Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report HouseBlaster 98 7 1 93 00:50, 23 June 2024 3 days, 4 hours yes report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 20:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
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DreamRimmer	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	31 May 2024	45	43	14	51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
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0

Current time: 20:42:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Problem with recent RfA, changes needed going forward...

I was monitoring the recent RfA for User "GeneralizationsAreBad" and noticed a disturbing trend among some of the "!voters". This user was co-nominated and one of the nominators has had some brushes with the community over his interest in articles related to the Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany and the Schutzstaffel (SS). This issue was cited, repeatedly, as a reason to "oppose" this RfA. (see: #7, #20, #21 & #32 for examples). One thing should have nothing to do with other. Not only is it unnecessary to "air the dirty laundry" of the nominator, and possibly violate WP:NPA, but this has the added affect of unjustly smearing the candidate.

AFAICS, the candidate has no leanings towards Nazism or Fascism, yet it's possible that many people reading through the "oppose" comments could come away with such impressions. Not only could this unfairly affect potential "!votes", but adversely color any future interactions between this candidate and many other users. It appears this candidate has the potential to be an excellent Wikipedian and is already net-positive for the project. Many experienced and well-respected editors, and even some admins, supported this candidate, and the other co-nominator was an admin as well. That says a lot about the candidate, who's only failing here was inexperience. If this candidate continues to contribute the way they have so far, they are sure to become an admin in the future. That is, if they still want it after this RfA experience and if their candidacy isn't tainted by what is effectively a smear campaign. I would hate to see a potentially good admin chased off, as we currently have so few as it is. (take that as you will).

I suggest that all the "oppose" comments that refer to the nominator instead of the candidate be removed. Not just struck, but removed. I further suggest that guidelines be put in place that RfA participants are not to comment on nominators (or any one else for that matter), but just the candidate only. Any such remarks that violate this are to be removed immediately and can be done so by anyone, no exceptions. Barring this, some other remedy would be needed. Discuss. - ^theWOLFchild 22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the underlying point I think you're trying to make Thewolfchild - oppose votes (or votes of any kind) should be based on the candidate themselves, and not the nominating editors. I'd be interested in hearing from the patrolling bureaucrats on this one - would you censor/edit oppose votes similar to the above? -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 22:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats are loathe to remove votes in an RfA based on the rationale of the vote. Votes are removed if they are made by an IP or a sockpuppets (that is, an invalid status) but not the content. I also don't think the candidate should suffer guilt by association but the truth is that a candidate has to be as careful about selecting nominators as the nominators are about supporting a candidate. And I've seen much more flimsy reasons for opposing a candidate mentioned (like someone doesn't like an editor's signature) and those votes are not removed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

So if "Bob" is running for admin and I vote "oppose" - "because I think Fred is a jerk!"... this makes sense to you? - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I think voting oppose due to the nominating editors is roughly as sound as voting support due to the nominating editors, which seems to happen quite a fair bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think either are particularly "sound". We should be voting based on the candidate's contributions and RfA answers. If a nominator is known to you, or just known to have a good reputation, then that should be encouraging to you that the candidate is worthy of the time and effort of examining their contributions and RfA answers... not just voting yes because you think the nominator is "good guy". Conversely, we shouldn't be outright dismissing candidates, just because the nominator is someone that somebody somewhere doesn't like. - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, neither are very good rationales, and I trust that when it comes to examining comments closely that the 'crats give them no more weight than seems warranted. They should probably discount most negatives more than positives, however. There's a major difference between opposing a candidate because one doesn't like the nominator, and supporting one because of one's trust in a nominator's prior review of the candidate's readiness. (I can envision a case where a negative is a strong one, e.g. "This is another completely unready candidate, the fifth such one the nominator has nominated this month", but nothing like that is the case here; this is someone angry about the alleged [and denied] historico-political beliefs of the nominator. Similarly, a rationale like "I trust the nominator, despite them only being an editor for a week" would not be a sound rationale, but is also not related to the issue at hand here.) What's most disturbing to me about this instance is the Godwin's law component, the idea that any tenuous connection to the topic of Nazis or Hitler can be used to derail the candidacy (though technically that refers to one of the GL corollaries [1], not GL itself).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't !vote in this RFA, but I wouldn't describe it as failing due to the nominator. The first Oppose diff you cite names Ideology of the SS, this wasn't just edited by the nominator, it was cited by the nominator as an article that he and the candidate had both worked on. I can remember one or two RFAs where the nominator became the issue. But an oppose because someone was concerned about an article that both the candidate and the first nominator had worked on is not just about the nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the quote in full; It's no surprise that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy, since a main contributor, Jonas Vinther, is a self-professed neo-Nazi. But I can't understand why the candidate cites it as his best work (see Ideology_of_the_SS#Training_and_indoctrination for an example of breathless schoolboy adulation that displays an almost complete lack of familiarity with the source materials and/or the English language as used in an encyclopedia), nor why he would use this person's nomination here. Also, general lack of experience. - (emphasis mine). Perhaps now you see my point? The remarks are quite inflammatory and somewhat of a red-herring. Also, what choice did this candidate have as he was co-nominated by an admin, but this person makes no mention of that. - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between the scenario of people opposing because of something the nominator has done unrelated to the candidate and because of something the candidate has been involved in. Whether or not you agree that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy, that oppose is from someone who criticises it as reading like a eulogy and that "the candidate cites it as his best work". If the nominator was active in multiple areas, and a candidate was criticised for not being aware of one of the areas where they hadn't collaborated with the nominator then I could understand your concern. I can remember the RFA that spectacularly imploded after the nominator accidentally picked up the wrong laptop and replied to a comment whilst logged in as the candidate. That did fail because of the nominator's mistake, but such incidents are rare and I'm not seeing it here. ϢereSpielChequers 11:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not you agree that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy - Considering the community has granted that article GA status, I don't see it as an issue. That said, I provided multiple examples by way of diffs, but you are focused on only one, which is steering away from the larger picture. Perhaps if we had more structure to these RfA's, we wouldn't have so many of them "imploding" after such silly things as "disputing a signature" or accusations placed against the nominator with little or no consideration given the candidate. - ^theWOLFchild 11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I stopped at the first diff that you gave, but you did start with that diff. I can assure you from my experience of many many RFAs it is very rare that people admit being spooked by things the nominator has done that don't involve the candidate. On the broader picture that RFA's frequently get derailed for reasons that I disagree with, yes we can agree on that. I have long argued that RFA would be improved by setting a "criteria for adminship" so that RFA debates can be about whether an individual candidate meets that criteria, and discussions about that criteria can take place elsewhere, abstractly. As a community we disagree as to what the minimum threshold should be at RFA for tenure, manual edits, audited content, time since last RFA and time since last block. At least two of those came up in that RFA. In real life if a job requires a clean driving licence or a working visa for a particular country you say that on the job ad and personnel don't shortlist applicants who don't meet that criteria. I would prefer that RFA was focussed on people scrutinising the candidate's edits and checking whether they thought they were ready for adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 12:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I stopped at the first diff that you gave, but you did start with that diff. - I simply listed them in chronological order, as seen by their numbering. I would strongly suggest reading all four examples, especially the last two as they are the strongest. That said, I do however agree with some of your points in the remainder of your comment. Others... meh. - ^theWOLFchild 12:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I've read the rest and agree that at first glance they seem to focus on the nominator. But they are all part of one disconnected thread in the same RFA debate, I'm pretty sure that if the candidate hadn't edited in that area, and the first diff you mentioned hadn't started that topic, then either they wouldn't have happened or the people involved would have thought it necessary to spell out the connection with the candidate. Personally I'd be more concerned with your oppose. Even I, who one of our deletionist colleagues once accurately caricatured as a "hemp clad, patchouli smoking, sandal wearing inclusionist" couldn't give a hoot whether an RFA candidate has started any articles from scratch. With five million articles there is plenty of room for editors who never start new ones and only improve articles that others have started. I was also troubled by your advice to come back in "a couple of years", I've seen editors pass RFA with far less experience than that. Personally I wouldn't advise someone they had to wait that long unless they'd recently had an unusually egregious block or they were obviously immature. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been described as a "hemp clad, patchouli smoking, sandal wearing inclusionist" - You have the right guy? 'Cuz I never wrote that. Personally I'd be more concerned with your oppose. - You go right ahead and be "concerned", I stand by my oppose. I was also troubled by your advice to come back in "a couple of years" - Really? I'm not troubled at all, I sleep just fine. Anyway... did you even participate in this RfA? Feel free to offer opinions after that fact, but at the end of day, there is just no way an editor with only 1,000 edits should be an admin. It's good that the nom was withdrawn. That said, I hope he is nominated again down the road because I'm sure with more experience he'll make a good admin. I just hope he's not nominated by someone who has edited too many articles about Nazis... or gays, or abortion, or whatever. - ^theWOLFchild 21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for any ambiguity, I've clarified that statement to make it clearer that you weren't the one who came up with that phrase. You read it in a way that I hadn't meant it to be read. The two bits of your oppose that trouble me are expecting a candidate to have created articles and to go away for two years after a failed RFA. Both are prime examples of what I perceive to be a major problem at RFA, our lack of an agreed job criteria, and voters adding novel criteria that don't help separate good candidates from bad. As for the issue with the nominator, I've followed RFA for years and I can assure you if the area where the candidate and nominator had both edited was something else such as pre columbian pottery or orchids anyone mentioning that the nominator had edited multiple Nazi related articles would have had people asking them what the relevance was to this RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

• Not seeing the problem you're seeing. The overwhelming majority of opposers were perfectly reasonable. It doesn't look like concerns about the nominator ever caught on, and such opposition appears to have been negligible bordering on nonexistent. Swarm ♠ 23:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Not seeing the problem you're seeing. - ...and I can barely contain my surprise at that. But just the same, imagine if you were to nominate a candidate, an excellent one, for RfA. Then IF I come along, see you as the nominator and don't even bother to examine the candidate. I just automatically oppose, and in my comments I go on and on about how I think you're not a very good admin, and have a bad attitude, yadda, yadda, yadda, and not even mention the candidate. Then some others come along and see that comment. Perhaps some of them don't like you either, and also vote "oppose", without bothering to look at the candidate or mention them in their comments. What if this leads to us losing a potentially good admin? If that happened... would you see a problem then? - ^theWOLFchild 01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Liz, Peter, and Swarm if they are firmly urging caution about any complete disassociation between the nomintor and candidate. One cannot disregard this as it naturally works both ways. We are not removing these comments. (Ha Liz, I remember that signature guy!) Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well TWC, I'm not saying I'd be okay with that. Obviously that's not fair. But assuming someone did that to a candidate I nominated, A) I would trust the community as a whole to look past and ignore it, B) I would trust the closing 'crats to not take those irrelevant opinions into account, in keeping with the overarching and longstanding community standards for adminship, and C) rather than placing a burden on the community to make changes to the process, I would address it directly with the editor or editors in question. Removing others' comments is extremely controversial and if this RfA is the example to justify doing so, it's not the strongest case. Swarm ♠ 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm hoping most of you noticed that I closed my OP with the request that barring the removal of inappropriate voters comments, "that some other remedy be found". That is the purpose of raising this issue in the first, to see if perhaps some improvements can be made here. I think it's worthy of discussion and would certainly like to see some bureaucrats comment on this. - ^theWOLFchild 10:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• I opposed this nomination very early, before reading the SS article, based purely on length on-wiki and that was the primary issue raised in the RfA. Actually the controversy was useful as it drew my attention to that article, which I found non-neutral. Sometimes RfAs can be useful in that capacity. But on the general issue, editors are influenced by nominators, usually positively, but it can also be negative. I would not want someone topic-banned from any subject, particularly something like Nazi articles, to nominate me for admin (not that I want that; I'm just talking theoretically). That's just common sense. Assuming GAB knew that, which I assume he did. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• Rhetorical question: I wonder if people (like TWC here and User:SMcCandlish at the RfA) would whine about my oppose vote rationale if the nominator was an avowed KKK supporter, instead, and the article glorified the Ideology of the KKK? It seems that the Nazi party has a defiant aura of respectability within Wikipedia (see this list, for example, which I just found out about). Millions of middle-class American isolationists in the 1930s were the same - they regarded the KKK as a lower class organisation, but (more or less) approved of the Nazi party. zzz (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

In regards to your "rhetorical" personal attack, no one is "whining" about anything, just pointing out the folly of dismissing a candidate based on the reputation of the nominator. Who cares if the nominator is Charles Manson himself? The candidate should be judged solely on contributions and RfA responses. Nothing was directed at you personally, so relax. - ^theWOLFchild 19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• The accused has denied the allegation already. Per WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, Signedzzz is on dangerous ground here. His statement above isn't even cogent; the objection he raised was the article (which is a WP:GA) had the wrong tone (with no evidence that this problem was due to the candidate), and that the user about whom he makes the accusation was a major contributor to its content. That's not an objection to his nomination or nominator. Signedzzz is changing his story in mid-stream and now trying to dig up additional mud to sling about the nominator, as a form of hand-waving. The candidate is not responsible for out-lying impressions about one of the co-nominators. Signedzzz is fortunate that the WWII/Nazis topic is (somehow) not subject to WP:AC/DS or what he's already said would be immediately actionable without even raising a WP:ANI request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Blah, blah... hand-waving, WP:ANI... yada, yada... "additional mud to sling about the nominator" (my emphasis) - so that's a "no" then. zzz (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you're babbling about now?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It took you a month to come up with that?? zzz (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Insofar as the selection or acceptance of a nominator speaks to a candidate's judgment, I don't think we can discard such opposition. Consider this: would such a candidate, having been successfully frocked, fail to discern the character of a reporter, and accept a bad faith report from a disruptive user- acting on it administratively? It didn't seem to have a large impact on the linked RFA, besides. –xeno^talk 20:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreeing to let Jonas Vinters be a co-nominator was a mistake from the beginning for GAB; but if one was using that as a voting guide then that weight should have been off-set by Diannaa, the other co-nominator. In the end, GAB should be judged on his own merits; he has done good work here so far and know the process; turning my hat around, I can see where people would want him to get more content work under his belt and to branch out some-more. In the end, I believe the majority of oppose voting were of this mindset. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Our admin policy says that RfA should be decided through the lens of consensus. Our consensus policy makes it clear that arguments should be weighted based on their level of reason. I am pretty sure that 'crats would weight votes against the nominator very little, they are after all skilled at reading consensus. They don't need to remove it, just assign it less or no weight. It is unlikely to even be mentioned unless the decision is very close. HighInBC 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The point wasn't so much about how bureaucrats would weigh these comments, but the 'smear-effect' they have on the nominee. Just because one of the nominators has had issues with supposed pro-Nazi leanings, doesn't make the nominee a "Nazi-lover". It was comments to that affect that I had an issue with. That said, I'm not sure why you're addressing a month-old (and basically closed) issue, especially when there are other areas of the project that are in need of administrator attention. - ^theWOLFchild 15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Just as a user will benefit from a very good nomination, so will they suffer from a poor one. There is only so much to be done about that. When I was nominated I looked into the history of the person who offered the nomination, and found they were very much embraced by the community. If I had found they had a history of controversy I may have thought otherwise. The judgement of the candidate is relevant, and which nom they accept reflects their judgement.

I had not noticed the time-stamp, and found the conversation interesting. No need to delay archiving for my benefit. HighInBC 15:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, but if others had an issue with some of your nominator's contributions to articles in relation to, say... ethnicity, would it be ok for them to label you as a "racist"? (and then oppose you because of it?) Would it be ok for others to oppose you simply because you had been called a racist? (without even viewing your history or considering any of your contributions?) That's basically what happened here, at least with some of the !votes. As was discussed above, the candidate was co-nominated, the other nominator was an admin, and there could have been several reasons why the nomination was accepted, despite one of the co-nominator's histories. But I think that's somewhat besides that point. - ^theWOLFchild 15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

RfBs

There have been no RfBs in 2015. The last RfB was Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Acalamari 2, which was closed on January 31, 2014. There still has not been any new RfBs as of now. Will there ever be another RfB? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Probably. :) I don't know what the current 'crats think of their current workload, etc., but I'd imagine someone will eventually throw their hat into the ring, and if many crat tasks get backlogged (as will eventually happen), I'd guess that would create additional pressure to find more 'crats. --joe decker^talk 17:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I informally nominate Dennis Brown on this talk page, after his wikibreak... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that adding more crats now and then is important -- even if the workload does not fully warrant it, it's important to show the vitality of a project and to not have everyone in that position be someone who was around in 2007 or before. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We have also seen quite a few Crats have their tools removed due to increased enforcement of minimum activity requirements. So it's been a two fold decline. Mkdw^talk 17:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• We have enough bureaucrats (for now), as their responsibilities number few, and many RfBs will not pass at the high discretionary range as the sock loom and guild of trolls will in bad-faith filibuster and shoot down every RfB by competent candidates (just like RfA). Maybe in the future if bureaucrats are entrusted with more responsibilities requiring high trust (the #1 reason why we have bureaucrats in the first place) we should encourage the right editors to run. Additionally, the position of bureaucrat does not seem to be attractive, even to current administrators—they already have a large enough backlog, and they would attract even more of the same sock loom and guild of trolls if they were to succeed. Esquivalience ^t 18:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• There are generally no bureaucrat backlogs anymore (ever since global renaming), that does not mean that additional and fresh perspectives would not be useful in, especially, bureaucrat discussions. I've thrown out a few names in the last, but none seemed interested in throwing their hat in the ring. –xeno^talk 23:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
• Anyone who has read recent RFAs will understand why nobody has the slightest interest in running for RFB, which historically has had an even higher requirement for "consensus". Risker (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

  Absolutely this. SQL^{Query me!} 06:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

What went wrong, and why the reforms aren't working

Up until about 6 months ago, the environment at RfA seemed to be improving but now Risker (1) might be right after all. According to WereSpielChequers' chart, last month closed with the lowest number of promotions ever for Q1 , predicting only 8 new admins for 2016. Not only did those recent reforms (or their proposals) initiated by Biblioworm (who appears to have all but abandoned Wikipedia in the aftermath) not address the core issue of RfA, but they appear to have enhanced them and even caused some new, negative trends to develop. The concerns raised here by Esquivalience are very real. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I still stand by my sentiment that these changes, while at face value "unthinkable" and the savior of RfA, have done more harm than good. All advertising is going to do is attract more of the guild of trolls and the sock embroidery who attack with much folly the candidates and participants. Even editors with exactly zero edits are being invited to vote on a discussion as serious as a RfA, and all in an attempt to "increase participation"? All the other changes are slightly positive but pretty minor. Yet this has let the filibustering and drama that plagues every RfA pass without a second thought. Esquivalience ^t 03:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Some might call User:Esquivalience's past actions those of an establishment troll. He/she seems to prefer a cabal?Juan Riley (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Assumes facts not in evidence. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Likely unrelated to RfA 2015. Frankly, people should be even more alarmed by the pittance numbers of people resysopping so far in 2016. This keeps up, and I'm pretty sure further unbundling will be the only solution. Because, at this point, nothing is going to make admining or RfA any more appealing to anyone... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

To be blunt Esquivalience, the use of the phrase "as serious as a RfA" is part of the problem in my opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby. Something you do in your spare time because it is enjoyable. When it becomes too serious, when it becomes a chore to come here, it is time to leave. Users don't want that, and I can see people not wanting to become admins because it is a "serious" thing with very little (if any) upside. Why would people want to put themselves though a RfA just to get a few extra buttons when they know that getting the mop puts a target on their backs? Then you have the people that oppose for the smallest reasons that have no bearing on the overall question of RfA. What is the probability that the person will abuse the tools? That is what RfA should answer. If you believe the probability is low, you should support. It should be as simple as that. Requiring that candidates become a jack of all trades is only limiting the number of people that would want to become admins. Why would someone that wants to maintain requested moves need a 70+% success rate at AfD? Then there are the ridiculously high standards that is a hallmark of RfA. If you don't have 15,000+ edits and 2 years, good luck, and so help you if you use semi-automated editing programs. The seriousness that RfA has evolved into will be its downfall. The vast majority of people just don't want to put themselves through that to get a few extra buttons and no amount of reform is going to change that. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep. A few tools? I'm interested. Admining, and everything that comes with it?! Pass, with prejudice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the watchlist notice or any of the other reforms having any negative effect at all. RfAs are subject to a huge range of factors (like other jobs people do in real life). Biblio still being around (or not) is also neither here nor there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: "This keeps up, and I'm pretty sure further unbundling will be the only solution" – At which point hundreds of us will say "about damned time, since we've been saying this for 10 years".
Re: "A few tools? I'm interested. Admining, and everything that comes with it?! Pass, with prejudice", and "I can see people not wanting to become admins because it is a 'serious' thing with very little (if any) upside." – Exactly. There are real reasons (aside from little knots of grudge-bearers collected over the years) that many long-term editors like me have no interest in adminship. I'm very happy and very productive as a template-editor, and welcome further unbundling of tools, post haste.

The vast majority of the tasks admins do could and should be doable by any experienced, competent, and uninvolved editor. Our fifteen-year experiment in creating an echelon of "first-class editors" has clearly run its course. It's absurd that we have backlogs for things as trivial as moving pages over redirects, and moving categories. Any logged-in editor in good standing should be empowered to delete a page for which an XfD concluded with consensus to delete, as long as they're willing to do the attendant cleanup work. This entire notion that the very tool of deletion is so unbelievably dangerous (hint: it's not, and can be undone) that no one can have it unless we also trust them with everything else, including the ability to block people and issue indef topic bans, is absurd. It's no different from observing that it is technically possible to kill someone with a fork, and concluding that, therefore, no one but on-duty police officers and military personnel should be permitted to touch eating utensils. Time to get real. This is not working any longer, and it has not been in a very long time. Most of the qualified people know enough to stay away, and most of the candidates are inexperienced and want to be admins for all the wrong reasons. Adminship (for those who actually do the work, instead of just lording it over the dramaboards 24/7) is a grueling, thankless pile of never-ending busywork because all the wrong things are made admin tasks, burning out admins, and making a worse and worse bottleneck with each passing day. Continuing with the present system is like stubbornly insisting that the only proper way to deliver mail is by some guy on horseback.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's on my mental 'To Do' to look into a technical solution (e.g. a userright) for the "move over redirect" issue to make a "Page mover" bundling a viable option, but I ain't gonna try and tackle that until my work settles down between May and August! But the recent backlogs at WP:RM may even be enough to move consensus in favor of spinning off "Page mover" rights... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a page mover userrights that allowed move over redirect, movesubpages, move without redirect, noratelimits, would probably find approval. –xeno^talk 18:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I agree with this (unbundling the toolset). I can absolutely guarantee I would not have attempted an RFA if the climate in 2008 was like it is now. All I ever wanted to do as an admin was be able to block the idiots I saw on my vandal patrols instead of having to keep reverting their edits until some other admin got around to it, help with the CSD and RFPP backlogs, and be able to do the technical things mentioned above (btw, hi xeno! It's been a while). And that's all I really ever did after I passed my RFA. And I passed 111-0-0 even though I had only been active for like 10 months then! (I actually almost passed after only 5 months) I would argue there's a fair amount of people who pretty much only desire admin rights for the reasons that I did, and they would never stand a chance at today's RFA. I personally think the reason people don't apply is because the standards are far too high and while I do agree being an admin is not a completely trivial thing, I think that the climate in RFA since around the middle of 2009 has made it out to be far, far more of a big deal than it actually is. Just my $0.02 as apparently my opinion on this is in the minority and I don't have enough free time any more to do much on wiki like I used to. Thingg^⊕⊗ 03:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• The reports of my wikideath are greatly exaggerated. I have not abandoned the place, although I was on a long break. It is not a crime to take breaks; it is in fact encouraged for those who are burned out. I'm quite glad that I'm not an unfortunate addict who is unable to pull away when they want to; I only edit here because sometimes I have free time and I choose to edit in that free time—but if I want to, I can just simply stop and do other things in life. Granted, I have come back with a vastly different perspective and opinion concerning Wikipedia governance; I now understand that overall, in all aspects, it has grave flaws that must be fixed if Wikipedia is to last and be at least a somewhat respectable website (i.e., not one that academics utterly disrespect and mock).
• On the issue of RfA (which, in the future, I will likely put much less emphasis upon in favor of more important issues), I quite honestly do not appreciate having my hard reform work downplayed and marginalized—that actually happens to be one of the things about this place that I find most discouraging: the complete lack of appreciation and the constant attempts to minimize the true extent of someone's sincere efforts to do what's best (evidently, on that matter, things haven't changed any since I left for my break!). In fact, it's being insinuated that I made things worse. This is what I get for attempting to effect change—heckling for taking a break and then blame for the lack of RfAs? Outrageous. For example, one of the pet ideas of the widely acclaimed RFA2011 was clerking; in RFA2015, we finally succeeded in getting it at least partially implemented by way of 'crat clerking. But when its implementation failed to cause an immediate surge, certain ones who wholeheartedly supported reform suddenly jump ship and blame the proposer and their reforms for all the problems. Does anyone see the irony? Biblio (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Biblioworm: Plenty of us do appreciate the efforts. From my perspective, a major failing has been the clerking/moderation. In every RfA I've participated in lately, there has been extensive and largely unchecked blatant lobbying, almost the point of needling, to get people to change their oppose votes. It's very off-putting about the whole process. If opposers lobbied supporters to switch sides like that, they'd probably get immediate blocks. The overall impression is "there's an unspoken but official new rule that all candidates who are not totally new, totally stupid, or totally crazy must pass at all costs, even if there's no evidence they're actually competent to do even 1/10 of what they're asking for tools to do." But that's not your fault, and not a problem caused by attempts at RfA reform, it's just a symptom of desperation by defenders of a failing system who will not embrace enough change to make it viable again. It's rather like bribing the provost at a private school to accept your kid as student even though they badly failed the entrance exams.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

+1 on the appreciation for Biblio part. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• The numbers this last quarter were indeed very bad - the longterm decline continues and hasn't looked this bad since October 2014. But I'm not convinced that the latest reforms have been counterproductive, and in particular I think the watchlist notice worked well; It clearly brought in extra !voters, and in combination with the question cap, not so many as to make the process unmanageable. Hopefully some of those new RFA !voters will be running RFAs in the next year or so. RFA relies on a number of variables, one is the pool of people who could pass RFA if they ran, another is that subset of that pool who have started to consider RFA. It was several months from when I first !voted at RFA to when I first ran, so I see the extra RFA !voters as a big plus and a group of people who are much more likely to run RFAs when they feel they are ready. On a broader note, the nearest we have to a measure of the pool of potential RFA applicants is the measure of people saving 100 edits a month in mainspace (yup there will be people who aren't in that group who could pass and others in that group who couldn't - but it is an available measure and the nearest we have to RFA ready). The 2015 rally in core editors has now lasted 14 months; Too early to say whether the community is in a new expansionary phase or has merely stabilised at slightly more than the 2013/14 minima, but long enough to say it is no longer declining. Providing we can avoid further unhelpful "standards inflation" I'm hoping that RFA will stabilise and after a lag of a year or two, follow the rally in core editors. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Biblioworm,you can probably put it down to my penchant for putting 2 and 2 together and invarably coming up with 4; let's face it, I'm known for making sweeping statements and jumping to conclsions, bit t let's put it this way: if yesterday in the whole of England all the streets were empty and not a single wheeled vehicle ventured down the roads for the entire 24 hours, we would probably assume it had something to do with the date and something to do with English people. It would leave us all scratching our heads to find the connections but neverteless it would have been an extremely odd concourse of circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The equivalent though would be looking at the English Wikipedia editing population and the calendar. With your analogy, the RfA changes are more akin to sending out handbills advertising the driver licensing exam, and changes to the examination process. Although these are potential factors, there are many larger issues—the costs and hassles of driving, for example. In a similar manner, in Wikipedia, contentiousness amongst editors makes administrative work unappealing. Any change to the nature of a large group collaboration will take time to take hold, and so seeds sown today are going to take time to develop, and how much they grow is highly dependent on how well they are nurtured by the community. isaacl (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Need to delegate tools to our old editors...I would love to help-out with some admin stuff (like page movies, copyright violations etc..)but have no interest in being called an admin or being involved in all the drama that comes along with being an admin. Need to give tools to our old timers that have more experience then many admins do. -- Moxy (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Stay away from WP:CESSPIT and don't put yourself in any of the "Wikipedia administrators willing to..." categories and you'll be fine. —Cryptic 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's all well and good once you are an admin, but there are still a significant number of RFA voters who expect all admin hopefuls to arbitrate disputes and create good or featured articles, activities that don't need the tools. A good chunk of Widr's opposers said just as much (especially SMcCandlish and Wehwalt). It's all a bit discouraging to those of us who only want to block obvious vandals or other non-controversial admin activities. It's only once you become an admin that you can hide from the drama, it seems. clpo13_(talk) 18:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The "must have a GA or FA" faction have repeatedly failed to get traction. Widr got a very clear pass at RFA without either a GA or FA, and not all of his opposes were for that lack, at least two wanted some level of contributions between his hundreds of referenced stubs and a GA. "Good Vandalfighter" is insufficient to pass RFA, it used to be enough in 2007, but since early 2008 you have had to do something to build the pedia as well as defending it. ϢereSpielChequers 18:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's just what I mean, though. Anyone can build the encyclopedia. The only legitimate reason to seek admin tools is if you need them to help defend the project (by blocking users, protecting/deleting pages, etc.). Anyways, I'm getting off-topic. My reasons for being wary of RFA aren't everyone's reasons. clpo13_(talk) 18:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Aren't admins also involved in resolving content disputes? That would be a reason to seek content contribution from an admin candidate, in my understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

True, but admins are mainly involved in maintenance tasks. Although admins should at least know what content editors need of them (e.g. non-firm adherence to policies and guidelines, especially in protection and other content-related matters), a key factor in admin candidates should be trust; if a maintenance editor can be trusted not to handle content disputes, then there is probably little risk in giving them the tools. Esquivalience ^t 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The only legitimate reason for holding the tools is if you are a content creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please explain. How do the tools help write articles? clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Since many admins with strong content building experience end up forgoing these activities as they get involved in more admin tasks like CSDs, AFDs RPP and so on, I would think that you wouldn't want to lose solid writers to the mundane, mop-oriented responsibilities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not enough. The fact that you're an admin means that you get dragged to ANI and the like for "enabling" other editors. For everyone else, a block is the most worse-case punishment, for an admin the threats of desysopping or dragging you into Arbcom. Even basic things like closing discussions (or just relisting discussions) have nonsensical fights nowadays. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• In that case, Kudpung, do you believe the RfA process should be entirely discontinued? If you do not, have you any reform ideas that would be any better or more effective? Biblio (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2016

Hello ! I will help all people. If I'm administrator . I have more time. I want something in our Wikipedia, has become the best. Sorry for the error. Vladislav Davydenko (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Vladislav Davydenko (talk · contribs) - I'm not sure if you have experience as an IP user or with another account (or another wiki), but with this account you only have 2 edits worth of experience so far. To be an admin, you need a great deal more. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. - ^theWOLFchild 14:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, you might want to consider requesting it on another language wikipedia, because english doesn't appear to be your first language. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 08:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

We have other ESL admins here... - ^theWOLFchild 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

I've considered applying for administratorship in the past, and I think now is the time. Is there a way that I should put my name on the main rfa page, or does someone do it for me? Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK you can self-nominate. Check out Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. - ^theWOLFchild 08:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Wolf. Is there a technical script that I put on there? When I've asked for page protection before, it required a certain kind of script that you type in. Is there a technical script for asking for adminship also? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I think perhaps, Johnsmith2116, that if you were to read some of the advice pages, most especially WP:RFAADVICE, you'd find all the answers, and a great deal more. Then try your luck at WP:RRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bare fact: If you can't figure even this much out, you are not ready to be an admin yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Bare fact:" you should keep your snarky comments to yourself. - ^theWOLFchild 16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how that's "snarky". It's entirely correct. I think the thing that is harmful is stringing along people who clearly aren't going to pass an RfA. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Unless you're SMc and editing while logged out, then so what? And I don't see how this person is being "strung along", nor how you can determine that they "clearly" can't pass an RfA. They were looking info and they got it. When the time comes that they feel they're ready, they'll post an RfA and if the community agrees they're ready, they'll get it. I don't see anything carved in stone here. - ^theWOLFchild 01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I was endorsing SMcCandlish's message, and indicating that I disagreed with your assessment of it. This is a thing that people do in discussions. Any candidate that doesn't know the details of technical stuff like transclusion is unlikely to pass an RfA in the current environment. This is a recurring pattern on this page, where clearly unready candidates ask how to post an RfA, and people give them a technical walkthrough without telling them what to expect in the RfA itself. They get their RfA up (or someone else does it for them), get a barrage of oppose votes they weren't expecting, and generally have a traumatic experience. More than one editor has left after an RfA went badly when they weren't expecting it. If the enwp community was more oriented towards promoting a healthy and inviting environment, some kind of mandatory "prescreening" would ensure candidates were prepared for what they're about to go through. (RfA and a lot of other processes would also be overhauled, but that's a whole other can of worms.) In the "real world", people who are going to go through grueling processes, like, say, defending a PhD dissertation, are generally prepared and taught what to expect beforehand. Perpetuating an "anyone can be an admin, step right up!" fiction is dishonest, in my view, when that's not actually the case. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (Also, kudos to MelanieN below for giving some good guidance. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC))

You learned all this from your extensive Wikipedia experience? (25 edits! No... make that 26!) As you say, people disagree in discussions, and I disagree with your "assessment". The rest is just a waste of time. Wikipedia will never be a "healthy and inviting environment". Sorry to break it to you. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 03:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur. RfAs can be a grueling process. Editors need to prepare themselves for what they are about to face. Some issues will arise during the Optional RfA candidate poll Melanie mentions which is good because you have time to address them. RfAs are unpredictable in that you never know who will show up to participate or what qualities of your editing, your editing experience or your character they will focus on. But it is better to go into an RfA with your eyes wide open than naively giving it a shot. I know this sounds discouraging but realistically, you can expect to be scrutinized and criticized. If you pass, you get a mop and a t-shirt so there is that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnsmith2116: There is a page where people can get an informal opinion about whether they are likely to succeed in applying for adminship. It is here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. It is much less threatening than an actual Request for Adminship, and it does not leave a permanent record as an unsuccessful RfA does. When you are uncertain about whether or when to apply, that kind of feedback can be invaluable. As SMcCandlish says, it sounds like you don't know much about the process, suggesting that you are not ready. And do be sure to read the essays that Kudpung linked to. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

42

Maybe we need a WP:42 sort of thing for admin hopefuls. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How about:

• Be nice
• Create content
• Work many areas, especially AfD
• Don't be too new

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I like that idea a lot! There must be a better way to mention the civility requirement, because somehow I feel like the statement to "be nice" implies editors have to be gregarious or something. Maybe something like "Be polite" or "Be respectful" would work. APerson (talk!) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

In terms of a "secret sauce" recipe for success, being gregarious, or to put it another way, being helpful and collaborative with others, is one of the key factors in non-contentious requests for adminship privileges. So I believe there should be an item on this: perhaps explicitly, "Be helpful to others and collaborate productively with as many people as possible." isaacl (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

"Be excellent to each other." ? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than "work many areas, especially AfD" I would suggest "work more than one area, including one where it would help if you had the tools". AFD is not necessary if you don't plan to work in deletion, OK not being involved in AFD or deletion will get you a few opposes, but nothing to worry about. However you will fail if you don't show a need for the tools, and in an area where you have been active, deletion, vandal whacking or elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

In my experience the most important qualities an admin needs are good judgment and, even more important, the ability to cordially communicate with editors with a variety of levels of experience about a) why their recent conduct is causing problems and b) what solution there is to remedy the problem and help this individual become a better editor. It only takes a second or two to hit the block button and the admins I admire are ones that take the time to explain what is going on to often bewildered and confused new editors. And to do this again and again and not grow cynical. Patience is underrated, I think. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You forgot: "Don't participate in any disputes, because anything you say can and will be used against you in your RFA, and people you argued with will show up to oppose. Once you get adminship, then you can throw your weight around." --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I feel quite the opposite. I felt more free to participate in controversial issues and weigh in on disputes as an editor because I was just offering my perspective. As an admin, you are accountable. Even if you think you are being uncontroversial, people continually are asking you to justify the decisions you make (which is their right) while when you are an editor, you can ignore people you disagree with, delete their messages from your talk page, tell them to go away and other less polite terms. There is a freedom to that status that you lose when you take on admin responsibilities. But that's okay, it's part of the package. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, more than one admin has told others to "fuck off" or similar, and they're still admins. I don't think anyone has ever been deadminned simply for invective. It has been cited as a factor in some deadminnings, but these have always gone along with concerns over use of admin tools. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)