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 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

Current time: 17:28:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hypothetical question

Once again that hypothetical question has been asked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec (question 4). it was asked during my RFA too. I think they are just copy-pasting this question. Two points/questions: a) firstly is there any rule that discourages same questions on every RFA? b) is this question really related to his adminship assessment? I have never seen such a situation. Do we really need to ask such question? --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a policy about it but I think questions like this don't do any good for RfAs, it seems like it's meant to pick out a reason someone qualified shouldn't be given admin rights. Being an administrator on Wikipedia is about being trusted to act responsibly, not being able to deal with every "possible" situation. I doubt there are any situations where an administrator is forced to make a decision on their own, there's nothing wrong with leaving a decision for another administrator or, if it's time sensitive, asking someone else for their opinion. A good administrator is one who has a good understanding of the policies that relate to the actions they make and knows when they lack the knowledge or experience to make one. PhantomTech (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically a user can ask the same question at any RfA they see fit. I don't see anything wrong with this question. It seems to be perfectly relevant and reasonable for an RfA to determine how a candidate will judge consensus—this is a major aspect of adminship. There's no right or wrong answer, but it definitely helps in judging a candidate to see their response to a hypothetical situation. I was pitched some absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals that didn't even make any sense at my RfA, I simply answered them the best I could, the people who could take something from them did so, the people who didn't, didn't. Swarm ^X 04:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO this is a perfectly good question, as there ought to be some way of judging how someone would use admin tools -- as past experience isn't helpful in this case -- and it's a possible situation and one to which there are more or less "right" and "wrong" answers. There are no policies on RFA questions and votes; Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions are essays, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is an information page and does not take a firm position on these things. ekips39 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an excellent question, if not for the reason many seem to assume. It highlights that strange place where supposed non-authority figures are called upon to be authority figures. GraniteSand (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to object to asking the same question at multiple RfAs -- the standard questions are asked at multiple RfAs, after all! This one is an excellent question: it tests whether the candidate is clear that policies and guidelines are developed by community consensus and trump the 4-1 "majority" of group A in the question. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a silly question in that it presents a false dilemma. I have a great deal of difficulty conceiving of a circumstance where a specific administrator is compelled to make that decision under those circumstances, limited only to those two options. To even produce this exact situation in reality – four voters who totally don't grasp Wikipedia policy, and one voter who completely does – you're typically dealing either with fanboys in a darker corner of Wikipedia (something related to Pokemon or cold fusion), canvassed puppets at an AfD or similar process, a deeply contentious political article, or some similar mess with significant backstory and overtones beyond the vague hypothetical framework. The question, as written, is a lose-lose—every reader is going to be able to come up with a situation where A or B might be the correct outcome. Trying to force the candidate to pick one or the other (and giving them no opportunity to consider anything else: "What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?") is a contrived, uninstructive, and counterproductive exercise.

Any admin not sure of his ground in such a situation has a plethora of options. Doing nothing is a valid option, as taking an admin action is never compulsory for any one individual. Adding one's own vote endorsing the policy-compliant view is an option. Extending the deadline to get more discussion is an option (sometimes the lone voice doesn't grasp policy as well as he thinks, and it's good to wait for confirmation). Asking for assistance at AN or elsewhere is an option. Opening an RfC or escalating the dispute to a relevant noticeboard (WP:BLPN, WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc.) is an option. The deeply-cynical but usually-correct approach is to start by figuring out why there are all these people who don't understand core Wikipedia policy attending this one discussion in the first place, and then go from there.

It actually smacks of the questions we see on a regular basis at WP:HD, WP:VP, WP:AN, and even User talk:Jimbo Wales. Someone poses a "hypothetical" scenario with names, article titles, diffs, and context omitted, and asks how admins should (have) handle(d) it. After very little exploration, it tends to become extremely clear that the poser of the question's "general" query is actually quite specific, and they're trying to trap admins into (re)litigating a particular situation based on the poser's personal slanted presentation, making a decision that applies to a specific case sight unseen. Most admins tend to be pretty quick at calling bullshit on this type of nonsense, and either identify the real underlying dispute or keep quiet until an honest question is posed. I suppose that Iaritmioawp might have intended to test whether a potential admin could recognize these sorts of traps ("The only winning move is not to play"), but I fear that's giving too much credit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the questions section should come with a reminder to the candidate that if they choose to answer a question, they are not obliged to accept the premise of the question... WJBscribe (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This was asked at my RfA too. IMO it is a dumb question, because as TenOfAllTrades correctly states, it presents a false dilemma, not a real situation. My answer was that the hypothetical discussion is not ready for closure, because consensus has not been reached - and the notion that the candidate MUST make a closure is not something that would happen in real life. I said that rather than closing, I would cast a !vote for option B, and leave it for the next person to close. The question as posed seems to call for the closer to cast a supervote in favor of option B, which is not something admins are supposed to do. But with that said, I don't think we can or should prohibit copy-pasted questions or even dumb questions from being asked. Let the candidate deal with it, or not, and see what their response reveals about them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a false dilemma; it would make more sense to say "What do you do? [do you close the discussion? if so, how? if not, why not?]" than "A or B?", since the latter is arguably a trick question and is not fair to anyone because such tricks would not be part of the actual situation should it take place. I've never closed discussions so I can't comment on the situation itself, but I think some kind of question about consensus should be asked to determine how well the candidate understands it. Perhaps linking to a real situation would be better? ekips39 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking to a real situation is a pretty good idea but only if it's still open (so they can't just say they'd do whatever the closer did) Without an active discussion it might be a good idea for the questioner to write out a scenario in their sandbox or something and have the candidate respond to that. PhantomTech (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think that false premises come out all the time in debates and seeing that a potential admin recognizes them is a good sign. I've asked occasional trick / trap questions myself especially when I'm unsure about the candidate or have a particular concern. ( Hint: If I ask a question at an RfA and carefully label details of it to make it easier to talk about, question the question. ) Such questions are particular useful when someones edit history is either weak in an area or if they have had problems in the past. Direct questions sometimes might be too easy to answer right without really telling how they would respond in the real situation; if I want to give someone the benefit of a doubt I like to have a way to gauge first. For example consider the question I asked SoV; there was still concern over some past issues ( and I had opposed a previous RfA for those issues ); even with the statements that they wouldn't reoccur so I asked a question to see if they would attempt to self-justify "obvious" answers. And when they "copped out" on answering the question, I felt justified in supporting. For the question in particular I've also seen this consensus question asked before and answered before and seen good answers to it. It may be a bit of a false premise, but it's also a bit of a softball question to be honest. There are lots of very clear good responses to it if one is familiar with how consensus works. PaleAqua (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with asking the same question at an RFA. The user asking the question clearly has a personal set of criteria that the question is designed to answer. The question generally shouldn't be added to the "default questions" because the user may not wish to ask it on every candidate and the community hasn't endorsed the question for default use. Regardless of the content of the question, candidates should not be pressured to answer any questions they don't feel are appropriate or are badgering. Nakon 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with asking the same questions at RfA, provided they're not silly or abusive, which this isn't. I agree though that this question poses a false dilemma as no admin is ever obligated to close a discussion, and the closing result depends on what 'A' and 'B' actually are. Consider a nationally important Ivory Coast politician, who doesn't appear prominently in a UK or US Google search. Five "A"s all speak English as a second language and give vague criteria such as "he's important" or "he's nationally famous" because that's all they know, while "B" is "fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG" and other policy links with links to search results. "A" might still be the right option depending on how good B's research skills are. This is why I like to ask specific questions with specific content, which show that a candidate can apply a policy to a particular situation, there is no "right" answer and indeed a good answer can show insights I didn't think about.. Vague "what do you think about policy 'x'" questions are too likely to simply get you what you want to hear. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone asking the same question at multiple RfAs. But I am not a fan of trick questions either, and I think this is bordering on being a trick question.

• Questioner: If you were called upon to close debate XYZ, how would you close it?
• Candidate: Well, I'd take into account foo, bar, and baz and probably close it in favour of bleck.
• Questioner: WRONG! You shouldn't close it at all, you should put in a vote instead. !!!GOTCHA!!!

Reyk _YO! 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The already infamous 4xA vs 1xB question looks rather like a Rorschach test. Although the question is always the same, I've seen quite a variety of widely differing answers. The !voter is then called to make up his mind about what the answer might mean... Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case, be very careful how you answer. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting side note: It's been suggested that the person who pastes this question into every RfA has a particular answer they are looking for. But in fact, as far as I can tell this editor never posts a "support" or "oppose" vote. They do not seem to care how the candidate responds; they simply post their question. Nothing wrong with that, of course - the responses may give insight to other !voters, so to that extent they are contributing to the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If copy and pasted questions, why not copy and pasted answers? It took very little effort to ask a "canned question", and the questioner ought not to expect much more from the candidate. KonveyorBelt 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Since no one actually notified the editor asking the questions I've done so here and told them what the consensus seems to be. Sam Walton (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Sam. Perhaps the community should make an essay called "The answer is option C" and paste it as a note below the optional question. (joke... kinda) Mkdw^talk 21:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deja-vu: a little history

This is not a new problem. Anyone who has been at RfA long enough will remember the notorious question on cool-down blocks. Hundreds of canned questions? No problem, there's an app for that (but no luck for those who run for ArbCom). On a more serious note, the whole point of asking questions is not to catch a luckless candidate out or to force one to suit your opinion but to assess the suitability of the candidate in question. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Iaritmioawp's question be banned?

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

---

I've just been contacted by a discontented editor who demanded that I either rephrase my question or cease asking it. As refactoring the question to the editor's specifications would render it useless for the purpose of meaningfully assessing a candidate's suitability for assuming an administrative position on Wikipedia, I am left with only two choices—the first choice is to ignore the editor's concerns, which would be rude; the second choice is to cease asking the question, which I'd rather not do unless there's an actual need for it. Thus, I have come here to ask for input from whomever cares to offer it.

Please answer the following question: Should this question be banned from being asked at RfA?

Kindly vote either "yea" or "nay." I will do a vote count seven days from now and if there's a majority in support of the question being banned, I will no longer ask the question. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nay Any question that's not unambiguously disruptive should be allowed. As all questions beyond the first three are optional, it makes sense to let candidates "ban" the ones they don't consider answer-worthy by simply ignoring them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, RFA candidates are welcome to ignore any questions that they do not wish to answer. Nakon 23:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose In pointing you towards the discussion and explaining why many users think you should at least rephrase the question I hoped that you would understand why your question presents a false dilemma and thus why it's not really a worthwhile question to ask. I don't see any benefit to asking the question since the user shouldn't really answer A or B, they should answer with an option that you didn't present but feel they shouldn't answer with. That said, you're more than welcome to ask this question so I oppose banning you from asking it. I just hope that you are sensible enough to realise why adding a third option or leaving it more ambiguous (as I did with my question on Everymorning's RfA) is a better way of testing a candidate's suitability. Making them choose from two wrong options doesn't really help anyone, but the less experienced among our voters may misunderstand what the answer says about the candidate. Sam Walton (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose... but you shouldn't "make" them close it one way or another, this doesn't happen anywhere. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ask whatever you want - I think the question is poor but it's not my question. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Nay There's nothing inherently wrong with attempting to test a person's understanding of the meaning of consensus, not a vote, and policy. Also, looking for people who can think outside the box and look past the two obvious options provided in the question is a good thing. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I do think you should consider rewording the question and that you are mistaken in thinking that doing so would render it useless, there's absolutely no reason that you should be required to to continue asking it. ansh666 03:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I must say, Iaritmioawp's combative behavior below is making me seriously reconsider this. A bit punitive for a somewhat unrelated matter, but still. ansh666 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. There's no possible outcome to this discussion/pseudo-vote that would result in anything meaningfully described as a "ban", so I prefer not to vote. I would also not characterize this post as a 'demand to rephrase or cease asking' the question that is, erm, in question. It would be more interesting to ask the community, "do you find this question useful enough for me to continue asking it?" (It's not really clear if the asker finds it useful, since s/he doesn't seem to act on or acknowledge the answers to it.) I would say no, I don't find this canned question useful; it doesn't do what it claims ("test your understanding of consensus") and is at this point staler than last year's fruitcake. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Along with others, i reckon there's no need to talk of "banning" the question, though it is poorly constructed and, were i to be undergoing RfA, i would probably ignore it; i would point out, though, that i believe Iaritmioawp either misunderstood or is misrepresenting the comment/request on his talkpage, which rather lays a false foundation for this discussion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The message on my talk page reads: "I'd like to request that you either don't ask this question anymore or phrase it in such a way that option C is a possibility." I paraphrased that comment above by saying that an editor has "demanded that I either rephrase my question or cease asking it." I don't see how I could've possibly represented the editor's comment more faithfully than that short of repeating it verbatim. Iaritmioawp (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

"Demand" and "request" have very different connotations. ansh666 09:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, and can I ask why you seem to have no desire to change the wording? All or nothing seems quite dramatic for such a small thing. Sam Walton (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The message posted on my talk page was a demand, i.e. an authoritative request that is not subject to discussion and that is likely to result in sanctions against one's account if ignored. I do not recognize Samwalton9's authority to unilaterally issue such demands and thus I have proposed the matter for discussion, which I consider to be a reasonable compromise. As for changing the wording, I have already explained that it's not an option as changing the wording would render the question useless in my opinion. Unlike articles or templates, where WP:OWNership is obviously problematic due to the collaborative nature of the project, optional RfA questions, similarly to e.g. talk page messages, are not subject to consensus; their phrasing is left to the asker's discretion in a similar fashion that the decision as to whether to answer them or not is left to the discretion of the candidate to whom they are asked. As far as I can tell, that's how it's always been and, quite frankly, I don't like the idea of that state of affairs changing in the least. At the same time, I recognize the prerogative of this community, of which I am willingly a part, to prohibit or allow whatever it pleases, be it by consensus or by majority, whichever is more expedient. Thus, as I have already stated once, if it is the will of 51% or more of the self-selected sample of this community that will have participated in the vote I have initiated in this subsection by the time it concludes that the question is not to be asked, I have every intention, as I have already stated once, to abide by the wish of the majority of voters and refrain from asking my question at any further RfAs. As for Samwalton9's comment that it "seems quite dramatic for such a small thing," I entirely agree, but I'd like to point out that this vote is the outcome of Samwalton9's unconventional and, in my opinion, largely unreasonable demand that he posted on my talk page in an attempt to compel me to acquiesce to his idea of how my question should be phrased. Iaritmioawp (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that my post was absolutely not an authoritative demand which would be subject to sanctions if not heeded, as evidenced by my opposing a ban on the question. I also don't appreciate you implying that me notifying you of a discussion regarding your editing and summarising the consensus of that discussion is somehow unconventional or unreasonable. I compelled you to listen to the community's idea of how your question should be phrased. Sam Walton (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your notifying me of this discussion and "summarising the consensus" was done with the sole purpose of providing context for your demand; otherwise, there would've been no ultimatum following the notification. The important part of your message reads: "I'd like to request that you either don't ask this question anymore or phrase it in such a way that option C is a possibility." I don't disagree that there does seem to be a rough consensus that the phrasing of my question is suboptimal, due in no small part to the fact that I was notified of the discussion after it had effectively ended and was thus unable to present the rationale behind the question's phrasing, but that only accounts for the latter part of the request. The problem is with the "don't ask this question anymore" part—for which there was absolutely no consensus—where you explicitly state that the only acceptable alternative to my not rephrasing my question is for me to desist from asking that question; what logically follows is that if I don't comply, I will have imposed on me whatever sanctions are necessary to compel my compliance. I always welcome constructive feedback and I was pleasantly surprised to learn that my question has generated such lively debate, even though I was excluded from participating in it due to my unawareness of its commencement. What I don't welcome, however, is being subjected to strange demands made by administrators who have absolutely no authority to make them. I accept that your intentions were genuinely good and that your goal was to inform and not to threaten with sanctions, but you need to understand that the recipient of a message has no way of knowing what's in the sender's head and thus will base his/her reading of the message solely on its wording and what can be reasonably inferred from it given the circumstances in which the message was received. When an editor is contacted by an administrator who says "I request that you either do X differently or stop doing X," which is what your message said, the editor is left with very little room for interpretation. I'm glad to hear that you didn't actually mean to say what you said in your message. Please phrase your talk page messages more carefully in the future, and please note two things about the request I just made: I used the word "please" and I didn't include the "or cease leaving messages on people's talk pages" part. Reflecting on why I did the former and didn't do the latter may prove enlightening and save the next person you talk to the headache of figuring out how to reasonably address an unreasonable request where one false step may lead to the termination of his/her editing privileges. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll stick my nose back in here, as this conversation is taking place under my comment ~ it think Samwalton9's request is very clear, and it is not a demand by any means. It may be possible to assert that it is not entirely accurate in its summation of consensus of the earlier discussion; it is not possible to reasonably assert that you are told "do this or else", even taking into account the fact that it was made by an admin. The point you make above, that it is often difficult for a reader to tell the intentions of a writer, is a valid point that all too often we forget in this text-based medium; the corollary of the point, however, is that the reader should take the words of the writer at face value, and in this case, you are not. The message is very clear: "The consensus seems to be...[a]s such I'd like to request..." with no mention or implication of consequences. Your response is to a misinterpretation of this message.

I will say, though, that it is a shame you weren't previously notified about the discussion; i read it, and never thought of letting you know about it and for that i apologise. I expect everyone assumed, as did i, that you had this page watched and would have noticed it. Sorry. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"Either do X differently or stop doing X" is impossible to misinterpret. Posted by a regular user, it is a suggestion. Posted by an administrator who fails to clarify that s/he's not acting in an official capacity, it is a formal request with an implicit threat of sanctions. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Iaritmioawp: I too read the original request from Samwalton9 and I didn't interpret it as a "demand". You have heard a number of editors on their interpretations, but probably most importantly, Samwalton9 has given you a direct statement saying that it wasn't their intention for it to be a demand. Perhaps a little good faith here? You after all did come here asking for comment on the issue. Mkdw^talk 19:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe that this message, which I posted two days ago, addresses all of your concerns. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And the rest of us believe that it does not. ansh666 02:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Please specify which of Mkdw's concerns you believe not to have been addressed, and I'll be more than happy to point you to the exact portion of my message that addresses them. Iaritmioawp (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support as current phrased. I'm going to disagree with the majority of the comments above, in that I do think that Iaritmioawp should be asked, and if necessary told, not to ask his question in its current form. I'm going to agree with the majority of above commenters insofar as they have explained why the question is ill-considered in its current form. I don't understand at all why Iaritmioawp is unwilling to accept the feedback he has received about how his question could easily be improved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support as currently phrased. We shouldn't "ban" any question that isn't deliberately disruptive, but I agree with NYB that it shouldn't be asked in its current form. The statement "You are the administrator whose role is to formally close the discussion" is misleading, since nobody is ever assigned that role: admins may choose to close an AfD or to !vote or to leave it alone. The question "What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?" is misleading, since several other outcomes are possible. Replace those two sentences with something like "As an admin, how would you proceed?", (similar to Sam's suggestion on your talk page) and I think it would be better. But you might want to bear in mind that the question is stale now, as there has been so much discussion here of how it should be answered. Asking the same question at multiple RfAs, when the range of right answers is the same for everyone, doesn't really accomplish much. --Stfg (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC) Inserted "Support as currently phrased" for clarity after seeing the reply to Sam above. --Stfg (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One more point, though: Admins are going to get manipulative people coming along playing all sorts of tricks, and they have to deal with them competently. So I don't think questions entailing such simple tricks as these are much beyond the pale. Anyone of admin calibre needs to be able to spot them and handle them reasonably, imho. --Stfg (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nay per my statement in a different section above. Kraxler (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Setting up a false dichotomy is little better than trolling. Perhaps the better question is, should Iaritmioawp be banned from participating in RfA's, if he refuses to participate good faith. bd2412 T 16:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. There's now really no point in asking the question. After all, anyone who looks at WT:RFA will now know what the correct answer is, should they ever run for adminship. --Biblioworm 17:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose First, the question is an excellent question, false dilemma or no. Such situations can arise in deletion discusses, and administrators are often tasked with untangling difficult discussions. An administrator should weigh the policy and guideline supported answers in a debate over those with no such basis. Secondly, an alternative answer to the question not being expressed here are the arguments being used to oppose this question. A candidate could easily answer the question in this manner and likely win plaudits with the very people supporting banning this question. Thirdly, what shall we do? Create a bureaucracy to determine what questions will be allowed at RfA from now on? Lastly, I find it highly objectionable that my esteemed colleague BD2412 (and anyone else who thinks to express such an opinion) should accuse Iaritmioawp of acting in bad faith. The very fact Iaritmioawp is seeking input from the people here at WT:RFA belies the notion he is acting in bad faith. This accusation should be retracted, with haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• As others have stated, the premise could use some re-writing (no one is ever "required" to perform an admin action, we are all volunteers here). And speaking as someone who may have at times been seen as having an affectation towards verbosity myself (looks at the ceiling), it's a bit wordy : ) - But otherwise, Oppose banning. RfA is an open discussion. In general, as long as it isn't disruptive, ask away. - jc37 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I have reservations about the reason why the question is asked. I believe if a question is going to be asked in RFA, there needs to be a direct purpose. At the moment it seems like Iaritmioawp asks it for the sake of asking it, especially since they ask it of every candidate and never participate in the support or oppose discussions. As others have stated, the question provides a logical fallacy/false dilemma on a number of points. That being said, the question shouldn't be banned, but rather I hope Iaritmioawp understands that there is a fair amount of opposition to the question and why its asked. I'm going to add the question to WP:RFACHEAT and my answer (which also includes comments and points brought up by others) since the question actually states its will "test your understanding". Mkdw^talk 21:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I suggest removing mention of WP:3O from that answer. As five editors have already been involved according to the question, a 3O request would be declined. --Stfg (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point Stfg. Mkdw^talk 23:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record, it is not true that I "ask it of every candidate." I just looked at the last seven RfAs, and it's plain as day that I asked my question at only two of the seven, this one and this one. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Iaritmioawp: Do you assert that you willfully pick and choose with candidates you ask the question to then? Here are the last 4 RFAs you did not ask the question on:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wackslas - closed after 1 hour 15 minutes as NOTNOW - Iaritmioawp wasn't editing during the time it was open.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Panewithholder closed after 6 hours as NOTNOW - Iaritmioawp wasn't editing during the time it was open.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moosehadley withdrawn after 13 hours - Iaritmioawp wasn't editing during the time it was open.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buggie111 2 withdrawn after 10 hours - Iaritmioawp wasn't editing during the time it was open.

As Hammersoft has pointed out, I will AGF and ask you for your word on it that you reviewed those RFAs during the times they were open and you choose not to ask the question. I'm asking this because when you point out that you only asked it on two of the last seven, you're implying its was an intentional proportion. And if that's the case then I will strikeout that portion of my comment and you have my apologies. Mkdw^talk 19:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Iaritmioawp's assessment of frequency. Furthermore, it doesn't matter how often he does or does not post the question to RfAs. Simply because a person posts a question to RfAs does not require them to comment further on the RfA. Lack of commenting further does not automatically imply bad faith actions. There's a reason we have WP:AGF. For all anyone knows, Iaritmioawp may be adding the question because he feels particular candidates might be susceptible to failure on such points, and wants to give the candidates an opportunity to clarify their positions. We are seeing several people assuming bad faith in this thread because they do not like the question. This is wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

AGF works both ways Hammersoft. Iaritmioawp may have their reasons for asking it. I supported their right to ask it by opposing the ban. That being said, Iaritmioawp did come here and ask the RFA community for comment. If individuals, such as myself, have concerns about its usefulness in process, we have a right to express those concerns without being called out on assuming bad faith. I said nothing other than there's "opposition to the question and why its asked". For me, this has to do with the environment that current exists at RFA and the introduction of hypothetical and trick questions that contributes to RFA being an undesirable process for many editors to undergo. In regards to the accusation that "several people assuming bad faith in this thread" because they "do not like the question" and that it's "wrong" may have to do with some good faith issues when this was first brought here. An editor attempted, in good faith (as reaffirmed by several editors above), to ask Iaritmioawp about it and in turn they were called "a discontented editor who demanded" and that it was a "problem [they] decided to create". More importantly as I pointed out above, Samwalton9 themselves tried to allay the issue by saying it wasn't their intention to demand. All I'm saying it's not surprising that AGF has been an issue here since it was so hotly started. I do disagree if you're suggesting I posted here in bad faith and that I merely "didn't like it" and that saying so invites bad faith as well. Mkdw^talk 19:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• First, I was not commenting on questions of the usefulness of the question, but rather your statement where you said "[You] have reservations about the reason why the question is asked" That is not an expression of doubt about the question, but rather the motives in asking it. The former is an attribute of the question, the latter is an attribute of the person doing the asking. This is where WP:AGF comes in. As for the discussion about Iaritmioawp's interpretation of comments, I have not commented on that so it seems to have little relevance to me. I never stated that your posting here is in bad faith; straw man. Rather, as I noted, we are seeing people making bad faith assessments. If you're interested in clearing the air and making RfA a better place, it would be nice to see you retract your provably false statement "especially since they ask it of every candidate". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If I said, "I try my best in every race" it would not be a provably false statement. I also didn't clarify "candidates" to mean only those running for RFA. It wasn't needed. I was talking about Iaritmioawp and their involvement in RFA. I've asked Iaritmioawp for clarification on an aspect of their participation that would make my statement incorrect and offered a retraction and apology if that is the case. Iaritmioawp and I will continue to discuss it and work it out. Mkdw^talk 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hell no. This is a stupid vote to even initiate. Any registered user in good standing can ask whatever question they want at RfA in order to judge a candidate, period. Even if they ask the same question every time. If some users "don't like it" (and yes, that is the argument I'm seeing), to hell with them. They're not the RfA police. Anyone who has a problem with any other user should discuss it with them rather than whining about it on a talk page. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 03:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Question

Just a quick strawpoll, what does everybody think about simply asking "Why do you want to be an admin?" I think it's a pretty all-encompassing question, but I'm not sure what everybody thinks. I don't know, I'd just like a quick opinion on it. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty much what standard question 1 is asking though it is begging the question slightly as it assumes the answer to is to do a certain type of admin work, which is a pretty reasonable assumption to be honest. PaleAqua (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I just feel like that is asking more how they'd use the tools, not why they want them. But you make a point. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, you can go ahead and just ask everyone that from now on, and if after a while consensus is that it's a useful question, someone may propose adding it to the standard list. ansh666 03:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have often seen this question asked, and in fact I had prepared an answer in case it was asked at my RFA (but it wasn't). I think it can actually be quite a good question, as it can give insight into how the person thinks about adminship - as opposed to the more technical question #1 asking which areas they would use the tools in. IMO this one is good because it is unstructured. Honest answers to this question can range from "I have always wanted to be an administrator" to "I never aspired to be an administrator, and had to be dragged here kicking and screaming." Plus of course there will be some who will avoid saying how they really feel, but will answer with generalities or what they think we want to hear. But that, too, can be enlightening. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing that isn't a problem with the RfA process is a shortage of questions. In fact, I partially judge a candidate on his/her willingness to address a wide range of questions about hypothetical situations that is thrown at them. I don't think an additional mandatory question should be added to this list although if any individual editor wants to ask this question at RfAs, that, of course, wouldn't be out of line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't proposing it it was just kind of an odd question so I wanted to gauge opinions. Kharkiv07^Talk 20:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Q1 is about what; your idea is to ask about why. I think it's a good idea. Worth trying on two or three RfAs to see how it goes. --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the current RfA candidate and the volume of questions that addressed to him...well, it is very intimidating. I wonder how many admins who got the bit 8 or 9 years ago would fare under this harsh light. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That, I think, is the real question, and the elephant in the room at Wikipedia. As for the question, support inclusion. Jusdafax 12:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't know why the candidate wants to be a admin after the nomination statement, the acceptance (if it's not a self nom), and the first three questions, surely that's indicative of a problem? The question isn't asked explicitly anywhere, but it's implicit in the whole process. Certainly it's about the first thing I ask prospective nominees who approach me about a nomination, and that factors into my nomination statement (and indeed my decision on whether to nominate them at all). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Echoing the thoughts of HJ Mitchell, it should be quite clear from the nomination (whether self-nom or not) and the answerd to the three set questions why a candidate wants the tools. To ask again would be superfluous. The vast majority of requests I get to nominate people come from editors who frankly don't stanf a chance; in fact in open defiance of my advice they sometimes go ahead with a self-nom which of course fails. A lot of editors with the right qualities need the tools but don't realise the huge service they could be doing Wikipedia by having them, hence they need some heavy encouragement to step forward. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• I found it to be an interesting question when I answered it in RFA4, but I don't think it's a generally good one. In an environment where wanting it too much is seen as a reason to oppose, I don't think that questions that go to desires instead of behaviors can work well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Proxy" !votes in RFAs?

Here's a question for the group: Suppose there is someone I strongly support for adminship, and I know they are planning an RfA during a time when I will be away from the computer. Would it be acceptable for me to send my support statement ahead of time to someone I trust, and ask them to post it in my name at the appropriate time? What would the community's reaction be to such a !vote? Would it even be regarded as legitimate? --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is acceptable. You can make a statement though and ask someone to (re)post it at the talk page, or even be a conom.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I'll have to admit I wouldn't be very comfortable with that. The individual will be without electronic access, completely, for an entire week? That's quite an accomplishment. If I were in that position, I'd probably ask a trusted editor to post my thoughts, but only as a comment, or on the talk page, not as a !vote. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so shocking that someone would be unable to access Wikipedia for a week? People go on vacation for 1-2 weeks at a time, they go camping, hiking, etc. out in the back woods, they go to other countries (some of which block Wikipedia), they remodel their house and lose internet access for a brief time, they go on business trips, get sick or have surgery and require hospitalization, get busy with major projects at work, school, or home, have to take care of sick relatives. . . I could go on, but you get the picture. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I would also say no, but consider co-nominating. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to write a co-nomination statement in advance, perhaps in your userspace so that it can be linked and attributed, but I think that there should be a definite !voting period with a set start and end time. Ivanvector (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Actually, couldn't the co-nomination statement be created/included in the nomination, before transclusion? Then it wouldn't even have to be in userspace. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In principle the answer is no. But I will never forget one of the nicest things that's ever been done for me on Wikipedia, which is that someone took the time to do this. So at least once, where there was a will there was a way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Brad, do you agree that back then, people seemed less prone to freaking out about things that don't really matter than they are now? I think it's kind of the opposite; this would be fine (IMHO) in principle, but in practice it would cause mass hysteria, and do more harm than good to whoever the nominee is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, memories... ;) - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all; very helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with the idea is that the RfA process itself is crucial to forming one's opinion about the candidate, or at least it should be. The answers to the candidate's questions are an important part of the vetting. So is our combined scrutiny of their editing. Any "pre-RfA" opinion is outdated without these pieces. Even for editors that I know and respect, it's hard to say that I am aware of their global behavior: I only see a slice of it and I think that's generally true for all of us because it takes many of us to sort though potentially tens of thousands of edits. That said, a person's endorsement does carry useful information about the candidate. All in all though, this is a rather rare situation and officially allowing votes before the debate doesn't sound wise, or at least raises too much an eyebrow. But... the closing bureaucrat is supposed to judge based on the strength of the total argument. I believe they are capable of knowing how to weigh an automatic or passed-along support (lightly). Perhaps nothing is wrong with an "automated Neutral" comment in support so long as it clearly states that it is based on pre-RfA information. Interesting question you raise. Might be a can of worms however. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've wondered about this sort of thing from a different perspective, when I've been away from WP and come back to find I missed an AfD, or seen fallout from an edit war which I could have managed and prevented, or any number of things. In the case of an RfA, since support requires a very sizeable majority, I don't think a lack of one "support" or "oppose" vote would be an issue, though a particularly perceptive and well-reasoned vote could make a difference if it persuades other people decide one way or the other. I think for RfA, as others have said, you have to be there for the debate; it's not like you can "un-RfA" someone like you can recover an article through WP:DRV or WP:REFUND. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both right that being part of the process is the important thing - not just casting a "vote". And I think Floquenbeam is absolutely right that anything this irregular could touch off a shitstorm that nobody needs at their RfA. So, bottom line: this was a bad idea. Forget it. (Interesting discussion though.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An additional problem is that if you allow automated 'support' votes (and these are votes, in most of the meaningful senses of the word), then the reasoning would have to be very tortured indeed if you hoped to avoid automated or proxy 'oppose' votes. And good luck with how that turns out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

What has been the greatest number of co-noms?

Just a curious hypothetical (actual hypothetical). Also, if someone is interested, I'd be interested in reading a RfA oddities page, similar to WP:TFAO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2 which had as many as ten (co-)nominators. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone else be interested in working on a page related to RfA history/records? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records and User:NoSeptember/Admin stats? The pages weren't kept up-to-date but you don't need to start from scratch. You might talk to NoSeptember about using the data he/she has compiled as a starting point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Modification to the RFA template at the top of the page

I tried to just be Bold and make the changes but the template is protected. I recommend adding a link to Template:RfA Navigation for Oversighters and Checkusers like the Admins and Bureaucrats are. It seems like it would be very helpful to be able to see the without digging eventhough they are most the same people in both groups. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What is the longest RfA-free stretch?

We are at roughly two weeks right now. In a couple of days, we'll be able to say that we've had one successful RfA in the past two months. How long will it be before this process can be marked as historical? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Last year: September and October 2014 had no successful candidates. Only one successful in three months (Aug-Oct) and only three successful in six months (Jun - Oct). That being said, November 2014 had five successful candidates so it wasn't necessarily a trend that continued. Also in that six month window there were nine unsuccessful RFAs (most NOTNOW, but some that weren't) so the process wasn't inactive. RFA numbers have been in steady decline since 2007. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, November was an outlier, probably the result of a brief period of activity spurred by concerns over two months with no promotions. Dating back to last May, there's only been one month with more than two successful RfA. I guess 15 RfA in 6 months isn't quite inactive, but it's pretty close. What is it going to take to boost activity? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing. Wikipedia is in permanent decline. WMF's grand idea to stop this is to tweak the interface. Their incompetence spells the end of the project, most especially since there is no trust fund to sustain the project after donations dry up (and they will). We will never see the numbers of RfAs that we saw 9 years ago. December 2005 saw 68 successful RfAs. That, in one month, is equivalent to the number of successful RfAs from November 2012 through now...a period of 2.5 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is that would boost activity, I oppose. The WMF is rolling in money. Abolish Arbcom, strip every advanced permission from existing admins and hire a few dozen professionals. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see WP in decline. There are still oodles of content creators out there. It's just that nobody wants to run for admin because it has become a vicious, humiliating ordeal that you have to be Superman to pass. Reyk _YO! 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• The decline of Wikipedia has been well documented ([1][2][3], and plenty more). The issue isn't if Wikipedia is in decline. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is that would boost activity, I oppose. - Clear plagiarism of Groucho Marx [4]: Noyster (talk), 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of the RfAs I've seen over the past year occurred because a veteran editor (usually an admin but not always) went to an editor and suggested they try to be an admin and volunteered to nominate them. I don't see many self-nominations pass, in the past or present. So, if we need more admins, maybe senior editors and admins need to spot promising candidates and offer to support them. Passing an RfA is obviously a project that one can't achieve on ones own, it takes community support and the quality of the nominators is often taken into account when supporting or opposing a candidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than the decline of Wikipedia, I see it in its adolescence; it is 14 years old after all. Growth is not the same as maturation. We don't know how it will transition into adulthood or what it will look like as it does so. It may need different approaches than what worked so far. Wikipedia is still a wonderful thing, even if some in the trenches don't see it from where they are.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your opinion. My view is abstract however. The problem I see 10 years from now is the donation stream drying up. Since there is no trust fund, the lights will go off and Wikipedia will be no more. The WMF is grossly incompetent and believe the solution is improving the interface. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• WMF want to improve the interface so non-technical users will have an easier time getting involved. I think it's a worthwhile idea in principle, but they haven't shown so far that they have the technical or UI/UX chops to get it done. So to your competence point, the current WMF staff may not be a crack team, but their budget is pretty limited compared to say, Google, and you get what you pay for, especially in software development these days. However, Google itself has an interest in keeping Wikipedia working well since it provides content for its search results and therefore, in a roundabout way, billions in ad revenue. Some portion of that is going back into the WMF last I heard. So eventually there is going to be either a workable interface redesign or another strategy to improve and expand engagement -- or Wikipedia will be hard-forked. Andrevan@ 04:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, no. The interface that we've had created the largest and (arguably) the finest encyclopedia the world has ever seen. I'm reminded of a colloquialism; "If it isn't broke, fix it until it is". Could the interface be improved? Sure. Is it worth it? No. Wikipedia must transform. Wikipedia became one of the top ten websites in the world on a fraction of the budget of any other property in the top ten. How? By relying on the immense volunteer base. That is an asset unlike any the other top tens have. If Wikimedia wants to play with the top ten, they need to emphasize their unique assets. You don't do that by fiddling with the interface. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a problematic side-effect of decreased RfA activity is that administrative power has become more concentrated and therefore adminship has become more and more of a big deal. This is absolutely not what Jimbo had in mind back when the idea of administrators was invented. In order for this change, we have to start promoting more admins. What we don't need is one spurt of activity like what happened last November. That was articificial and perhaps did more harm than good, as pseudo progress can be an impedient to real progress, giving the impression that the situation is not as bad as it really is. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self-nominate me, just to keep the RfA addicts occupied? Kraxler (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do, Kraxler. I might even support you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Kraxler: Are you dropping a hint here? I haven't reviewed your contributions in any depth but in 30 seconds of drive by, yes, you should seek adminship. --B (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy IRL these days, but I think it might be necessary to sacrifice myself, just to end a historical RfA drought... Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are you a virgin? Self-sacrifices are not allowed unless you are. ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm an indeed an RfA virgin, I'd say, never having requested adminship before. Or did you mean something else? Kraxler (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self nominate, just for the humor factor. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self-nominate and see how many people oppose because of WP:NOTNOW. That would be interesting. ansh666 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking something similar myself. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloody right. Excellent people are turned down because they don't bring the right kind of shrubbery. We need more admins. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We need more admins who will go through backlogs and use the buttons. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is massively backlogged. WP:OTRS is massively backlogged. Wikipedia:Non-free content review is massively backlogged. If anyone here is will to do that, nominate yourself and stop sitting around talking about it. There's a limit to how much anyone wants to sit there with a mouse clicking on stuff in the backlog and hence the current problem. We don't need "moar" drama - we need admins who will give a few hours here or there sitting in one of the innumerable backlogged processes and processing them. --B (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is fewer and fewer people are interested in pursuing the bit. As well documented here, it's a bone chilling gauntlet. I've said before that anyone crazy enough to stand for RfA is too crazy to be an administrator. There's also the popularity contest aspect of it. I'm friends with nobody here, and am very happy to call a spade a spade. I've been a heavy critic of ArbCom and of the WMF. Despite being right ~99% of the time on things needing admin intervention, I would never pass an RfA. I don't toe the corporate line. Oh I follow policy and guideline to a fault, but that's not the corporate line. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• It hasn't really been that bad of a gaunlet lately. Of course, nobody runs anymore. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Really? The last five full-term RfAs averaged 18 questions apiece. Taking the last five successful from April 2010, the average was 10. Granted, limited data set. But, if anything, it's more of a gauntlet now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I am thinking more in terms of the vitriol and the negativity having been dialed back. To me, RfA doesn't seem quite so angry these days. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• American political commentator William F. Buckley once said "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." A little extreme rhetorically, but his basic point, I believe, was that greater diversity of opinion and perspective in governance is a good thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue will persist until Wikipedia separates its janitorial and police functions. An easy fix, but one the voting community refuses to make. Townlake (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of administrative functions that don't require the tools but would still be useful for experienced editors to tackle. Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions require experienced knowledge of copyright and non-free usage, but no tools. I go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on a regular basis, seeing if any CSDs can be saved, or at least downgraded to PROD or AfD. Non-admin closures of AfD are getting more and more popular, to the extent that I'm sure I've seen people oppose an RfA on the grounds of "not enough non-admin closures". So there is plenty of maintenance work to be done without the headache that is a week long RfA. I agree with Townlake's view that adminship is less of a "mop and bucket" than a "mortar board and cane" role - blocking and deleting pisses the bejeezus out of people, so you have to have good diplomatic skills to deal with the fallout that entails. (PS: Yes, I am thinking about it.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• We are quite clearly doomed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Everything ends. The question is not if, but when and how. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent." — Porky Pine.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The technical means within the software exist that we could create a new user class called "deleters", and give them delete/undelete, but nothing else, right? I know that this idea has gone over like a lead balloon before, but now that every single blessed administrative queue is so bloody backlogged, maybe it's time to rethink this idea. That way, someone who isn't sufficiently trusted to be an admin because they swore at someone five years ago could at least help out with the backlogs ... they just wouldn't be able to hit the block button. (Maybe we call the user group "janitors" so that it's not a bit you go out and collect.) The WP:Requests for Janitorship discussions could have a lower threshold for how many !votes constitute a "rough consensus" and hopefully would not get the ridiculous opposes because they haven't authored twelve featured articles. (They're volunteering to be janitors, not the Senior Editor.) --B (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unbundling would solve a couple of fundamental problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perennial proposal. Problem is that since delete/undelete must come with viewing deleted content, WMF demands that access requires a process at least as vigorous as RfA. WMF is a lot more concerned about the delete button than the block button, for better or worse. ansh666 04:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of this at WP:PEREN under the "hierarchical structures" heading is not exactly written eloquently. That aside, I agree there should be an RFA process for the janitor button separate from the RFA process for the police button. The janitor button one will be easier to pass, as it should be, even if you use the 70/80 guideposts for both forms. Wikipedia hires police officers for life with no meaningful performance reviews; this is an insane thing to do and an even more insane thing for WMF to allow, but at least we can make this situation a little saner by making the janitorial role distinct and thus getting some aspects of site maintenance improved. I'm pretty confident more janitors than police would pass. Who disagrees? Townlake (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Insane? I don't think so. As someone noted above, blocking ticks people off. If you have any sort of reconfirmation process for admins, then those who have been blocked by that admin stand a good chance of destroying the reconfirmation. Which is more insane, no review or allowing a review to be tainted by those who have been blocked? And no, it's not as easy to say "well don't let the blockees vote!". There's multiple reasons why this idea is a perennial proposal. If it was so insane not to do this, we would have easily found a way to do it already. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Townlake, well, I disagree. In my RfA experience, !voters are much more concerned about the use of the deletion button and the closure of contentious discussions than afraid to get blocked by the future admin. So, I think it would be much easier for a civil user who has stayed out of drama to get the "police" button than to get the "janitor" button after seeing their sub-par AfD stats. Thus, unbundling probably won't help much with the maintenance of the Wikipedia. The general impression is that we need more admins for janitorial tasks, I believe, I doubt that there are not enough admins to block users, if necessary. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent point and raises the question of what is a "janitorial" power and what is a "police" power. Can a police power involve dealing with content / "property" that editors contribute? These are questions the community should be asking; classifying the customer service aspects of the site and staffing them appropriately is, to me, the make-or-break for the user experience here in the next few years. Meanwhile, the WMF is more concerned with rolling out new software to make it easier to creatively vandalize Wikipedia. The disconnect between what needs to be done and what's actually being done is pretty interesting. Townlake (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The WMF is effectively incompetent. They're very busy rearranging deck chairs on the WMF Titanic. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about the WMF but when I read WP ANI and ARBCOM archives from 2006, 2008, 2010, etc., you see plenty of editors talking about how everything on the site has gone to shit. There never seems to be a shortage of unhappy editors talking about how everything was so much better 5, 8 or 10 years ago even though the standards for adminship, for featured articles, and everything else actually has gone up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The decline was well underway in 2008. Peak Wikipedia was in 2007. --B (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Liz; yep. People do become wistful for the 'old days'. Me, honestly, not so much. My grave concern is the future. If the WMF had a real plan, we could percolate along just as we are indefinitely. But, they don't. If you were on the Titanic and the ship were going down, would you be preoccupied with what color the funnels were painted? Well, that's what the WMF is doing. Plus, they're paying outside agencies to tell them how great they are, and then bragging about how great they are. Truth stranger than fiction, but I'm not making it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)