the already existing discrimination of not being able to create or move articles, not being able to edit semi-protected pages, not being able to !vote at RfA, etc. I am using the word "discrimination" to acknowledge that's how it looks to unregistered users, even though I agree with the policy. I actually didn't say that non-autoconfirmed users should be banned from RfA, and that wasn't part of the proposal here, but I wouldn't mind if it was. Having made their nine edits, and wanting to participate in RfA, they can simply make a tenth edit somewhere and bingo! autoconfirmed! (assuming they have been here for four days) --MelanieN (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC) P.S. As for "shouldn't be allowed to edit"... there you go exaggerating again. IPs ARE allowed to edit, with a few limitations that I listed here. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

IP editors are rarely banned indefinitely because most IP addresses change periodically. The list of currently banned IPs is probably less than registered bans because of the accumulation of indef-bans from users over the last dozen-or-so years. Disclaimer: this comment neither suggests that I disagree with the IP I'm replying to nor that I agree with them. It's just me pointing out a flaw in their argument. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion and questions

Since we are already on a talk page there is little place to go but subheaders like this.

I see that in my absence of a few hours this has turned into a !vote and RfC. We need someplace to discuss probably without closing.

I believe that Floquenbeam has mistaken my use of terminology and this needs to be addressed especially since so many took up that baton of confusion and ran with it. I am using the semantics that have already been chosen by the community. We call Wikipedians Wikipedians because we can identify them readily. Sure some static IPs become known for their good works but most of the time the IPs which are editing are dynamic so we don't know who we are addressing. My use of the term isn't to belittle any IP's contributions but it is frankly that they have no identity here. This is consistent with regular use by the community. For anyone that doesn't believe me you can look at Category:Wikipedians or Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians and you won't find a single IP listed amongst them. Further, Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians states:

• • "Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community. Don't add users with fewer than ~1,000 edits. Do not add people unless you are certain they have left, do not add anonymous users identified by their IP address (they could have created an account and still be contributing, or they might have a roaming IP address)..."

If you automatically opposed or based your rationale on that automatic oppose, I would ask that you reconsider. I'm only using the conventions already in place that allows us to identify someone. Please do not think that I am stating something new or trying to make a new argument with that. There are a lot of opposers who are tilting at windmills.

For those with the rationales "...but anyone can edit" or that I haven't cited policy therefore my argument carries no weight:

The first paragraph of our protection policy states:

• "Wikipedia is built around the principle that anyone can edit it, and it therefore aims to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors. However, in some particular circumstances, because of a specifically identified likelihood of damage resulting if editing is left open, some individual pages may need to be subject to technical restrictions (often only temporary but sometimes indefinitely) on who is permitted to modify them. The placing of such restrictions on pages is called protection."

There you go. Bureaucrats can now see that "...but anyone can edit" isn't founded in policy and it's perfectly acceptable to restrict some areas.

For those opposing based upon the notion that the proposal was poorly worded...you are a little confused but it isn't your fault. It started as a discussion and then someone responding went ahead into a consensus format with a Support and a little later it was pointed out that if a consensus was to be given any weight then it needed greater exposure and an RfC tag...and so it happened. No one did anything wrong, it just morphed into this as Wiki discussions are sometimes prone to do.

To address Davewild's concern that we would be "...shunting them off to a talk page where 90% of contributors will not see them." Well, yes. :) But rest assured that it wouldn't go unseen AND if they brought up valid concerns, constructive criticism or anything of merit that a Wikipedian (named account) would bring that concern into the RfA. This is the same as any semi-protected article where IPs use the talk page and if the request is valid then a Wikipedian will take the appropriate actions. There is nothing wrong with using our discretion there.

Esquivalience "...assuming that an IP participating in RfA is acting in bad faith goes against WP:AGF, which this proposal does." I didn't assume; I went and looked as stated above at the last three passes and the one in process (now a pass) and reached my deductions on what has happened. I'm not the one making assumptions.

Please ask questions so we can clarify and discuss.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• I would also like to add that the effect of socks/IPs can certainly derail an otherwise successful RfA. Please see Kudpung's excellent essay section here.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is currently running at about 3 to 1 against this idea. It's not because we're all confused, it's because we don't like this idea, and your assurances that we can "rest assured" that their posts to the talk page won't go unseen rings hollow.

It's clear enough that many of the supporters just think IP users are "not really Wikipedians" despite the known fact that they contribute immensly to our content. I doubt there is any question anyone could ask at this point that you could give such a great answer to that opposers would suddenly feel that this isn't just a really shitty thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whoa, there! Please don't go putting words in to my mouth!! I thought about this carefully, and concluded that WfA Talk page access would still adequately give IPs the access they need to discuss, and if they want ask questions (which then registered users or Admins could easily put on the main RfA page). Based on the fact that IPs already can't !vote in RfAs (though, after seeing this thread, I'm wondering if an RfC to allow IPs to vote on RfAs again might actually pass!), I really don't think it makes much difference if they can't "comment" on the main RfA page (a notice can easily be put up at the top that IP users can still comment on the WfA Talk page...). Again, there's not some "conspiracy" against IPs here – if they make a good point, or ask a good question, I'm about 100% positive that a registered user or Admin would pass that on to the main RfA page. So nothing about Berean Hunter's proposal "shuts IPs out of the process" here. ----IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec)(re to Beeblebrox) To me, it looks like it got off track by picking at semantics. I can think of editors that we know by name but who are either indeffed or banned so they choose to edit as IPs or socks...I think they are great editors although the community has shown them the door. Folks got tired of seeing them here at RfA for one thing as both were serious critics of the RfA process. One is a damn good writer and the other can be grouped with the former in that both have WP's best interests at heart. I still consider them to be great Wikipedians but they did tend to stir the pot here too often for the community's liking. I hope they may return in the legit manner one day. People put words in my mouth above...so yes, I feel that you are confused. No offense.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that the definitions of the categories you listed can be interpreted to limit who the community considers to be Wikipedians. By the nature of a list of editors, it's only possible to include editors who have assumed a unique label. This isn't a limitation on the inclusiveness of the community, just a limitation on who can be identified in a list. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write the caveat to Missing Wikipedians, "Please do not add people to this list who were never an integral part of the community. Don't add users with fewer than ~1,000 edits. Do not add people unless you are certain they have left, do not add anonymous users identified by their IP address (they could have created an account and still be contributing, or they might have a roaming IP address)..."

...but I did use its conventions in nomenclature and being blamed for it. Some people are hung up on this concept leading to 'automatic' opposes instead of seeing that I'm talking about reserving the ability to comment on a candidate's main RfA page as a privilege for named accounts. Accounts have privileges such as a watchlist and the ability to retain attribution for their edits. Some privileges will never be extended to IPs...we would never try to allow an IP to run for RfA for example. There are people opposing because they are upset at the implication that IPs aren't part of the community but I didn't create that "tribalistic meme". Clearly there is disagreement on that within the community.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Whereas you wrote, "IPs fall into the latter category...if they want to become members of our community then they need an account," the instructions you quote don't say that an editor without an account is not a member of the community. They say that an editor cannot be identified by an IP address. I appreciate that the community can choose to impose different levels of engagement for different degrees of participation. My comment was solely related to your use of the categories you listed as a way to define the community. isaacl (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

reserving...as a privilege for named accounts: see, that's the problem. Reserving privileges for a group you are a member of, to the detriment of a group you are not a member of. Almost everywhere else on the project, when IPs are not allowed to do certain things, it's for reasons of practicality, not "privilege". Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Right. The reason of practicality is to help improve RfA, something that is continually referred to as a broken process. I personally do not feel the kinship of community with disruptive IP hoppers or named accounts which are disruptive socks either for that matter. I do not assume that all IPs are bad...their net contributions are valuable in some areas of WP but here at RfA, I don't believe so. That is based on observed behavior. AGF is not a suicide pact.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The instructions for wp:missing Wikipedians make sense to me "do not add anonymous users identified by their IP address (they could have created an account and still be contributing, or they might have a roaming IP address)...". As even the most static IPs will change when the editor using them moves to a different city, it is more difficult to know if an IP editor has died or retired than it is for editors with a registered account. But I don't see those instructions as justification for not counting IP editors as Wikipedians, nor have I yet seen any diffs that would justify such an extreme measure as blocking IPs from the discussion and question part of RFAs. Remember the status quo is not that RFAs are immune from semi protection, the status quo is that we don't pre-emptively semi protect pages, including RFAs on the basis that it might be necessary to do so. An uninvolved admin could if necessary semi-protect an individual RFA. If IPs became problem at RFA, and a pattern emerged of RFAs freqently meriting such semi protection then one could make a case for them all being semi-protected. But I don't see evidence for that yet. ϢereSpielChequers 05:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

We're not getting anywhere with this. I think WereSpielChequers' point that this is not a severe enough problem to require any scope creep in policy is a valid one. It would be helpful, though, if those opposing the motion could point me towards some diffs where a question or comment for an IP was a significant contribution to an RfA - the only one I've found that comes close is this and that seemed to cause more heat than light. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this comment should be placed; anyone can move it if they want. Ritchie — I think burden of proof is solely on the people wanting to support the nomination, because (a) it changes the status quo and (b) it goes against WP:CREEP, WP:BEANS, the spirit of "...that anyone can edit" etc. as we should be protecting the rights of any group of users as much as is plausible in reality; too many policies are undesirable; problems should not be fixed if they don't exist / before they occur. Call me an idealist, but I haven't looked for any examples where IPs have contributed positively to an RfA. I just think that in the future, an IP should have the right to contribute constructively if they so wish, even if that's a rare occurrence. I do think that the situation you pointed to was a positive contribution, though: I'd advise you to at least give it the benefit of the doubt. And I'd like to say the opposite: if any supporters can point me towards a large number of diffs showing that a majority of RfAs have been disrupted by IP comments/vandalism (enough to require universal action rather than case-by-case semi-protects), that could change my mind. Ritchie, I have seen some of the diffs you've posted above (but I've not gone through the whole long mess of this RfC very thoroughly), but I don't think there's enough there to show serious disruption that can't be solved easily, or on a case-by-case basis. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 19:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is more than just a matter of track record. It is a fundamental principal on whether IPs are considered a valuable asset to Wikipedia or if they're going to be treated, by policy, as second class citizens. Suggesting IPs don't belong here (as the section is called) or making statements like they're not "Wikipedians" or "members of the community" simply alienates a large base of contributors for no other reason than that it's been a small issue here on RFA. I believe a lot of editors are treating this as a dangerous precedent for IPs on a wider scale across the project. As I said above, and others, this hasn't been an issue yet the implications of making this decision so far and greatly exceed the "problem" that I could not imagine supporting this proposal over it. Further, I don't see track record being a valid metric here. You're suggesting prohibition for a group because of the actions of a few; that's essentially the definition of discrimination. Women were denied the right to vote because stories of husbands influencing their wives on how to vote were used as a rationale as to why they could not be trusted to make their own decisions. Perhaps IPs who do contribute constructively don't participate here because they already go to lengths to stay anonymous. IPs are sharply criticized for their involvement in other cleanup spaces like ANI and RFC, so I wouldn't be surprised veteran IP editors avoid RFA. There could be any number of reasons why the "good" IPs don't come here, but that's not a reason to take this step by putting them in the same group and denying them the right to participate in what's supposed to be community consensus on trust of an individual asking for the tools. There is arguably just as much data to suggest other similar arguments like, new accounts often create the most amount of promotional material. By the same logic and means of track record, should we prevent all new users from being able to create articles? Of course not. Doing so would fundamentally change the way Wikipedia was set up. Mkdw^talk 11:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to calm down a notch. As has often been said, you don't have a right to edit here, it's a private website. If the WMF said "sorry, we're only allowing paid editors from now on, cheerio chaps", there wouldn't be a law stopping them. Comparing this to universal suffrage or civil rights is ridiculous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Calm down? Ridiculous? I came here for a reasonable discussion. I wasn't worked up and I too think using track record to take away privileges of an entire group of people is ridiculous. Let me know if you'd like to come back to the table without the insults or inflammatory remarks -- and have a calm discussion. Mkdw^talk 12:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

This RFC, for me, was about setting a dangerous precedent and officially establishing a policy that limited a group of editors, not based on technical reasons, but upon the failures of a few individuals (as few as one for all we know though not likely). We would be setting a double standard on how editors are treated. Wikipedia has already done this with sysops (such as WP:NACD) and it's something I'd like to see go back to being seen as only editors with simply a few more tools. Wikipedians are anyone who boldly makes changes. I'm not in the Category:Wikipedians but I am one. If we wanted to make that category absolute in describing the editors in it, then maybe "Wikipedians who declare they're Wikipedians on their user page". IPs don't have user pages so that may have a lot to do with it. Also, we're talking about a fairly small sampling of the editing base. There's only 97 editors in that category and maybe less than 3,000 in the subcategories. The number of active editors is probably closer to 25,000 -- so more Wikipedians aren't part of that category than are -- and therefore arguably not being in that group is more of a Wikipedian thing to do (enter IPs)? I know it's a silly argument but it's exactly why things like track record or looking at figures is never a reasonable metric when dealing with philosophical questions. Should IPs be treated differently than those with accounts? And how much so? Creating a second class citizen here on the English Wikipedia is really a terrible thing to do. To say they should all be banned from doing one thing because there have been bad experiences at RFA is a terrible message to send. Perhaps a few IPs have hijacked RFAs in the past and profoundly altered the outcome. At some point we're going to need to trust the community and bureaucrats to have the wherewithal to review the discussions and support/oppose/neutral/comment/close RFAs. The process should never be more important than the people it serves nor problems small in scale have such wide ranging implications. That's just my 2 cents on the matter. Mkdw^talk 13:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• Stratification of the user base has been going on for a long time now. See Wikipedia:User access levels. Everyone thinks that unbundling privilege access leads to all sorts of desirable effects. It's actually the opposite. The more stratification we have, the less empowered the userbase is, the less contributory effect the base editor has. I was once involuntarily given rollback privileges. I demanded it be rescinded. I am nothing other than 'user' (and autoconfirmed, which I wouldn't even have if I couldn't, but that's embedded in the code). As the years go on, there is less and less that I am able to do as a "user". This is wrong, but the march continues. This inevitable march is why we demonize IPs now, even though IPs have made massive contributions to the project over the years. It's sad really. Wikipedia demonizes the very thing that made Wikipedia; the totally absurd notion that anyone could edit here.
• Now, you have to fill out form 637-A, noting paragraph C subsection 3, then file your request with the Office of Accounts (don't forget to make copies of your request), wait three days, get form 1071A, replacing "user" with "sycophant" and submit ten copies to the Office of Board Reviews where a !vote might be held if they can gain consensus and they'll get back to you in a month or two. Maybe...maybe then...you'll be able to do something as unsafe as reviewing pending changes. The bureaucracy has expanded to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, and it shows no sign of stopping. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think what everyone is forgetting (or most likely not even aware of), is that en.Wiki is the only major Wikipedia that does not insist on minumum qualifications o be able to vote at RfA. I'm sure those Wikis have their reasons for it and AFAICS, their RfA systems are less tainted by disingenuus votes/comments of any kind. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

En-wiki already forbids IPs from voting at RFAs. From WP:RFA, All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.. Are you proposing some other minimum qualifications for casting a vote, such as being auto-confirmed, or >N edits? Abecedare (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I am clearly not proposing anything. I am simply highlighting (and that should not be construed as an opinion either) one specific phenomenon here which apparently needs to be spelled out: Unqulified voters on Wikis that have rules generally do not bother to even follow what goes on at RfA, whether IP users or whatever,and because they probably can't comment anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

obvious troll is obvious Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I was reading this thread and came on because someone said that people need a "throwaway email account" to register. They don't. It's purely voluntary. Kudpung isn't worried that the disenfranchised on other wikis don't bother to read RfA. He should be. In this borough today we're electing a new mayor after the old one was thrown out for corruption. Ordinary citizens struggled for years to get this result because officialdom was not interested. We need the eyes of the ordinary people to watch the people who govern, and they must have unfettered ability to speak - that's basic democracy. While we're here, can someone list that vile essay "IPs are not people" for deletion? It's misleading and in this politically correct world I'm amazed it's survived so long. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Looking at the good essay, I see that the reason why unregistered editors cannot !vote is not through any lack of good faith on their part but simply because registered editors log out and vote again to sway a decision. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC) 5.150.92.20 (16 edits, 7 to mainspace), I do not recall stating that I am 'worried' about anything. What I am saying is that other major Wikipedia have controls over who can participate at RfA. Using strong language such as 'disenfranchised' is irrelevant in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Let's call a spade a spade. "Disenfranchisement" is precisely what you are proposing. As for other Wikipedias, the German one is happy for editors to puff up Coca Cola and denigrate Pepsi Cola provided they do it from an account named "Coca Cola GMBH". Do we want to go down that road? One reason why other wikis are so small is precisely because of this disenfranchisement - many of them only allow registered editing. 5.150.92.19 (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC) We are not talking about CocaCola vs Pepsi, and I would guard against underestimating the strength of the organisation and committment at the de.Wiki. Just to jog your memory we're discussing here how to keep RfA free of the kind of polemic and disruption some numbered accounts are or might be responsible for. With your handfull of IP edits and uguarded comments taking others' statements totally out of context because you can hide behind a wall of numbers, it's not as if you've got a lot to lose or gain for yourself or the community one way or another, but you wonder perhaps why some of us may not accord a lot of time for IP users, and I'm beginning to wonder why you may not wish to use a reistered account. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Well, when the Nazis put the Jews in concentration camps they tattooed them with numbers which stayed with them for the rest of their lives (which were usually miserably short). Some people will do anything to categorise and track other human beings, and demonise those who don't fall into line. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Essential reading... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2015 (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.