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 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 11:25:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
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
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99

Is a withdrawal better than riding out a failing RFA to the end?

Does a candidate who withdraws when it's clear that their RFA is not going to succeed, rather than letting it run the full week to the inevitable failure, have a better chance next time, or does it make no difference? I cut my first RFA short when it turned clearly negative, I feel it was to my advantage when I returned for my second (successful) RFA, but what do the stats say? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have seen candidates who withdraw their candidacy when an RfA clearly will not succeed enjoy kudos of small favor in their subsequent RfA for having done so; and there's nothing wrong with positive recognition of such a decision. Unfortunately, I have also seen candidates endure a backlash of negativity for not withdrawing, in such a circumstance, and that recognition inevitably rest upon wrongful conclusions derived by assumptions of bad faith; in my opinion.--John Cline (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  Note to self: Use the phrase "kudos of small favor" in casual conversation at least once this week... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

  That doesn't appear to be grammatical, though (in two different ways). I'm not sure if the intent is "kudos for a small favor" or "kudos, in the form of being favored a bit". Kudos means 'thanks, gratitude, acknowledgement', or 'honors, praise, acclaim', depending on context, but in either case "kudos of" doesn't really parse in English.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I do think if a candidate withdraws early when their RfA is clearly not going to succeed, it's a sign of good judgement and respect for consensus. However I don't necessarily think the reverse is true. RfA is an election, and strange things tend to happen as elections proceed (ahem). Waiting it out is maybe just hopefulness, or maybe the candidate appreciates the feedback. Editors who attack a candidate for not withdrawing reveal more about themselves than about the candidate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• The key to that question is "when it's clear". I think RfA candidates typically quit sooner than they need to, perhaps out of shame. I wouldn't pull out unless the numbers were below the discretionary range after the first couple days. Any candidate running should know where they stack up. ORCP is good for that, too. Between the candidate and the nominator, they should know where the potential issues are. The only people that are surprised by the aggregate's reactions are editors lacking self-awareness and honesty. Headbomb's fourth RfA failed after it went the distance, as did his third RfA. GAB's first RfA was withdrawn after a couple days and the second was successful. Anarchyte's first RfA was withdrawn after five days and the second was successful. Clpo13's first was withdrawn after five days and the second was successful;Same with Primefac's first. However, Cyberpower678's first went the distance and closed no-consensus in 'crat chat before his second passed. If you look at that recent sample, the answer would seem to indicate discretion is the better part of valor. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  That confirms my gut feel. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Imho, it depends on how you handle either way, not which way you choose. Personally, I would see neither withdrawal nor letting it run as negative, as long as the candidate does show that they know that the request will fail and either now see it as a way to grow as an editor or as a waste of everyone's time that should be stopped sooner rather than later. But even a clearly failing RfX (like my recent RfB) can be a source of useful feedback for the candidate, provided they are willing and able to follow it. Likewise, a withdrawal can make sense if more feedback is clearly unlikely to happen and all new !votes will just be rehashing old ones. In the end, it boils down how the candidate has handled the failure itself, not the specific way they did it. Regards SoWhy 17:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

  I agree when the opposes turn into pile-ons without any new feedback it's time to pull the plug. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• The context is everything. As SoWhy says, either path can reflect positively on a candidate. It depends on the way a candidate goes about it, and their motivations. I think if there is significant opposition, it generally reflects better on a candidate to simply bow out gracefully, with a promise to address the issues raised and return in a few months for another try. That demonstrates maturity and a willingness to accommodate community concerns. On the other hand, if a candidate acknowledges their RfA is going to fail but requests that it be left open so that they can receive the feedback, that demonstrates the same thing and can reflect just as positively on the candidate. Swarm ♠ 18:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• My withdrawal from my first RFA was probably motivated by embarrasment more than anything else, when the opposes turned into simple pile-ons, there was no further useful feedback. I even cringed when I read parts of it now, several years and a successful RFA later. My withdrawal statement was an attempt at a "graceful exit" even though I would have preferred to just slip out the back door as quietly as possible. So when I see a candidate stay with an obvious "crash and burn" all the way to the end I wonder if they are impervious to embarrassment, which, imho, is a rather undesirable trait for an admin. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is RfA a horrible and broken process?

There always seems to be a lot of talk about how RfA is broken, and it needs replacing etc etc, but I wanted to get some hard data to see if this was really the case. The most obvious thing to pick up on is a record of recently failed RfAs, and see if I can discover why they failed and if there was anything that could be done to prevent that. I had a look and made some brief notes:

Candidate	Date	Tally	Cause
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Headbomb 4	16 October 2017	72/85/10	Incivility, answers to two questions
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kostas20142	11 October 2017	9/22/9	Hat collecting
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crboyer	9 October 2017	11/36/1	No content creation; weak understanding of CSD policy
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2	4 September 2017	66/76/22	Questionable CSDs; minimal content creation
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cwmhiraeth	10 May 2017	20/41/7	Recent ArbCom case
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane	13 April 2017	74/56/13	Questionable CSDs
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CaroleHenson	9 March 2017	12/5/4	Questionable CSDs
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lourdes	9 February 2017	20/26/4	Insufficient tenure (14 months), RfA badgering
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Onel5969	5 January 2017	81/27/5	Political bias
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mike1901	3 January 2017	48/12/3	Not enough experience
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yash!	9 December 2016	55/11/3	Sockpuppetry
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy	6 December 2016	138/65/4	Treating InfoWars as a reliable source

Looking at all of those, there seems to be a common theme to the reasons each one failed. What I also discovered is the first couple of opposes are rarely picked up on by other people; the more substantial opposition tends to come later. The actual opposition that makes an RfA fail tends to on the whole be civil and constructive; I don't think Yash! got a fair deal, and Godsy was right on the knife-edge of support, but of all the others I think the result was probably correct and matched what I normally think the RfA bar is.

People say that too many people who could be admins don't want to run. I've had a look through emails over the past year and found the following comments:

• "I do not wish to take on this role at present"
• "I decided not to proceed any further in the process at that moment. I had a lot of real-life commitments to attend to, and things were still very much in flux."
• "Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I honestly think it's beyond me. In a lot of ways, it is like glorified babysitting and really, really stressful."

There doesn't seem to be much complaining about RfA itself at all - most of the discussion is me either deciding a candidate is not suitable or them saying they do not have time per above.

So what is the issue exactly? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Reading Godsy's RfA, I don't think treating InfoWars as a source was the reason for it to fail. Behavioral concerns seem to be the main reason here (which was expressed in the crat chat as well). That said, I think the analysis shows that reasonable, civil, clueful editors have nothing to fear as the recent successful RfAs demonstrate (MLG, Ansh666, Cullen328, GAB, Anarchyte, etc. (Tony most likely as well)) and there are plenty of candidates that fit that bill. The comments you mention show less a problem with RfA and more one with adminship as well but unfortunately no change to RfA can change the characterization of adminship as "glorified babysitting" and "really, really stressful". No amount of RfA reform can change that... Regards SoWhy 12:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say the pendulum has swung the other way and that the main problem currently is that people get frustrated when their opposition !votes are not listened to. For example, there may be 150 votes in favour of someone with rationales such as: 'Why not?' Then there are 20 or so oppose votes with in-depth genuine concerns for why the candidate is not suitable for the responsibility of the extra tools. At the end of the 7 day period, the bureaucrat comes along and closes the RfA as successful which subsequently makes what should not be a simple vote into what is effectively; a simple vote. However, on the other side of the coin, there are still individuals out there who just want to oppose for the sake of opposing and will find any old rationale for doing so. I think it's a good thing that RfA is more critical now than it used to be, on balance. Weeding out those who are hat collecting, those with unsuitable temperaments and those who would quite plainly make veteran content producing editors quit with their administrative actions is a critical responsibility of the RfA process. There are simple solutions to the issue as a whole that would mitigate the previous concerns and soften the process up significantly but implementing them requires convincing people of the need for change. Many people might agree that there should be change but if just 1 millimetre of a suggestion for reform is unpalatable, it ends up derailing the idea towards no-consensus. Solve that and you solve RfA. -=Troop=- (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• My RfA is/was pretty drama free. I didn't mind the opposes in general, and the only thing that really bothered me was the implication that I somehow exhibited a pro-Catholic/mildly LGBT-unfriendly attitude in the way I handled new pages. I didn't get into it both because I didn't want to increase the drama that would come with those specific examples, and also I felt engaging on that specific topic would only lend the (IMO) false implication credibility. Of course, I was lucky enough not to have to deal with the opposes and ensuing drama that happened on the MLG RfA, and mine was relatively drama-free (the arguments on the talk page IMO were more about the concept of the draft space than me, so I didn't mind). TonyBallioni (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• The problem with RfA is not always the results but rather the way in which people oppose. For instance, I would consider my RfA an example of why RfA is broken, in that multiple editors spent the week claiming I was a sock. That was a rather hellish week for me, and my activity dropped off for a bit afterwards because I wasn't the most motivated to do anything on the project. When people who would clearly be net positives as admins look at that, sometimes they decide just not to run. I know of at least one case at the moment where someone who would be a real asset as an admin is uninterested in running due to the RfA environment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• My impression is that the (intentionally?) mean-spirited inquisitions of a few years ago have toned down a lot recently. I suspect it may somehow be connected to the significantly higher number of !votes in recent/current RFAs. When there were only a few dozen participants the inquisition fires burned hotter. My first failed RFA in 2014 had only 74 participants, the second successful one in January this year had 145. Currently the norm seems to be in the 200 to 300 participants range and the discussions seem far less acrimonious. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

On RfAs like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rickyc123, the discussion certainly seems to be more towards "moral support, thanks for your interest, have a go in the future" rather than chewing the candidate up and spitting them out. Indeed, if I had to pick the most snarkiest oppose in that RfA, it would probably be my own. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is one of my arguments for why ORCP is more toxic than RfA itself and should be marked as historical. Just putting that plug in here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni I wonder if ORCP might actually be the reason why RFAs are less traumatic these days than before? Perhaps ORCP is drawing the fire away from RFA, with a significant proportion of unqualified candidates getting "roasted" there and so don't come to RFA at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Dodger67, I think it does that but I also think it scares a lot of good candidates who could easily pass. I know of at least one candidate who I think has an excellent chance of passing who was treated to a useless ORCP that could be used against them in an RfA. I also know that the advice that had been given is that you should aim for a 8/10 or higher average to have a shot at RfA. That is of course, ridiculous advice that makes people who get an average of 60% chance of passing think they shouldn't stand. I think more RfAs from candidates that range the spectrum is important. While everyone should want a 100% RfA, we need more people who are willing to stand on the chance that they will pass with 75%: not everyone is going to be perfect and get 99% or 100% support and that is okay, and we need to start letting potential candidates know that. Thus endeth my soapbox. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• In more recent RFA’s oppose votes have been subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny for a variety of reasons both good and bad (calling out bias, disagreeing with policy interpretation, disagreements over activity in certain areas or lack thereof, I want to see this RFA pass with 0 opposes). That a well-qualified candidate usually has a number of people willing to defend them when opposes appear is a good thing for the candidate and eases their burden. There also appears to be an increasing trend towards “I think I might oppose but let me ask a question about my concern first” which helps the candidate further defend themselves in a visible area and not look like they are badgering the oppose votes. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• When I ran a couple of years ago, I made the admittedly-stupid-in-retrospect mistake of letting a couple of editors here whom I'd had positive interactions with know about it, though in a glib "Hey look at this!" manner (I have an odd sense of humor sometimes). This was subsequently and perhaps predictably depicted in my RfA as canvassing, and led to a snowballing of opposition to the point that I withdrew my nomination. It chafed more than a little that some if not most of the opposers seemed to think my stupid mistake was instead an intentional attempt to sway the vote. Of course, noting WP:AGF at the time wouldn't have been practical or prudent. I do sometimes wonder how things might have gone for me if that had been a non-issue, and I might consider running again, but there's no way I'd nominate myself, and for better or worse nobody's come forward to suggest I run again. I also admit that while I think I would be an asset as an admin, I'm not entirely sure that anything I'm most strongly interested in doing here really requires the tools. I'd be curious to have a conversation about that with anyone who'd be interested in nominating me, but that's not an explicit request for such a discussion. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• For whatever it is worth, the numbers suggest RFA may be having a bit of a turnaround. Total and successful RFAs are already more than last year, and the rate of success is the highest in over a decade. That doesn't speak to the subjective experience of being a candidate, but statistically a plausibly qualified candidate (leaving aside the NOTNOWs) has been more likely to pass than to fail at RFA this year. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• There's a lot of ways to look at the data. Plus, there's lots of effects on the data as well. The statistical data set is also very small, so it's quite hard to draw conclusions from it. January of this year was quite the statistical blip (9 successful RfAs). If January had been a 'normal' type of month, the number of successful RfAs per month this year would be at the lowest level ever. Over the last 8 months complete since then, we've had a record number of 0 successful RfA months (3), and the worst February - September run of RfAs since RfA began (8 successful, vs. last year's low record of 10). I don't mean to be a downer, or to say that the RfA sky is falling. Rather, any statistical variations have to be taken with a very large grain of salt. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• To answer the question in brief, the problem is a series of cultural and structural issues surrounding adminship and the RfA process. On the structural side, the standards have increased from 4000 edits / 6 months in 2007 to 10000 edits / 2 years today. Candidates are judged on one-off or rare instances of mistakes, rather than evaluated on their overall competency. On the cultural side, we demand a "need" for the tools, when we actually mean "potential use" - the stronger language helps lead to an increase in standards. Adminship has also become a status symbol, and admins are held to higher standards of behaviour than non-admins. All of this combines to create an environment where the tools are a sufficiently big deal, and where the process to get them is sufficiently difficult, as to prevent candidates from wanting to step forward.

As to why you get such vague answers when asking people why they don't want to be an admin, there is also a truly comical culture around here that you can't want to be an admin. I'm sorry to burst any bubbles here, but I would estimate that 99% of people who are admins wanted to be one. Maybe there is the odd one that had their account hacked and put up to RfA in 2004 that passed. But the notion that someone is around for a decade, has edited in all admin-related areas, and then just happens to stumble across RfA and accidentally submit their candidacy is ridiculous. Admins wanted to be admins or they wouldn't have volunteered for it, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you're concerned with people being power hungry, there are other ways to see that - hat collecting and always trying to win debates are two easy ones. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to burst any bubbles here, but I would estimate that 99% of people who are admins wanted to be one. I'd take that bet. I was one that had to be "dragged kicking and screaming" to RfA, 2 1/2 years ago. When people first started suggesting it to me I responded "no, no, never!" It took a good 8 or 9 months, and massively flattering offers from several prominent admins, before I finally got up the nerve to run. I know the same is true of at least one other current admin whom I recruited a few months into my tenure - he initially refused to consider it before saying a month later "well, maybe..." - and several other people that I have urged to run that have so far refused. I think the reluctant admin, who gets talked into adminship rather than aspiring to it, is not as uncommon as you think. Don't get me wrong - I now enjoy contributing as an admin - but I think there are a lot of good admins who had to be persuaded to run. --MelanieN (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this is an issue of wording, much like the word "need". We've twisted the word to mean something it doesn't. Whether others persuaded you to run doesn't change the fact that, after they suggested it, you wanted to perform the administrative duties. Nobody in any volunteer role is there unless they want to do it. I edit on Wikipedia because I want to; I'm not paid or coerced to be here. It's not a bad word. We've co-opted it to mean something nefarious, that the person is secretly planning to gain advanced permissions so they can do naughty things with them. But that's not what "want" means. What we really mean by "not wanting to be an admin" is that people should want to be an admin for the right reasons - helping people, doing boring maintenance tasks, protecting the quality of the encyclopedia. We currently associate "wanting to be an admin" with being power-hungry and not here to contribute to the project - just playing the MMORPG. But that's not what the word means, and if we can move away from treating any desire to help out in admin areas as bad, that will go a long way towards a more healthy culture surrounding advanced permissions.

I'm curious why you were reluctant to run. I think it probably has something to do with a) the standards expected of RfA candidates, and more generally, b) how admins are viewed and treated in the community. Adminship has become a very big deal now. If an admin makes a mistake, they are dragged over the coals for it. Adminship is very exclusive, because the vast majority of admins passed RfA years ago. But imagine how it would be if all you had to do to become an admin was email a bureaucrat once you got 1000 edits and had used a sub-admin permission without issue for 3 months (not a serious proposal, just a thought exercise). Imagine how it would be if admins were treated like every other editor, just with a few extra buttons, in the same way that someone with rollback or page mover rights is treated. Would the same stresses prevent you or others from volunteering yourselves? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that an example might help get my point across here. Imagine that you are looking to volunteer at a local food bank, helping to sort cans. You are talking with the volunteer coordinator, and they ask if you want to do it. You say "nope, I have never wanted to do this". Do you see how strange that would be in the real world? The organization would probably direct you elsewhere, because they want people who want to be there. It is still possible to want to help at a food bank for the wrong reasons, like if you steal some of the food you are there to help sort. But the issue isn't with wanting to help, it's with why you want to help. Same deal with adminship here. When we associate any desire to help out in admin areas with having bad reasons to want to help, we develop a vocabulary that is separate from reality. And one that, I would argue, contributes to the unhealthy culture surrounding advanced permissions in general. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you mean by "want" - that they were willing to take it on for whatever reason - then I wonder how the other 1% wound up as admins? 0;-D In my case (reverting back to the subject title here) it wasn't because "RfA is a horrible and broken process." It wasn't that I was afraid a bunch of nasty people would tear me to shreds. It was more a matter of self-doubt - fear that I might not the grade, might not be worthy. Personality, not process. As it turned out, my personal experience with RfA was not horrible or broken at all - to my surprise I enjoyed it. And back to the even bigger question here: one way to get qualified people to run is for us as individuals to make more of an effort to identify them, approach them, encourage them, and maybe eventually talk them into it. Personally I quietly evaluate a dozen or more possible candidates a month, although most of them wind up in my "not suitable" basket for one reason or another. --MelanieN (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The other 1% probably got it way back when all you had to do was email Jimbo or whatever, and didn't really know what it was for. :D Then again I wasn't around for that time so I don't know if that's accurate or not. ansh666 23:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I made an obviously bad attempt at humour, suggesting that the other 1% were accounts that had been compromised and taken to RfA without the original owner's consent. But you've got my point - what I mean by "want" is what the word actually means, a desire to do something for whatever reason. When we change the meaning of words here, it impacts how we think about the issues. When "want" means "want for nefarious reasons", then any want - good or bad - becomes bad. When "need" is used instead of "potential use", then anyone who would only use the sysop tools twice a day no longer meets that criteria, despite clearly having a potential use for the tools. When "notable" is used instead of "inclusion criteria", we attach a normative judgement to the quality of the subject of an article, when we are just trying to set a standard for what should be included or not.

Thanks for sharing your own reasons for not running. Your suggestion of identifying and contacting potential candidates is great. But I fear it is very complacent to how we treat advanced permissions here. The reason that Wikipedia was so revolutionary is because the most important right on the project - edit - was given to everyone. This allows people to make mistakes, because everyone else can fix them. Obviously administrator rights should be a bit more restricted than that, but any admin action* can be reverted in a similar period of time. So why do we have such a higher standard for admins? Now, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a higher standard, but I wonder what the right balance is. We're on a website where everything can be changed and undone, but we're fixated on promoting admins who will never make mistakes. I would propose that moving towards a better balance, between expecting competence but not perfection, would help people who fear that they might not be worthy to step up to the plate. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I first became aware of adminship around three years before I actually ran; in my case I'd had advanced privileges on other projects and sites all the way up to full root access on the server and had just "been there and done that" one too many times. I eventually concluded that since there were so many existing admins and that no admin is obliged to use their tools, that I wasn't going to end up in the same situation I've been in the past where I seem to be running the whole show in my spare time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As long as it remains a popularity contest it will remain broken. It really should be based more on objective measures of competence. This would remove the "you're going to fail because you pissed off an admin who has a bunch of friends and they're all going to bloc vote against you" problem, and also weed out "best behavior" near-noobs who don't have any enemies but also have insufficient experience to do the work properly. But, such a reform will likely not happen any time in the next decade.

What is more likely is that more tools will be unbundled. At some point we should get to where the only admin stuff remaining admin-only is "dangerous" things that involve deletion, blocking, and privacy/security matters. Some deletion tasks, maybe even all of them, could be offloaded, if the application process required sufficient clue. There are plenty of non-admins who know CSD better than the average admin, and plenty of admins make CSD mistakes, so the adminship bar is actually too low when it comes to CSD, while it is too high for many other tools (which is why we keep unbundling things like WP:Template editor, WP:Page mover, and WP:File mover). Another one that could be unbundled would be temporary page protection. It doesn't take a genius to figure that stuff out.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been of the opinion that we've reached the limit of what we can safely unbundle, but you do have a point, SMcCandlish. The anomaly is that all the minor rights carry a clearly set entry threshold while adminship has none (bar the arbitrary criteria exercised by the voters) but candidates come under heavy scrutiny. Any of the unbundlable rights on the lines you suggest might not need an RfA style process, but they would require a high level of proven clue and trust. It would still leave RfA however, as that one place where users can be as nasty as they like - to both the candidate and each other - with almost total impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

But "we've reached the limit of what we can safely unbundle" is what most editors say, until we unbundle something else. The very fact the the requirements for getting them are technically higher (demonstrable experience, need, and clue) but socially lower (not a popularity contest) is why it works despite howls of naysaying and predictions of doom every time a new unbundling is proposed. I just outlined two additional things we can safely unbundle, at least partially and step-wise. Every time we do this, all the "sky will be falling" predictions turn out not to be true, and it works out just fine. The bare fact of the matter is that most long-term, active editors who do not have a history of blocks and topic bans can – if they have the requisite skills – actually be trusted with most admin-level activities, or they would not have survived here. They're certainly more trustable, as a practical matter, at these things than editors with 6–18 months experience and lots of smiles but little in the way of applicable experience and community "institutional memory" who nevertheless "earnestly" (desperately) want admin hats to wear. This is why, e.g., I voted for Headbomb despite his being a bit irascible (like me >;-) – he has a great deal of experience in the areas he wants to be an admin to be more effective at, and no interest at all in the "drama" processes where his patience and temperament might be strained or be a strain to others. Meanwhile, we have various near-noob editors who want to be admins and who have not pissed off anyone, but who have no idea WTF they are doing.

A radically alternative approach to adminship would be something like 100+ WP:NACs with 95%+ rate of not being overturned, and no [legit] blocks or bans within the last two years = automatically an admin. Make it an administrative judgement meritocracy instead of a popularity contest. Something sensible like this will probably also never happen, because the RfA crowd are addicted to candidates' sweetness, with little regard to competence. This is why I support the unbundling approach – just make the admin position less and less relevant, and increase the number of people actually able to clear out backlogs without needing golden magical wizard hat to do it, when a crumpled Template Editor tool bag and some grubby Page Mover overalls, etc., will get the job done.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  07:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"It would still leave RfA however, as that one place where users can be as nasty as they like - to both the candidate and each other - with almost total impunity." But my research from the past year shows that in general, that's not the case - at least not to the candidate. Indeed, most of the biggest slanging matches at RfAs appear to come from experienced participants slugging it out with each other (and yes, I'm guilty of this) which generally have little effect on the candidate. Perhaps if we all let it go a bit (and I'm including myself in this) then that would be the most obvious way to improve the atmosphere. If somebody puts up a daft oppose that makes no sense, well as the old saying goes; "never argue with an idiot, they will just bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think RfA is better than it was, and I think the scrutiny of opposes is right and proper, especially when by those that almost always oppose. Sure, there are supports with no real rationale as well, but I believe that the watchlist notifications are making it more inclusive and democratic. I was surprised how easily my RfA went, after watching the drama for several years and being reticent to expose myself to the negativity. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: most of the recent unbundling has had the benefit of 2 factors: support by the community, and ease of technical implementation. The suggested items you have above don't enjoy the second factor - as they would require both new software programming and the decision to incorporate that to WMF projects. With community support creating a new group "deletors" that can "delete pages" is much easier then "delete pages in namespace x, that are less then y days old, with less then z contributors"; likewise assinging "change protection levels" is much easier then "change protection levels, only for articles, only for protection times <x time, etc, etc". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what rules of usage are for. All sorts of things on WP are technically possible but not permissible, and the system is generally just fine. Not every restriction we might want is necessarily a technical limitation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  00:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yup, administrative controls - I've suggested that as an option before, usually shot down as "just be an admin". These are still SLOWLY getting broken out, the most recent was EFH. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Unbundling is admittedly the best and most practical solution to the unhealthy culture surrounding RfA and adminship in general. But I'm still not a fan; you describe adminship as the golden magic wizard hat, but it doesn't need to be. Being an admin has exactly as much "social status" here as we collectively give it. Adminship is put up on a huge pedestal, and further unbundling only makes the group more exclusive and unattainable - something which I think is contributing to its social status. The unfortunate truth here is that, as you say, for any experience editor the admin tools are very easy to use. The most difficult part on enwiki is interpreting the maze of policies and guidelines written by a small fraction of the community over years as they relate to using the tools. So why is it such a big deal? (Obvious answers: no easy way to remove bad admins, standards so ridiculously high at RfA that anyone wanting to help out in admin areas needs to "campaign" or do all the right things for at least a year, an expectation of perfection in admins despite us being on a site where everything can be undone)

I would be in favour of complete unbundling. Adminship can't have some ridiculous social status if it doesn't exist. Some devolved groups, namely those using delete and block, would probably require RfA-style requests. But we could establish standards for those, and have merit-based evaluation rather than the current type of free-for-all. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• The problem with RfA is not just how horrid it is for those taking part, it's the far greater number of people who wouldn't even consider going near it, as a result. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I still maintain that there's an aspect of not enough nominators actively looking for candidates. In the past year, of 37 RfAs - 26 of which had a nominator - 19 were made by the same 5 nominators (Ritchie333, me, MusikAnimal, and Kudpung, and There'sNoTime). When I made an effort to search out candidates, ask them about running, and nominate them, I was able to nominate 5 users in the space of a month, and I've got plenty of notes about other editors I'm either still talking to or am planning to ask later. I wonder what RfA would look like if, rather than having a daily thread where we write thousands of words about whether or how RfA is broken, we got out there and found editors who could do good work with the tools and just nominated them. Sam Walton (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The question asked in the heading of this section is "Is RfA a horrible and broken process?" Horrible sometimes, but i'm not sure about really broken. In the last 100 RFAs, (say), how many of those new admins have since demonstrated they should not have been appointed, and how many who missed out have subsequently demonstrated that they should have been successful? I don't think the process is as "broken" as many people claim because it seems to be producing the right results. The unfriendly/unhealthy aspect of the process only exists because we allow it to exist. . Moriori (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

To somewhat echo was Andy Dingley said a couple of posts above, RfA producing admins we later need to desysop doesn't really seem to be the main problem. The serious breakage is that for every person who passes RfA (and, yes, most of those who pass should pass) we likely have dozens or more who will not even try because the process is too horrific and the outcome too uncertain because it's all subjective and personality-based. I.e., as long as RfA is a popularity contest and the primary concern is, basically, "has the candidate ever pissed off anyone who has friends", then we're always going to be short of admins we actually should have. Our community mistake is is making this a political process based on charisma rather than a meritocratic one based on competence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Lots of good points here, as someone who went through the RfA gauntlet and eventually withdrew at the start of the year I find myself mostly agreeing with those saying that RfA generally does get the right result, though sometimes not in the kindest of ways. Looking back, I probably wasn't quite ready in January - but some of the negative comments did perhaps result in me losing my enthusiasm for editing for a while afterwards. That being said, the vast majority of those comments were constructive, it was just the views of a few that I took somewhat to heart. I think the process itself isn't that broken, and if a minority of users rephrased how they put across their views on candidates, it'd be a far nicer place to be generally, and perhaps encourage more people to run. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

RFAs and canvassing - is this usually a legitimate concern?

I'm probably going to step in it here, but...

As I noted in the above thread, when I ran for adminship previously I made the stupid (especially in retrospect) mistake of telling a handful of editors about it, because I got carried away in the moment. This effectively derailed my RfA, as concerns of canvassing came to dominate the discussion.

This bothered me a bit at the time, and I've come to realize it still bothers me a bit, so I wanted to try to verbalize my concerns. If nobody wants to speak to them, I'm cool with that. At least I'll have gotten it off my chest. I'm really not looking for an argument here, and I'm certainly not looking for any sort of apology or such.

• The way RfAs work seems to be at odds with most "election" systems I'm aware of. When someone runs for public office, it's typically widely-publicized. But the RfA system seems to encourage nominees to keep their candidacy secretive, on the grounds that a nominee could bias the vote. Even when an RfA is in progress, the announcement states that there's one or more RfAs in progress, but not who is running (that's likely a system limitation, and not one I'm especially concerned with). My point here is: do we really think that a candidate could, through canvassing, get so many editors to participate in an RfA that it would significantly bias the result? As I said, in my case I notified a handful of editors. Certainly if I'd notified, say, every editor I'd spoken to in the past year, that would be a different matter. If this situation is really a bit of a trap, just to see whether a candidate is aware of canvassing policies in general, then I guess that's something else, but it seems like something that could be handled by asking the nominator to speak to it rather than Opposing purely for that reason (unless we want to assume that no Admin has ever experienced their own lapse in judgment). I'd also note that because I was nominated by another editor, anyone watching my Talk page would already have seen that I had an RfA developing, which arguably would make my contacting editors redundant, though granted I have no way of knowing who actually does watch my Talk page.

• Even assuming I was attempting to contact other editors to bias the RfA (I would note that the actual messages I left at the time didn't contain any wording actually soliciting opinions, but I suppose that could be considered to be implied), there seems to be a failure to assume good faith here, if we believe that any editors I approached (and potentially editors who would see their Talk pages) would then speak well of me at the RfA solely because I approached them. Especially now, when RfAs are publicized, I don't think we have any clear way of determining what motivates an editor to speak to an RfA. Put another way, "canvassing" attempts may reflect poorly on the canvasser, but I have trouble with the idea that they actually have any net effect on the RfA unless we assumed that the canvassed editors also cannot be relied upon to exercise good judgment.

TL;DR - yes, if you're involved in an RfA, approaching other editors about it may indicate a lapse in judgment, but I'm not convinced that it can really shape an RfA except in the most grievous of cases, especially given that now ongoing RfAs are announced in any case (even if names are withheld). If an editor has been approached for an RfA than results may already be biased, as those watching the editor's Talk page will be aware of the situation.

Thank you for your time! DonIago (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello Doniago. Just to put the perspective, the guideline exists to protect Rfa candidates as well – to prevent involved candidates from appealing to like-minded editors to oppose an Rfa (clearly, such attempts would be enough to tank Rfas of long-time editors who've had their fair share of disagreements in their tenure). Lourdes 14:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, "approaching other editors about it may indicate a lapse in judgment" isn't the half of it. You'll be crucified as "canvassing" even if you did nothing but notify a couple of editors who opposed you last time, in a beyond-good-faith attempt to make sure your detractors get their say. I made this mistake years ago in my second RfA (when I was actually ready, willing, and competent, unlike in my first), and basically got lit on fire for it. I've never bothered to try RfA again, since I later realized I don't want the shackles that come with the "job".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  12:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• In a sense, yes, RfA is secretive. Another way to think of it; in some jurisdictions it is illegal to campaign within X distance of the polling booths (Ok, RfA is not an election, but the analogy holds a bit for this case, bear with me). All of Wikipedia is within any X distance of the 'polling booth' of RfA. Thus, some people may be quite sensitive to any hint of campaigning for that reason alone. I think what is more common though is that RfA voters look for any misstep to hand a negative vote upon.I read your notifications [1]. The tone of your notifications did not violate any policy. But, there's a couple of underlying things here. For one, how were these people selected for notification? Random? Prior positive contacts? The assumption people will make is that these contacts are people who will likely support your RfA. Certainly it is unlikely someone would contact someone whom they think will likely oppose them. In your RfA 3 of the 5 that contacted you responded, and all of them supported your RfA. I.e., these people were chosen for their likelihood to support you. Regardless of the wording of your notifications, it is self evident these notifications were canvassing. I.e., it violated the canvassing policy by way of WP:VOTESTACK, which is also part of that policy. There's a nice grid on that policy page at Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_notification. Where your notifications failed was at the "audience" component. What is important to understand here is that people can not know your intent aforehand. What they see is your notifications. Is it a failure of WP:AGF that people assume bad faith in these notifications? Not really; again, who would contact people who would likely oppose them? It looks like canvassing on the face of it because of audience selection. A casual check [2] shows for example that you're one of the top contributors to the talk page of one of the people you notified. I.e., it's not random. So, with some mild digging the canvassing seems confirmed. The appearance of impropriety weighs heavy. That's true in real life, and it's true at RfA. Another aspect of this is that while contacting five people, plus inadvertently notifying the people who are reading those talk pages, there's another impact; dominoes. People are swayed by the presence of support from other users. The status of your RfA was 3-0 with the first edit by one of the people you canvassed [3]. 10-2 at the second [4], and then 12-4 right before the first notification of the votestacking (edit where votestacking was made known). Then it tanked. If the people you notified had not edited the RfA up to that point, it would have been 9-4; 69% vs. 80%. I.e., it would have fallen into the discretionary range, and possibly not pass. The support votes influence downstream people. Canvassing can influence the outcome, even if it is not readily apparent. People are rightfully concerned about this, and respond with the only tool they have at their disposal; not supporting the RfA. I seem to recall one RfA that tanked because a candidate placed a notice on their user/talk pages indicating they had an active RfA. I don't know or think that RfA demands candidates to be perfect, but any missteps that happen just prior to or during an RfA are going to come up. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
  • This isn't the first and I fear won't be the last RFA where this has been an issue. But I think that RFAs where the candidate is accused of advertising are rare and the advice to candidates looks good to me. The relevant advice is at Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_not_to_see ""Advertising" your RfA: Some editors do not like to see an RfA "advertised" by the nominee on other people's talk pages or on IRC. RfA is not a political campaign. The intent is to develop consensus. Impartial evaluation of a candidate is the goal, rather than measuring their popularity. Canvassing is generally looked down upon. Consider using {{RFA-notice}} on your userpage, which is a more neutral way to communicate your RfA to other users." I think the advice is still correct today. ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't have any dispute with that, and I (hopefully made clear I) wasn't intending to contest how my own RfA evolved, even if it was a bit disappointing. I just wonder whether the advice is really effective. It seems to me that in this day and age, anyone who really was trying to bias their RfA via canvassing wouldn't do it nearly as transparently as I did. Maybe I'm giving an editor who would do such a thing too much credit? Either way, I guess there's no harm in leaving the advice there. I guess the core of my "grievance" is that it seems more like something a nominee should be trouted for versus having their entire RfA go down in flames with potentially concomitant damage. Anyway, thanks everyone for your thoughts on the matter. Happy to talk about it more, equally happy to move on to other things. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended confirmed?

After the recent cluster of hopeless, clueless "nomination" attempts on the RfA page, I had a thought: what would people think about putting the page under Extended Confirmed Protection? Certainly, nobody has any business posting there if they aren't at least Extended Confirmed. Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed - this is a good proposal. This sets a very low bar for any user with a remote change of passing RfA that is also agnostic to users' work on Wikipedia (i.e. isn't a requisite number of featured articles, AfDs, article creations, etc.) - Upjav (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 247#RfC: Apply extended confirmed .5B30.2F500.5D protection to requests for adminship for the most recent discussion on this matter. If anyone has some additional points to add, please do! Most of the opposes, I believe, were around limiting commenters on requests for administrative privileges, rather than setting a threshold for candidacies. isaacl (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Yes. I would also support adding a formal 5000 edit and 6 month account age requirement for candidates, to start the process of making formal requirements for adminship and move away from the current free-for-all. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  I want to be clear that protection here won't prevent disruption. But it will make the process just a little bit more fair to those interested in becoming admins. Imagine you were a new volunteer at a local community centre, and there was a mop closet (with a mop in it!) that had an open door. But when you go to try and take out the mop, dozens of angry other volunteers jump on you for not meeting the "informal mop withdrawal guideline" that you had no idea existed. This is also why I would prefer that we more explicitly set out the requirements for adminship, but this is a very small step in the right direction. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  WP adminship has been nothing like routine janitorial work since the 2000s; it actually is a big deal. A better analogy would be access to the security guard armory and surveillance system. The fact that admins are charged with applying discretionary sanctions and summarily deleting things based on extremely nitpicky speedy deletion critera, dealing with revdels, and other sensitive matters, many of which result in indef blocks, is far from pushing a mop around. If I show up somewhere new and ask to be made one of the security managers while having worked there for a only a month or two, I would expect to be told "not on your life".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  20:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  I really don't think it is a big deal. The tools themselves are dead simple to use; the difficult part is navigating the community guidelines and responsibilities surrounding their use. That navigation is hardly more difficult than figuring out all the community guidelines around editing. But beyond that, even if adminship is some super-special managerial position, we should have a request process that reflects that fact. We can't go from calling it "no big deal" in one place, to demanding applicants have two years of experience and 10000 edits in another. Making a realistic assessment of the importance of adminship, and establishing a corresponding written standard for applicants, would help fix this process IMO. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  One commentator's personal standard of 10K edits is immaterial; there is no rule to that effect. I agree strongly what you think would help fix this process, but the community is loath to ever do anything about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Adminship is still mostly routine janitorial work. You just notice the high-profile, wikipolitically divisive actions more than you notice someone deleting a few speedies every so often while waiting for the bus. Most of them aren't nitpicky, most revdels are uncontroversial, it's perfectly possible to get by without knowing anything about how DS works. (Check my talk page, you can be an arb for two years and still have to use a lifeline when someone asks about DS details! ;) Opabinia externa (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sure, why not. One of the recent ones was extended confirmed (4 months/1000+ edits), but the rest in the last ~500 edits to WP:RfA haven't been. And if there's a special case for whatever reason, there's always edit request. ansh666 06:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Clearly not unreasonable and a good solution for the misguided newbies. A Train^talk 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Seems like a solution in search of a problem. There are actually cases in which a non-EC user successfully requested adminship (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth) and any user in good standing should be allowed to request adminship if they so desire, NOTNOW/SNOW notwithstanding, without adding additional barriers. Whether a page should be protected should be decided based on the protection policy and this policy specifically states that we should aim to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors (with no limit to the article mainspace). The page is already semi-protected, let's just leave it at that. Also, allowing non-EC users to add their RfAs helps identify users who wish to help out more in administrative roles and thus allows us to guide them more productively. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that SoWhy needed to go back to 2008 to find an edge case that this policy would block is telling. The reason that we err on the side of leaving pages unprotected is so that as many people as possible can edit Wikipedia. RfA is a remote backwater that 99.9999% of editors and readers never visit, and for good reason. There's no conflict with Wikipedia's mission and no considerable benefit to leaving RfA open to editing to all and sundry. Well-meaning and ambitious new editors who fail to put themselves up for adminship with the page semi-protected can always go do an Orc Pee. A Train^talk 12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• SoWhy makes some very good points, and I would tend to agree this is unnecessary. Also, since this was just discussed via RFC a couple of months ago, it seems premature to be bringing it up again... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• That's not what page protection is for. This page is so well-watched that protection isn't required to guard it from disruption, and the current system allows us to talk to the people who are unwilling to read the instructions. Replacing that human interaction with a "this page is protected" message does not seem such a great step forward. —Kusma (t·c) 10:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, and if they meet a protection barrier then they will go somewhere else, like this very talk page, or some other project-talk page or a help desk, and have to be dealt with there: Noyster (talk), 10:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the benefit, really, and SoWhy points out some valid objections. Just as a not really on topic, and probably unimportant observation which crossed my mind, so I'll share - it's not a rare occurrence for problematic editors to "hand themselves in" by adding a frivolous/disruptive nomination here. -- Begoon 10:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, very droll. wikt:give him enough rope and he'll hang himself I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  No, I wasn't saying that it was worth preserving the 'honeypot' element, or sensible/desirable to do so. I was sharing an observation just for the sake of sharing it. I'll try to find a more bullet-proof way than the text I already included to make that even more stupidly clear next time. -- Begoon 10:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I find SoWhy's arguments unconvincing; IMO a good faith editor hoping to get involved in administrative activities is far more likely to be discouraged if they add themselves in good faith and are immediately reverted with some variant of "you're not wanted", than if they see the MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext message when they try to edit it and are diverted to the talkpage where people can talk them through their particular situation step-by-step. Other than in the very early days when Jimmy and Larry were handing out adminship to their drinking buddies, the number of credible RFAs from editors who didn't have 500 edits could be counted on the fingers of one hand (and probably the fingers of one finger); besides, if someone is so unfamiliar with Wikipedia that they don't grasp the concept of "if you're unable to edit a page, put an {{EPER}} on the talkpage" (which is just a case of clicking the enormous blue button they'll see when they try to edit the page), we don't want them touching the admin toolkit. The RFC is irrelevant; that was about preventing new editors from commenting on individual RFAs, not about preventing them from adding their own RFAs. ‑ Iridescent 10:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) ‑ Iridescent 10:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

You make some well considered, good points here, which help me to see the benefit I wasn't seeing above. I still wonder if there's a more specific and personal way to deal with this, though, even if that means resorting to custom edit filters. -- Begoon 11:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I see your point and you are correct on one count: If they are reverted with a "we don't want you message", of course they feel discouraged. But if they are left a nice message explaining the revert and how to use their talents, as for example, Majora recently did, the impression should be different. That those editors are mostly not ready for adminship does not mean they won't be someday and tutoring them at an early stage might be beneficial to the project. Regards SoWhy 11:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. It's weird that it doesn't already have this protection level, and it would go a long way to avoiding pointless – both community-time-wasting and hopeful-but-too-soon-candidate-discouraging – self-noms by noobs.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support The previous discussion seemed to be protecting all RfAs, which is different to here, where we're just talking about protecting the main RfA page. Given there have been a bunch of edits that have had have been reverted, and it's a high-traffic page, protection seems justifiable. The choice of lustiger seth as the exception that proves the rule from SoWhy is somewhat strange considering this, but even in that case, they can always ask a nominator to do the transclusion for them. Indeed, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That I didn't believe seth should be granted the tools does not invalidate my argument because his request did succeed despite my objection. But you do make another good point in my favor: The whole discussion here seems based on the assumption that non-EC editors are not experienced enough but there are plenty such editors who are, just on other projects and thus should not be blanket-restricted from editing WP:RFA. I would trust a Commons admin with 10 years service there but only 49 edits here more than an editor who amassed 501 edits using Huggle in 31 days, yet this proposal would bar that admins from editing the page while allowing the newly created Huggler to do so. Regards SoWhy 11:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think of actual examples, myself. I am pretty sure an experienced Commons admin, on finding WP:RFA protected, would pop over to the talk page and enquire about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Personally, when I am working on another project and can't do what I want to do because I lack permissions (for example, I don't have reviewer permissions or voting rights on dewiki because of my low edit count there) I tend to be annoyed by the lack of openness, feel unwelcome, and go away. But probably that is just me. —Kusma (t·c) 11:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's not just you, I feel the same. I just couldn't put it into words as well as you did. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support From January 2017, from those who have edited the main Rfa page to add their or someone else's Rfa or to simply vandalize it, I see 12 currently blocked names. I'm sure an appropriately nice message guiding good-faith editors can be placed in the edit template, if the main page is ec protected. This is common sense in my opinion. Lourdes 11:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm not sure I find the arguments on either side terribly convincing at this point, but the onus is only on one side of that debate, and in the absence of compelling reasons to protect, we don't. The level of disruption at this point (if much of it can even be called that) wouldn't be sufficient to protect anything else on the project with the exception of our most high profile templates, and only because those can affect a few thousand readers in the course of a few seconds. If the level of disruption rises to the level that would regularly get anything else in project space similarly protected, then any passer-by can protect and probably without much if any discussion. The only reason we need an extended discussion is likely because this fairly obviously falls afoul of our normal protection procedures, and I'm not sure this page is particularly special so as to make a preemptive exception. GMG^talk 12:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Is the number of early requests sufficient to be called "disruption"? The rule for use of WP:ECP is: In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking through the history I see five (5) edits that the proposed protection would have stopped in the last 50 edits dating back to 24 July. I don't think this is enough to justify protection. (clarification, I originally said 3 edits, thjat is because there are two back to back edits on 8 Nov, I counted as one, one edit on 6 Nov and two back to back on 9 Aug I counted as one even though it is two different editors) ~ GB fan 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

    The word "disruption" has multiple meanings. On WP we most often mean an individual or WP:TAGTEAM's WP:Disruptive editing, but here it just means "this is a tedious pain in the backside and a waste of time", i.e. a drain on editorial productivity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

<sarcasm alert>Yes, it is so much a waste of time. In the last 4 months we have had to revert 3 people who this proposal, if implemented, would have stopped. I don't know how we survived the disruption of those 15 minutes over the course of 4 months when something was on WP:RFA that shouldn't have been there.<end sarcasm> We probably have spent more time discussing this today then was spent on the three RFAs that this would have stopped from being added to the page. ~ GB fan 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

That's the ones someone bothered to revert. Too many actually proceed as RfAs. Those waste lots and lots of time. But whatever; this looks like a near-snowball support so I won't argue further (per the same productivity rationale!).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  18:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem is those that weren't reverted, would not get stopped by this proposal. They were extended confirmed and would have been able to edit the page even if it was protected. ~ GB fan 18:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. We measure disruption, not disruptive edits. Here, the disruptive transcluded RfAs cause many wasted editor hours when they occur. People start evaluating the candidate as if they were a serious candidate, there's a pile-on oppose, there's discussion about whether it should be SNOW closed, it has to be closed, etc. The disruption initiated by the never-going-to-happen RfA extends far beyond one edit having to be reverted. The actual disruption here is such that ECP is warranted, and the fact this will hit precisely zero false positives makes this an easy decision. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

On that note, I'm pretty confident that had Nickboy000 transcluded his RfA successfully to the point of not being CSDed, somebody would have called him a racist or a Nazi, or something approximating that, and all hell would have broken loose. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Evaluating the candidate "as if they were a serious candidate" sounds exactly like something that would only happen if the candidate is good enough to not appear unqualified at first sight, no? After all, no editor will evaluate a candidacy that "screams" "unqualified", will they? Regards SoWhy 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

So since 24 July there have been two RFAs transcluded and one username posted that EC protection would have stopped. In total these three were on the page for 15 minutes. (12, 1 and 2 minutes newest to oldest) All three editors did create RFAs. One was edited by a non sockpuppet/IP, the other two were only edited by the creator. The one edit by an experienced editor was to tag the RFA with a WP:G6 speedy deletion tag. Adding the time from creation to deletion of all three together there is a total of less than 13.5 hours (2:45, 6 minutes, 10:30), All three user talk pages were edited by experienced editors explaining why they request would never pass. These three didn't take up a lot of time from other users. The ones that take up a lot of time from users are the ones that this protection won't stop, the ones that already have extended confirmed. ~ GB fan 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support - To be honest I think it's a great idea, Yes we're an encyclopedia and yes anyone can edit it however in reality who's going to give the mop to someone with less than 500 edits and a 30 days editing ? .... might of worked in 2004 but certainly wont work now .... and as pointed out above no one really needs to edit the main RFA page anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 16:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:BITE: that is, a user who hasn't met the EC threshold is quite likely to be bitten upon transcluding their RfA. If we protect the page instead then a crafted-in-advance message can gently advise them in more civil terms that their RfA has a roughly 0% chance of success, rather than being told the same thing by the RfA mob. Regarding SoWhy's findings: post-2011 RfA is a wholly different monster; things that happened before 2011 really shouldn't inform decisions about RfA today. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Instead of clogging up the watchlist of everyone who watches RfA, direct non-EC users to the talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  That also shows up on your watchlist, so in which way is that an improvement? —Kusma (t·c) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Support I am not really convinced that this is a major problem and was leaning oppose. But I do think that preventing obviously unqualified candidates from self nominating reduces the likelihood of their getting rude comments and feeling unwanted. And with due regard to SoWhy's point, I think that standards have evolved to the point where the likelihood of someone with less than 500 edits getting the mop is so low that it just doen't bear serious discussion. If there is someone who thinks they are that exception then they can always ask an experienced editor to nominate them. All of which said, as a problem this falls on my priority scale somewhere behind trying to deal with the IP who kept trying to insert how many steel rivets and port holes there were into the article on the RMS Queen Mary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose at present, but will support if disruption ramps up. In recent months there has only been two non-EC (extendedconfirmed) users who have disrupted the page: Nickboy000 and RPF2 (now blocked). The rest have been EC users, so ECP would have been ineffective. As such I don't feel there has been sufficient disruption to have indefinite ECP, although of course this could change in the future. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that an appropriately friendly editnotice is crafted directing users to areas where they can help out if they want to be an admin eventually. Obvious NOTNOW closes take a lot of time, between people having to do a quick verification of the user's experience, people deciding to !vote or not, people thinking about what encouraging advice they can give, people debating whether to close it early. This is a tremendous time sink that is discouraging for new users. The helpful advice could be given in an editnotice perfectly fine. In edge cases like SoWhy's example, they should have enough experience/connections to either post on this talk page to request the RFA to be transcluded or get someone to post on their behalf. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support as an official policy. An admin candidate must either be extended confirmed (30/500), or else have a nominator who is extended confirmed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• All this will do is make users act so when they finally reach 30 days and 500 edits, they immediately make a RfA. I added a pretty screaming banner on the RfA self-nomination section that tells users in plain English to consider the standards, but it is surprising how many editors fail to read that notice. This will worsen the problem as editors who can't follow simple instructions will be incredibly tempted to apply after getting extended confirmed. Esquivalience (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• I Support this proposal, as it does no real harm, and has the possibility to clean up some clutter. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 21:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support to apply some very minimal standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
• Sure for the same reason we routinely G6 RfAs of people nominated against their consent and sometimes of new users who are NOTNOW'd: if they decide to give a serious go for adminship down the line, this early transclusion will likely hurt them then. Its also a lot less bitey. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support I find SoWhy's arguments unconvincing. A user applying on that rationale as that user did in 2008 would still not pass today. --Rschen7754 01:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose this is probably inoffensive in and of itself - it's true that a non-EC viable candidate is unlikely - but I am getting really sick and tired of seeing the spread of EC protection all over the wiki to manage problems that barely even exist when it was originally deployed only as an absolute last-ditch measure to stop a specific type of chronic disruption. The community does not need to protect itself from a handful of dumb edits on the RfA page that consume virtually zero "community" time to take care of (as opposed to repetitive discussions about how various parts of our back-office operations should be EC-protected because reasons). The community does need to stop pulling up the ladders behind its existing members because new joiners are just so difficult. Implementing this means that the people who are making good-faith but inexperienced offers of help won't get feedback and encouragement to focus their efforts on other, more accessible ways to help, and people who are trolling will just troll somewhere else. As for the argument that an early NOTNOW effort will be used against an editor who later develops into a solid candidate, I'm not aware of any actual examples of that speculation coming true, but if you spot one, you can stop that nonsense by not doing that, and by calling out any idiots who show up at the second, serious RfA with their noses out of joint about early newbie mistakes. Be the change you wish to see in the world, and all that. Opabinia externa (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)