Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

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

Current time: 16:49:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

• For reference: the (now archived) previous version of my questions.

To be clear from the start:

1. While also taking into account the substantive discussion that was had recently, the following is mostly in relation to previous discussion here at WT:RfA (which, incidentally, was what several people (including myself) were referring to without actually linking to it).
2. Anyone can oppose/support an RfX for pretty much any personal reason. So if someone wishes to oppose because they oppose "boilerplating", they are entitled to. That said, back here in the rest of wikipedia, we OFTEN create set "boilerplates" (though we usually use the term templates unless we want to make usage of said template to seem semantically negative). Besides the policies and guidelines, we create essay pages to link to in a discussion, which summarise our thoughts and/or concerns in regards to specific concerns. So to edit a set of questions for use in a particular discussion (RfA in this case) is merely another application of that common practice. The benefit of creating a template of questions is simply to not have to remake the wheel for every RfA. Concerning something in every nom which doesn't change - the tools and the responsibilities that the candidate is requesting. So anyway, this is simply common practice throughout Wikipedia. (And as such, while you are welcome to your opinion, I'm really disinterested in debating this practice at this time.)

So anyway, with that all out of the way. I spent some time considering my questions. And while I still assert there is value in each, I changed them for a few reasons:

1. The tools of adminship have continued to expand. So an attempt to try to be even semi- all-inclusive is starting to me to feel like a pointless exercise.
2. Fetchcomms, Wizardman, et all. do have a valid point about the cut-n-paste quality to the original first 3 questions (block/protect/csd). In looking them over, while I still assert there is value in them, I think that, in trying to hone neutrality in them, I think I may have perhaps neutralised or even somewhat neutered them to limited usefullness. At the very least, they needed to be refactored in some way.
3. While the IAR question may still be useful (as others have noted), I thought it also needed a bit more clarity and possibly a touch of specificity.

So with all that in mind, here's how I updated them. Note also that I added a link to my personal criteria as well. Enjoy:

Questions

Optional questions from jc37 In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions. 1. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page. A: 2. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia. A: 3. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV. A: 4. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take? A: 5. Why do you wish to be an administrator? A:

I welcome your thoughts concerning the content of each of the questions. - jc37 12:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, let me go on record as disliking copy-and-paste questions, especially multiple ones. I ask a fair amount of questions at RfAs myself, but I try to both limit the number of questions I ask and ensure that each question is directly relevant to the candidate. I think if additional boilerplate questions are going to be added to multiple RfAs (much less all RfAs), it would be wise to get consensus for that here first, rather than just copying and pasting them in and hoping for the best, so I'm glad you're bringing it up for discussion on this page. 28bytes (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's a subst'd template that I have as a subpage in my userspace.

As for the rest that's not what I'm asking about. I'm asking about the content of the questions. I respectfully ask that if you would like to have a discussion about whether editors should be able to pose certain types of questions, to please start a separate discussion. - jc37 14:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. You'd rather just skip the "should I do this?" discussion and go straight to the "how should I do this?" discussion. I'll refrain from commenting further, then. 28bytes (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the questions invite responses that recite policy without necessarily revealing whether the candidate really understands the reasons behind them. I think questions that ask a candidate to make a decision in a circumstance that they may face as an admin in a situation where policy has to be applied in a nuanced fashion, and then explain the policy behind it, are more inciteful as to the demeanor of the admin. Question 1 basically asks the candidate to recite the text you link them to, question 2 is problematic in that WP:IAR should be used sparingly and there aren't many situations you would want to regularly go IAR rather then just fixing the rule. Question 3 will most likely get a response about considering policy rationales and not counting !votes, but is unlikely to consider the tougher situation where the !votes are showing that actual consensus may be inconsistent with policy. Question 4 is pretty good. Question 5 invites some platitude about helping out, or having noticed some backlog that needs addressing. Monty₈₄₅ 15:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to look through them and comment.

(Guessing you meant insightful rather than inciteful?)

Every question now asks for personal responses (note the use of "you").

And while we would like to presume that we all interpret policy the same way, I have found from long watching WP:DR pages and various notice boards (not to mention arbcom cases) that we all clearly do not.

I agree that questions dealing with hypotheticals can be nice, but I find I learn more from these questions than I do from (most of) the various hypotheticals I've seen. (It really varies.)

We all hear people say that IAR should be used sparingly. And that's usually from those who (understandably) see IAR as means where someone tries to bypass consensus to do what they want. But in truth we all use IAR nearly every time we edit. Being bold and editing without seeking a consensus for every single edit is one example. It's part of why I framed the question as I did. Understanding the interdependency of BOLD and CON is something that can be tenuous. And as admins so often are called upon to be determiners of consensus, and to take actions for the betterment of the Wiki. It's important that they understand that nuance. and that's not something that they are going to be able to merely copy-paste from some guideline somewhere. That only comes through experience in editing.

And nod sometimes, but I like the last one : ) - While sometimes the candidate has already answered the question in one of the default RfA questions, that's often not the case. And platitudes or not, what they choose to say can be (though not always) just as enlightening as what is said. Though if the first default RfA question was slightly rephrased, I could drop the last one.

Thanks again for your thoughts. - jc37 04:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You really don't see the merit of discussion of these kinds of questions being asked fruitful before this type of discussion? Someone should just make a boilerplate/template of the answers to save the candidate the time of clicking on the link of the prior RFA to copy/paste and modify the answers. Then it may become clearier. 71.209.176.227 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh please do. And please drop me a link to the page when you do. I'm sure I would find it interesting, and would be happy to discuss the answers with you. - jc37 04:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no Wikipedian has definitive answers for questions 1-3; I'm not sure if I've seen answers to those questions that would even rise IMO to the level of "good answers". They may be questions that the voters would really like to have answers to, that we'd all like to have answers to, but I'm not sure if we could even mount a successful RFC to answer the questions, much less get them answered during an RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, someone in the past, did just that. And even linked the answers to various RfAs. (With rather interesting results). - jc37 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RfA is an open-book test, because Adminship is an open-book test. Very, very rarely does an administrative action have to take place in such a time frame that prohibits checking the appropriate policy and guideline. That being said, isn't there some benefit to being able to find a policy and that accurately interpret that? Achowat (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the point that the 71.209.176.227 was trying to make is that one property of a good question is that it doesn't have a boilerplate answer that can be copied and pasted (or cleverly paraphrased) from a previous RfA or a policy page. A good question is personalized in some way to the candidate (see Q1 thru Q3), such that their answer provides information about their uniqueness, as opposed to a rote question (or 7) which simply proves that they have the rather fundamental ability to click on a link to a policy page, read it, and paraphrase it. -Scottywong| express _ 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thank you for that, SW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, please feel free to create a set of answers. I'd be glad to discuss the answers with you. incidentally, I've mentioned several times in the past that (as Dank also seems to note above), as the answers are bound to vary, how each person answers is very likely to be just as, if not more, important as what they answer. - jc37 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before; I would like to see candidates ignoring these "optional" boilerplate questions, especially the ones asked by Jc37. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but candidates willfully ignoring questions often elicits opposes. Makes it seem like they're hiding something. I thought about ignoring the boilerplate questions at my RfA, but instead I decided to respond mostly with one-sentence answers. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have to endorse Scottywong, not answering any question is the worst thing a candidate can do. It doesn't matter if he/she takes a day or two days time, but it is not without a reason called the 'hell week': you have to be online for a week! mabdul 22:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Until near the end, I think I slept maybe 12 hours total during the whole period of my recent RfB (some of my comments started to get a bit rambling - even for me, I note in retrospect : ) - jc37 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As someone who has had to answer these questions, I'd like to voice my opinion that I generally dislike the notion of template questions. As observed above, all the answers are going to be broadly similar to previous RfA's and TBH I spent more time trying to make my answers sound original than anything else. I think it much more preferable to have memebrs of the community ask original questions. Pol430 talk to me 23:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

With full respect to the OP, I disagree with the idea of standard questions in each and every RFA which are not vetted by the community. Imagine if all the RFA !voters start asking 5 questions - there will be more than a thousand questions to be answered! Additional questions should be asked only if there is a doubt about a candidate's understanding of the policies. EngineerFromVega^★ 06:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't greatly disagree. Part of the point of these is actually to reduce the nonsense questions. These are intentionally honed down to preempt the gotcha/pit-trap/nonsense kind of questions that we all too often have seen in the past. No one as yet has refuted that these are directly to do with adminship. And further, no one has refuted that they have to do with my personal criteria for adminship.

I've asked several times for feedback concerning the text, it seems so far, people find it easier to scoff and say IDONTLIKEIT, and click submit, rather than constructively joining a discussion. I wonder if anyone who has commented here has actually read through all the past RfAs these have been posted to, and seen the benefits. Prolly few to none. After all, why let fact get in the way of a good story... (Which I find the more ironic considering how many have said that looking through edit histories is the way to go.)

It's one of the problems we're facing in the greater Wikipedia: Personal asserted opinion boldly (even bullyingly) forced upon others, with no reason save IWANTIT/IDONTWANTIT. Collegiate discussion falling to the wayside. Perhaps I should give up on the hope of actual discussion on this talk page and let everyone go back to things like warring over whether dates should be linked, does information "deserve" to be on a separate page, or merged with another, and how should hyphens/dashes (en/em/etc) be used, and should there be spaces, and so on. All these things may be worthy of consensual discussion. But when we're blocking/banning each other over these things, maybe, just maybe, the problem may be the environment and expectations (and bureaucracy) we may be setting up.

And so maybe, we should see if candidates for trusted tools and responsibilities have the nous that we would like to hope represents the best of what we can be, and not more of the drek-worthy nonsense we all too often see at various noticeboards like AN and its subpages. Of course YMMV, but as we are all allowed to "vote" based upon our own criteria, and may ask questions in relation to that... - jc37 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a couple of extra questions will be beneficial to RFA candidates, but the questions must related to the task they are planning to do. If the nominee is planning to close AFDs for example, a question about reading consensus or their view on notability can indicate if he/she is ready to participate in them. Questions about conflict the nominee was involved with that is serious enough to take to consideration should be acceptable as well. But if the nominee is planning to work in vandalism and not AFDs, and he/she was rarely (if ever) participating with them, I don't see the point in answering questions involving that subject and getting punished for it if the answer wasn't up to par though the nominee clearly has no interest in them. Secret ^account 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you, except: a.) once an admin, we often find we end up helping out in ways we didn't initially expect. People don't go back to your RfA to see what you're willing to help with. b.) I've yet to find an admin who has never closed a single discussion. So understanding the ins and outs of consensus would seem to be universally important. (That and I might argue that vandal patrollers too need to understand the interrelationships between Con and Bold.)

But otherwise, I'd agree. For example, many admins never get involved in account creation, editing mediawiki, dealing with files etc.

In my opinion, the most common things are: closing discussions/assessing consensus; dealing with edit warring; deletion (including speedy); protection; blocking; And since being bold with admin tools is a bit different than just boldly editing, IAR is a common question.

I don't think asking every potential admin about these things is beyond the pale. especially since: once they have the tools, with few exceptions, it's pretty much for life. - jc37 00:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

While I won't deny that most/all of what you ask candidates is relevant (they seem to cover the main areas of administration), I am not convinced that they're helpful. Answers these questions, in the main, simply requires one to look up the relevant policy and recite that (I've seen some candidates simply quote large tracts from policy pages). While I firmly believe that a potential admin needs to be well-versed in policy, that should not be the focus of our questions. The best way to judge how well a candidate understand policy is to have a look at their past behaviour - anyone can regurgitate relevant policy; past actions cannot be faked in the same way. We expect people to understand policy at RfA anyway - that should come across through their communication and when we look at their history (which we really should be doing). Questions are to establish whether or not we can really trust an editor, and to deal with specific problems - they should be specific to a candidate, based on what they have said and any potential concerns we have uncovered. In my opinion, boilerplate questions simply tell us that a candidate can read and interpret policy - it does not tell us that they can apply it, nor that they are trustworthy, have a good attitude and will work for the good of Wikipedia. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think your comments might apply more to the first three from my previous set of questions, which I have removed, as I noted above. (I don't know if you read the intro above, but if not, please do.)

If you think that the questions I posted above can be answered by merely copy/pasting unedited from policy, please do. I'd be very interested in the results. - jc37 20:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did have your first set of questions in mind when I wrote that. I think the newer ones are much better - they cannot be answered simply be repeating policy, some interpretation is required. Having said that (and this is more of a personal opinion), I'd like to think that we could probably judge a candidate's answers from their own history and how they conduct themselves in the RfA. I think they would all be good questions if we were ever unsure about someone. I'm not sure that they would be necessary for all candidates to answer, however. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been more than a few candidates who may or may not be trustworthy, but the work they have done thus far on Wikipedia doesn't enlighten enough to assess. Or perhaps concerning edits are so far in the past, it would be nice to see where they stand now.

That aside, for me personally, I wouldn't be comfortable supporting a candidate without being comfortable with how they treat the topics/situations referred to in the questions. Maybe I've read too many arbcomm pages or AN and it's subpages or even my own experience with various editors, but from what I've seen, there's a clear difference between what we all may feel is appropriate common practice/policy/guidelines, and what all too often certain editors seem to want to self-assert is "true" or appropriate. Yes a candidate can try to "fake it" in answering questions in an RfA, but with only a couple exceptions i can think of, usually either you get it or you don't, and "faking it" usually shines out rather brightly to those who do understand.

I agree that it would be nice to try to minimise questions, and if there was another direct way to get the info I'm wanting without the questions, I'd be all for it. But user contribs (which I DO check) simply typically do not tell the whole tale. And in this as in most things: communication is the key" : )

When looking for more responsibilities out in the "real world" an interview is usually involved. A few questions shouldn't be beyond the pale - especially if they target the most common responsibilities of the position in question. As always YMMV, of course. - jc37 04:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that additional pre-scripted questions would be useful if there were a serious shortage of questions. However, at present, this seems not to be the case. The currently open RfA, for example, has seventeen questions. Some of them are multi-part questions, of which each part requires the candidate to go away and examine other pages before making a decision on each part and writing an answer on each part. Others include diffs or links to the candidate's past editing; again the candidate has to go away and examine these other pages, decide on a reply and write it. Others again, include followup questions (in one case multiple followup questions), so it's not even just seventeen actual questions, it's more than that.

None of these things are wrong in and of themselves, but they do add to the total burden of the RfA process. And not only for the candidate; for these questions to all be useful additions to the decision-making of a thoughtful !voter, then the !voter would also have to go through all the various links and diffs and questions and followups. I am a big believer in proper scrutiny of candidates, but sometimes I think a process has grown bloated enough. There would be far more benefit in performing additional scrutiny of the candidate's existing contributions, than adding these extra pre-scripted questions when it's already pretty certain the RfA will end up with more than a dozen substantial questions anyway.

As another idea, perhaps it would be a useful exercise to take the scripted questions (and indeed the old scripted questions as well), and ask them on the talk page of any currently active admin whose RfA passed with less than eight questions in total? They wouldn't be required to answer, of course, but it might provoke some thoughtful commentary or thoughtful introspection. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I've mentioned this before: many of the additional questions are posted by newbies with little experience who are trying to be clever by contributing to 'managerial' aspects of Wikipedia - just like they do at NPP and AfD. Some Wikis have minimum qualifications for voters. We don't, because en Wiki was the first and didn't preempt such problems; trying to improve anything at this late stage is well nigh impossible, so we are stuck in the dilemma that too few experienced editors of the right calibre are prepared to submit themselves to the ritual. Anything anyone wants to know about RfA questions but is too afraid to ask, is here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the problem intrinsic to boilerplate questions at RfA is that RfA should not be seen as an "open book test" but rather as a careful evaluation of a Wikipedian's prior contributions in the community. While the boilerplate questions you propose, Jc37, are each applicable to some candidates, they do not as a group reflect the most insightful questions regarding any one particular candidate.

In contrast, some RfA !voters laboriously vet the contribution history of RfA candidates, informed by their own memory of the events those contributions touch. They ask questions to elicit any insights that candidates may have formed, through the lens of history, regarding their prior actions. Those questions, and the answers to them, are worth their weight in gold. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

An essential procedure and one which all voters should do. It has however happened unfortunately, that some voters with a personal grievance have laboriously vetted the contribution history of RfA candidates in order to find something they can take out of context and distort into an oppose rationale. Only laborious vetting of the voter will reveal the invalidity of such votes, which even worse, occasionally lead to pile on opposes from those who do not laboriously vet the candidate's history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Quite strongly, in fact. Admins aren't chosen for what they've done, but what they are expected to do in the future. Achowat (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

What you say is demonstrably untrue, Achowat. Many (most?) RfA discussions frequently spend time discussing what a candidate has done in the past (what other predictor of their future behaviour do we have?) It is the case however that more candidates are rejected because of some single mistake or misbehaviour in the past. It does seem as though the best way to become an admin is basically to have never done anything that anybody could possibly object to... On the main topic of boilerplate questions, I'm against them and rarely read them or the replies. I'd be much more interested in people's record in difficult areas such as contributing to AfD or AN/ANI discussions, their ability to collaborate on article-writing etc. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Age, a perennial issue

The current RfA featured a question on age. Current policy consensus, at Perennial Issues, is that editors are free to oppose editors based on their being underage:

• Requiring that administrators be adults (a perennial proposal): "Editors are free to use age as a personal rationale for opposing adminship on RfA".

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't describe WP:PEREN as "current policy", as it's neither a policy nor a guideline. However, I think it would be safe to say that the current consensus is that you can oppose an RfA candidate for just about whatever the hell you want, and anyone else can disagree with your opposition if they find it unreasonable. I don't see evidence that anyone's right to oppose for any reason is being questioned in this case, so I'm not sure why yet another discussion on this topic is warranted. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Scottywong's got it completely correct. You can oppose for whatever reason you like, including age, and editors can disagree with it. I'm sure the 'crats can give due weight to the vote, based on current policy and opinion. Worm^TT(talk) 08:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated to follow Scotty's improved wording. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Adminship trial

I thought of a great idea to potentially increase the admin count and stop the downwards spiral. What if we gave candidates, a one week trial to prove themselves to potential candidates. If an RfA passes with 80% or more, they of course become full fledged admins however if they have more than 50%, they get a one week trial and during that trial the community can evaluate his or her performance as an admin where the closing decision is made by the bureaucrat. If this seems like an acceptable proposal, we can create an RfC for this to potentially change the system. This method may also invite more potential candidates who may end up on the lower side of the support end but are still capable of being an admin. Any thought?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fifty percent? That's a bit low. Not to mention that virtually anyone can come across as fit to be an administrator in a single week. Frankly, there are so many checks and balances in place that I don't understand why people are so concerned with new administrators being perfect. None of the current ones are. -- tariqabjotu 00:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I am proposing this. The community set the bar so high that it's scaring the real potential candidates away. If the community doesn't really believe in the candidate all that much but still reach over half of the community's support, why not give the candidate the chance to show the community what they can do as an admin during their trial as one?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Find this reasonable. We'll have to appease the "no bureaucracy" crowd, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Then you might as well just request that the minimum threshold for promotion be lowered. As I suggested, there is almost no situation in which a candidate would fail the trial, unless he or she intentionally does so -- in which case, why did they bother going through an RfA to begin with? -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The RfA is to determine where he stands with the community. If they get an 80% or higher, they obviously pass but if they get a 50% or higher they get the show the community how they would perform as an admin. the community would evaluate the candidate on trial and give a support or oppose based on that. Obviously, if the candidate demonstrates that they can be a fit admin in the eyes of the community, the support count will go up. If they fail to raise the support they receive, they will obviously fail the candidacy.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Smiles @ "trial adminship" being considered a new idea : )

(Oh, I forgot, I'm supposedly not supposed to have a clue about what goes on at RfA... back to lurking : ) - jc37 01:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the history, but I am sure Jc37 is correct that this is not a new idea. I don't think it would have much of a chance. 50% is not "consensus" in a place that works by consensus, as difficult as that can be. The way to show you can be an admin is to act like an admin, i.e., certainly never being blocked, being able to debate civilly, being consistent and thoughtful, gaining respect of fellow editors. Doing some non-administrative closes at AfD. Show some creation skills by writing some decent articles and maybe some DYKs or a GA. And being willing to handle the drudgery and thanklessness of the job.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Trial Adminship has already been debated at length earlier this year in a major RfC. The proposals and their numerous alternatives/ideas all failed to meet with community approval. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I must've missed that RfC.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

For curiosity' sake, can you link to the RfC? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship - even like 60% did not make consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Hierarchical_structures. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• Not sure that a one week trial is helpful, as it is too easy to simply avoid controversy in your first week, then become an admin with only 50% approval. I'm trying to actively recruit people who I think would be helpful to the admin corp, which might be more likely to get some results. The problem isn't that high quality candidates are getting refused, it is that few high quality candidates are willing to run the gauntlet to begin with, leaving us with slim pickings each month. The last few RfAs have been relatively uneventful, so perhaps the process is getting more "user friendly". Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• The admin tool with the greatest possibility for creating drama is the block button. These trial candidates could do a bunch of speedy deletions, page protections, etc, pass the trial, and then demonstrate that they are idiots when it comes to when to block and when not to block. (This is also a serious problem with a small portion of the very old-school admins who got in when standards were much lower. Not going to name names, but a few of these folks are severely out of touch with current practice on when it is appropriate to block, but that's another issue.) Point is, this would be easy to game, easier than RFA actually. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • It has to be a requirement that they master all of the tools. If they don't prove themselves trustworthy with a tool for which blocking is very easily demonstrated for, they fail the trial (which I think should be at least 1 or 3 months instead of 1 week).--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • @beeblebrox - I've tried several times (and in different ways) to see how we could have a type of admin that didn't have thhe blocker tools (unless they wanted them) like having blocker as a separate package. It's just tough to get consensus on. - jc37 18:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Just as mad and bad as this idea which failed to gain more than passing acceptance as well as wasting much time and effort WT:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_216#Minimum_requirement. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps and perhaps not. A week may be too short and Jasper makes good points. Perhaps this can be modified to a 1 month trial where an admin or beareaucrat monitors them and the candidate must demonstrate when to use each tool by using all of them during the trial.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• For the avoidance of doubt, I meant that I believe the entire idea to be defective, not just the amended suggestion above. Leaky Caldron 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  We can only know by trying it out. We have enough admins and bereaucrats to monitor those in trial.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually before trying we need to find out why we need this change? Has this RFA process completely failed? What are the problems with this process (if any)? And then find solutions for each problem. In my opinion this may be really destructive for the project looking at many previous RFAs where the editors got 50% or more support but failed. The current RFA process is good, though there may be some minor problems, which I guess can be addressed once RFA Reforms is resumed sometime in the future and there are many sensible people who participate at RFAs. So I don't find any need for that. --SMS ^Talk 18:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  The RfA process is anything but good and we have a declining spiral of admins. It's only a matter of time when the admin is virtually nonexistent when held next to the size of the community. I'm pretty sure I don't speak for myself when I say that we need more admins and that we are losing more than we are gaining. This is an attempt to boost the numbers and give those that don't quite make it a chance to become one. If we look at our current admins out there, there are probably quite a few out there that wouldn't pass with our current standards. I potentially know one admin that if put through an RfA, would possibly fail given the standards we have here. The bar is way too high and the smallest mistake is exaggerated and made into a reason to oppose and that creates an unnecessary pile on. So in answers to your questions, why do we need this change? Because we are admin community is shrinking. Has this process completely failed? No, but it's on its way there. What are the problems of it? Every user can vote to oppose for the most fucked up reasons, word it in a way that it will cause others to agree with them and create a pile on of opposes to the point it will kill their RfA to the point where the bereaucrats will the low support count and fail the RfA in question all because of one ridiculous reason blown out of proportion on that RfA. That is what's wrong with the RfA.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC))

So can you provide examples in evidence to support the type of distortion you claim? Leaky Caldron 18:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Did you have any particular editors in mind who might be good admins but unable to get more than 51% support for an RfA bid? 28bytes (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So if the admin community is shrinking one possible solution can be that we find and nominate potential admins, I know many out there who can become good admins. --SMS ^Talk 18:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

All I can say is that RfA is getting harder, lots. You see times with 63 passing candidates in one December, now about one to three. Regards, ⇒TAP 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Even if you required an admin candidate to use each tool during the trial, it wouldn't solve the problem. 1) Monitor WP:AIV until an incredibly obvious and more then fully warned vandal shows up, block them. 2) Find a clear CSD G7 candidate and delete it. 3) Head over to WP:PERM and answer a really obvious request. 4) Head to WP:RPP and find a page with extensive IP vandalism to semi-protect for a few days or week. I'm sure I'm missing a tool or two, but it would be simple to exceedingly black and white cases during your trial to use all the tools on, and it would provide no incite to a monitoring crat or the community as to how you would handle yourself when it comes time to make a tough call or controversial decision. And that is what everyone worries about, the block of the experienced editor with thousands of contributions, not the block of an obvious vandalism only account. Requiring the use of each tool really just creates some check boxes to check off, and would be no more useful, and potentially less so then giving someone the bit for a week and seeing what they do with it when left to their own devices. Monty₈₄₅ 18:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but how i have always read the guide to be administrator is that you prove yourself one without the tools, so if you set this 50% target during the week trail the user is under the guardianship of a admin but the user does not have the admin powers meaning they dnt actually do the physical saying deleting a page, but they close a AFD or such and the admin under which there there guardian does the psychical deleting and they put a assessment of how they done with there judgement (obviously if the admin thinks the decision is wrong they dnt do it) but then the user has chance to prove themselves in real scenarios so showing if they would be a good admin without the powers. (apologise if this is meant only for admins to comment on delete if that the case)Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One of the biggest issues in my mind is that when you're actually an admin, you find yourself resolving issues that looked like Gordian knots before. When I was thinking of adminship, I thought I'd be mostly deleting stuff (and I certainly do my share of that), but I've been doing a lot of AE and enforcing discretionary sanctions; before becoming an admin, I never remember getting involved in any discussions of that nature. The problem is, we tie the capacity for enforcement in with adminship, and there's no good way to separate them. Those are probably the most difficult jobs admins can possibly do, and there's no way to test that; imagine how a user would react if he was told he was indefinitely banned from an article by someone who was undergoing a trial adminship period! I'd be all for a trial adminship period if there was some way we could test every aspect of adminship; just testing how people can use the individual tools isn't sufficient for that. I'll put some thought into a way that could be done, because I'd like to see it happen. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the candidate would be assigned to a current admin, preferrably one that volunteers to do such a task. That admin monitors the candidate for time period and gives his evaluation. The closing bureaucrat will weigh in that admin's evaluation as well as those from the community during the trial and decides if the trialed should become a full fledged admin or not. If of course the trialed admin makes a sanction or any other admin action that it is inappropriate, the advising admin will of course be at liberty to undo that action and advise the candidate. In a way this method will allow admin mentoring.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• The concept of a trial for marginal candidates is sound. However, 1 week is way too short; anyone can keep their nose clean for that time. 50% is also a bit low. I suggest a 55% threshold and a 3 month trial. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
• I'm very much not a fan of setting arbitrary number thresh holds. If this is really wanted, just give it to the bureaucrats as an option for those candidates which fall into the lower end of bureaucrat closer discretion. - jc37 22:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  I appreciate all the input I am getting from everybody. This is starting to turn into a possibility. As we currently stand, marginal candidates will have the opportunity to prove themselves an admin by receiving 3 month trial period where the candidate is assigned to an experienced admin or crat. They will monitor the candidate and give input and their evaluation and the community can give input as well. The crat will make a final decision whether the candidate should be an admin or not. Any more thoughts?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Setting the usergroup so that any "regular" admin could remove (but not assign) the tools at any time might ease some minds (many eyes making light work of the monitoring, etc.). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  Adding on to what you're saying, there can be a limited admin usergroup that can be add by a crat, but a sysop can modify what tools that trialed admin can access at the time. The limited admin usergroup automatically removes itself after 3 months.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, there are two classes of RFAs that might be above 50% but still fail: those that have a large subset of the opposes being "not enough MediaWiki talk edits", and those where the concerns relate to conduct. I wouldn't be averse to giving a trial adminship to those who fall into the first category. I would be very averse to giving a trial adminship to the second category. So then how are the two categories separated from each other? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 00:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In our current RfA, the crat decides pass or fail. For these marginal cases, ultimately the crat should decide if the candidate should be trialed or not by weighing the comments. I'm sure that our crats won't give the trial if the candidate shows repeated misconduct. You don't need to be an admin to prove your conduct but you do need to be an admin to show how you handle the bit. This is one of the reasons of what this proposal is for. Ultimately in the long run, it would will make the RfA process seem less like a blood bath and will invite more candidates and potentially increase the admin count. The RfA process would essentially seem less broken as it gives the candidates more of a chance to prove themselves worthy of the bit.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not make everyone who has more than a certain number of edits and hasn't been blocked for, say, more than two years, an Admin? instead of the RFA procedure we would need to implement a de-Adminship procedure for people who the community no longer trusts with the tools. Count Iblis (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As much as I like that idea, there is a flaw to it. With the amount of users we have several thousand editors will now become admins. There are users that have been here for awhile who haven't gotten blocked but have issues being an admin. We would get demands to de-syssop several thousand of those admins because they can't handle the bit.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think of all the variant suggestions concerning RfA, I like best the one where we eliminate the support (and neutral) section. And instead all opposes and the reasons thereof are discussed. And then the bureacrats assess the consensus of the discussion similar to how a discussion determines if a page should be kept or deleted. (In this case: confidence or no confidence). But it eliminates vote counting and the support pileons (and relies on the belief that the bureaucrats have clue : ) - So it's not likely to gain consensus. - jc37 02:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea but just having the oppose section isn't going to do much either. We don't see how much of the community supports and can potentially destroy the RfA process even more in ways we can't think of. We want to give the candidates the feeling that they've got a chance to become an admin and just having a section where the negatives are pointed may be deterring.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion - Make the trial period 30 days, with the expectation that if they "play it too safe", and avoid disputes, they will likely not pass. Which brings up another possible angle. How about a 30 day trial, a 60 day probation, then full-adminship at 90 days. Just a thought. — GabeMc (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Also been discussed to exhaustion without any conclusion or consensus. As previously mentioned in this thread, the bureaucrats have also concluded that they are not prepared to accept any more involvement in the RfA process than they already have. Almost every possible and impossible solution to improving the current RfA procedure or examining entirely new suggestions was examined and discussed in depth here, so there seems to be little point in rehashing the same arguments here at WT:RFA - which ironically, RFA2011 was deliberately conceived to avoid! Also, to reiterate the main issue for the n'th time: RfA has not become harder, but as Wikipedia grows, the pool of candidates of the right calibre has grown and along with it , the number of their edits and actions that can demonstrate competency for the tools. Canvassing possible candidates has been tried many times over the past 2 years and the vast majority of responses were that users will not come forward until the process has been cleaned up. 'Cleaning up' does not necessarily mean the introduction of a new or alternative system - the system itself is not broken, but its process has been destroyed by the trolls, drama mongers, liars, fan clubs, and clueless newbies who are allowed to vote there. Crats rarely need to 'decide' on the outcome of a RfA - very few serious candidacies are actually marginal. Nothing will change until a long period of relative calm has demonstrated that such voters have either been blocked, topic banned, or retired, or simply moved on to other pastures where they can be disruptive. That said, there's nothing that can be done about the relatively good faith voters who simply do not do sufficient research and just sadly get it all very wrong. Fortunately I finally passed my RfA first time and with flying colors and at the first attempt, but if I had known what I had coming, I most certainly would not have bothered.

Those are some of the answer to this perennial discussion.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It appears that the way that this discussion is going, that rehashing of this doesn't seem to bother many. This proposal hardly adds to the bureaucrats load in RfAs.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Cyberpower678, and I find this attitude in general around wikipedia, "no, we tried that ... already discussed ... not gonna happen ... no solution possible ... the current system cannot be improved." Etcetera. — GabeMc (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe that this is a great way to reduce some of the damage the process already has. It still allows everyone to contribute and the candidate can actually have a chance to prove themselves. I think I'm going to create an RfC page in my userspace for the RfA process after a little more input.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I wish you the very best of success, and if the RfC proposal sounds good and viable, I will not hesitate to support it as strongly as possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break and some data

To give some credence to this concept, I thought I'd look at some of the people who got more than 55% support at RfA, but were not successful. Looking through my recent list (playing with a bot to get some statistics out), I was surprised to find so many editors who looked like they were going to pass but withdrew. So, I narrowed things down to the last 4 years, cases that were not withdrawn: We have 59.
26 who have gone on to become sysops:Connormah, Slon02,Tnxman307, Ceranthor, Enigmaman, GiantSnowman, WereSpielChequers, The ed17, UpstateNYer, Addshore, DeltaQuad, Everyking, 7, Ironholds, BigDom, Geni, Thumperward, Kww, Kingpin13, Efe, TParis, Richwales, J04n, Aitias, FlyingToaster, GB fan
And 33 who haven't: Ling.Nut, Mark t young, Logan, Itsmejudith, Timmeh, TenPoundHammer, Krm500, Mabdul, That Thing That Should Not Be, BQZip01, Headbomb, N5iln, Kingoomieiii, Biruitorul, Adolphus79, Dylan620, Jsfouche, Jeffrey Mall, Salavat, Glane23, Teratornis, Synergy, Jerem43, NickPenguin, JamieS93, Mvjs, Gtstricky, Pol430, Blanchardb, Undead warrior, Basket of Puppies, Markhurd, Jc3s5h
So, that make me wonder. What are we trying to acheive through this? There's clearly an argument that the editors who went on to be sysops could have been a sysop sooner if they could prove themselves to the community. However, they still did manage to become sysops - so all we benefit from is getting them sooner. I believe that some of our best sysops are in that list, and I wonder if they'd be as good if they didn't take on board the comments in those RfAs and become better editors because of them. On the other hand, those that haven't become admins... perhaps they shouldn't have? It also seems like a very small percentage of RfAs that we're worrying about - ~4%. There's a lot of unknown factors - editors who don't pile on to RfAs that are clearly not going to succeed may well do so, making the whole procedure more unpleasant - one of the biggest problems of RfA in the first place. Worm^TT(talk) 09:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

From personal experience, that principle absolutely holds, even for lower support levels. I had a SNOW closed RfA a few months before I passed, and I definitely don't think I'd be as good had I not gotten snowed under with excellent advice. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from with this but those other 36 could've demonstrated their abilities and also become admins. But the goal of this proposal is to make the RfA seem more friendly and not much like a blood bath. With this setup in place, it will invite more potential candidates and give everybody more of a chance. This ultimately add to admin which is much needed as the administrative department is undermanned at times.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 11:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I know from memory that User:Aitias and User:FlyingToaster used to be an admin, so that list of 36 is not accurate. Didn't check the others.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's not exhaustive or perfectly accurate, it was me playing with some data. Was trying to give a useful impression so we had some data to talk about. Have updated though. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyberpower - I personally believe the only reason people are so afraid of RfA is that people keep calling it "a gauntlet" or "a bloodbath". Take the current RfA, there's some very useful feedback for the candidate, whether or not he succeeds. Even if he doesn't, I do not doubt he will succeed in the future. I know some people don't really bother to check a candidate over, just check a few stats and how they answer questions, then support. If a candidate can't get 2 supports for every oppose (66%), I'm not sure I'd want them to be using the tools, even provisionally. Worm^TT(talk) 11:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It has earned the title of gauntlet or blood bath because of the way they see it. This name may go away if this process is implemented. Whether this process should be implemented is up to the community and the only way for that is through and RfC which I happen to be building.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Which came first, the chicken or the egg - the general perception that it is a gauntlet, or the comments that it's a gauntlet. I agree, it's up to the community, but as a member of the community I've got a point of view there. Feel free to use any of the research I've done here, or at WP:RFA2011 - I know I will be if I were to comment on such an RfA. Also, be aware that the community turned down Wikipedia:Tool apprenticeship in November last year, a well thought out proposal. Worm^TT(talk) 12:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Cyberpower, your intentions are noble and as I said, I may well support them, but the only way you'll ever understand what RfA is all about is to go through the process yourself... --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I may in, due time, but, not now because I will just get snowed out.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What if it is broke, but you can't fix it?

Despite the general feeling that something is wrong with RfA, the discussions above and elsewhere often seem to lead in circles and always back to the same point of inertia. It's as if we have consensus that it's broke, but no consensus on how to fix it. But are we looking for a solution before there is an urgent problem? And without an urgent problem, is there the motivation to agree on a solution? We currently have about 1400 admins, of whom several hundred are still active. Despite occasional backlogs at RFPP, CSD or elsewhere the work seems to be getting done. I absolutely agree that if the decline in new blood continues, then down the road somewhere we will have a problem. But my sense is that only when we get to that point will there be sufficient urgent reason for us to agree on how we improve things. Maybe the community will accept a lower %. Maybe we'll go on a recruitment drive for well-established content-producers. Maybe we'll make everyone an admin after a year's block-free service. Maybe we'll establish a form training programme. When we really need to solve the problem, I guess we will. At present the Wikipedia ecosystem has a niche for admins, but they are dwindling in number. If they become extinct the niche will still be there and it will be filled somehow, either because the old species adapts or because a new one evolves to fill it. This isn't a call to stop discussing options; the better discussed they are, the quicker we can choose when the time comes. But I don't think we need to do something now, beyond continuing the discussions for the future. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. From my time in RfA reform, my biggest realisation is that no one can agree with what is broken about RfA, let alone why it's broken or how to fix it. People are suggesting solutions, but if we can't agree on the problem, then that's not going to help. It is true that the number of candidates has fallen, but so has the number of new editors. It's true that the standards have risen, but so has the average edit count. There are problems with some RfAs, snarky comments, unhelpful votes, too many questions - but they're not consistently problematic. Some editors would like to be admins, but don't believe they'd pass an RfA - does that mean we should be making RfA easier for them? I don't believe so. Overall, I think Kim Dent-Brown has it right, if we need a solution to a specific problem, we'll find one. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I was about to post the exact same thing that Kim just did. Is the rate of admin promotion decreasing? Of course. Is that proving to be a problem right now? As far as I can tell, no. Admin backlogs are generally taken care of (with the occasional lapse, of course), and there are no signs that that's going to change in the near future. The standards at RfA are what they are. They've evolved organically, and they represent the accumulation of many experienced editors' opinions. Therefore, they're not going to change easily, and trying to enact policies that force those opinions to change is just not going to work. RfA standards will change when there is a need for them to change, and right now that need doesn't exist. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 14:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What if it's not really working very well, it's making funny noises but just about managing to do the job, and fiddling with it will break it properly and you'll get told off by your partner? --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then try this as a specific problem just for brainstorming: the community has too diverse ana cataclysmically disparate opinion of what makes a candidate eligible. Some which can be factually and logically debunked. Take the current nomination for LR. LR's stated passion is dispute resolution. Do you need admin tools for DR? No. Moreover, why would we want such an excellent dispute mediator to drop that ball to take up the mop?

My opinion of RfA is that it has become voluntary rape. I have no desire to go through it. Nor is RfA the only problem either; Wikipedia is suffering from entropy, that all things in the universe eventually become disordered, so too is Wikipedia and RfA is just one symptom of it. Part of this is that only the toughest people go for or actually pass RfA. Being tough sometimes can be interchangeable with being a dick. Therefore what we are left with is a degradation of, among other things, civility because more and more administrators have less and less of a strong view that civility, for instance, is essential to demand in order to have an encyclopedia with a diversity of contributors. Or, sadly, they themselves are the dicks. And the reality is that a lot of potential editors just don't have room in their life, or like me have little left in their mental reservoir to tap into to participate with Wikipedia which, to them, may perceivably be running rampant with dicks.   Thorncrag  14:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fantastic that you complain about lessening civility, yet somehow have no issue likening RFA opposers to rapists.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all and I'm quite sure you know that.   Thorncrag  14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the word rape to describe RFA is disgusting and I'm quite sure you know that.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But see you are most eloquently making my point. You are clearly being that which I described in my post by, with malice, asserting that I was using the word with your narrowly construed definition of it. You know I was not. But clearly trying to have a productive conversation is a waste of time.   Thorncrag  14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My point is that if RFA is keeping away people that think it's fine fo call RFA rape then it's working as intended.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand Thorncrag's stance, but the rape comparison really isn't helpful. We need less drama around here; comparing RfA to rape is not a good way to calm people down. bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thorncrag's comments imply that it's a bad thing that the community has a cataclysmically disparate opinion of what makes a candidate eligible. I actually think that's an asset, and it's the natural product of the organic, consensus-based process by which administrators are elected. You'd be surprised how much bullshit you have to put up with once you actually become an admin; an RfA is actually a great test for whether or not you can (or want to) handle it. If you're not willing to put yourself through RfA, that's fine, but perhaps you should ask yourself why. Is it because you know or suspect that you won't pass because of something in your past? Is it that you're worried that your ego might be damaged by the inevitable criticism you will have to endure? Or maybe you just have enough to do in non-admin areas already? Side note: I'm not suggesting that any of the above are accurate, as I don't know you from Adam. If you're interested in working in admin areas and think you're qualified, I think you should go for it. The worst that could happen is that a bunch of dicks dredge up a pile of crap from your past. As long as you're capable of shrugging that kind of stuff off and not letting it get to you, there's really no downside to trying. If you're not capable of shrugging it off, then adminship may not be for you. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Scotty you raise some interesting thoughts but I just want iterate that I in no way intended to make this conversation about me (who?) but merely raise the possibility that I may represent a whole lot of editors who feel "it's just not worth it" referring to Wikipedia in general, not RfA. And that the perceived state of RfA feeds into that. Which is why I usually stay away from here.   Thorncrag  15:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Kim Dent-Brown. I think we are looking at the situation at a wrong angle. Instead of looking at one problematic element of the system and trying to fix it, we should accept that it is not fixable, at least in the short term, and see what are the problems which arise because of this. Well, we have a number of facts: (i) no editor with less than a year active participation, less that 5K edits, some demonstrated abilities etc etc is extremely unlikely to pass an RfA; (ii) Many editors who could pass are not willing to be nominated; (iii) once one passes an RfA it is very difficult to de-admin them. None of these is going to change anytime soon. The valid question is then: What are the areas where the lack of admin power is really critical? If these areas exist, may be there are other solutions, for instance, some of the work could be done by non-admins? I do not have a global overview of the project, but currently I do not see such areas to start with - well, I do see areas where help is welcome, but for instance I know that the AfD backlog in Russian Wikipedia went up to 6 months now whereas it was only 2 months 2 years ago - and they badly need more admins, which they can not elect since the whole community is deeply split. Here, I do not see anything close to six months backlog. Well, sure, we are going to have severe problems in the long term, but we do not even know how these problems will look like. I think we should really start with identifying the problems for the end users, not trying to fix smth which may be unfixable but which does not necessarily need to be fixed.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)