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 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 03:11:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99
The Night Watch	RfA	Successful	11 Feb 2024	215	63	13	77

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)@IJBall, @Xeno: Oh yes, oh please, ASAP. The only adjustment for this, really, will be a need to revise RM rules and procedure to clarify against move-warring with this bit, and that's not really new, just a remind to not be a jerk. I don't think it would be a problem for more than an initial very short spat of people misusing it and having that hat removed from their collection, just as template-editor has not been problematic and is quickly removed from people who abuse it or who aren't really competent and were just collecting. We don't see protracted editwars over template parameters (the closest to one I've been in in half a decade was bold / revert with no rationale / unrevert with rationale / revert with rationale / discussion). And movesubpages should be an automatic default function of moving, period; it's completely ridiculous that we have to manually move these things after the fact, and this often causes breakage because people don't do it (especially talk page archives and template documentation/sandbox/testcases). Autofixing of double-redirs would be nice, too, though I gather there's a bot doing this these days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's workshop it! Please see Wikipedia:Page mover and leave your comments at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (or just go ahead and edit your suggestions in). –xeno^talk 23:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) hi thingg! blast from the past!

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

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

• The numbers this last quarter were indeed very bad - the longterm decline continues and hasn't looked this bad since October 2014. But I'm not convinced that the latest reforms have been counterproductive, and in particular I think the watchlist notice worked well; It clearly brought in extra !voters, and in combination with the question cap, not so many as to make the process unmanageable. Hopefully some of those new RFA !voters will be running RFAs in the next year or so. RFA relies on a number of variables, one is the pool of people who could pass RFA if they ran, another is that subset of that pool who have started to consider RFA. It was several months from when I first !voted at RFA to when I first ran, so I see the extra RFA !voters as a big plus and a group of people who are much more likely to run RFAs when they feel they are ready. On a broader note, the nearest we have to a measure of the pool of potential RFA applicants is the measure of people saving 100 edits a month in mainspace (yup there will be people who aren't in that group who could pass and others in that group who couldn't - but it is an available measure and the nearest we have to RFA ready). The 2015 rally in core editors has now lasted 14 months; Too early to say whether the community is in a new expansionary phase or has merely stabilised at slightly more than the 2013/14 minima, but long enough to say it is no longer declining. Providing we can avoid further unhelpful "standards inflation" I'm hoping that RFA will stabilise and after a lag of a year or two, follow the rally in core editors. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd like to throw in my two cents here. The advertisements I think are really helpful. I had lurked around RFA for a while but rarely !voted because it seemed like a rather uninviting old boys club. As a new editor (and at one year, still on the younger side), I didn't think my opinion would matter or be welcome. But the watchpage notices especially gave me the impression that input is wanted and that it's not that old boys club (or at least is trying not to be), so I actually feel comfortable participating in discussions. I think these notices are not only bringing in fresh blood but also helping the place to seem less bite-y. I personally have experienced the benefits and have very high hopes for it in the future. Wugapodes (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hawkeye7, I hope that that was a belated April Fools joke. If not, though, it is fortunate that few RfA participants hold that opinion. There are some (many?) of us who have little business creating content, but who perform other important tasks around the project anyway. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Because content work is not important? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Content work" is important, but there's a reason university janitors aren't required to have Ph.D.'s. The assumption that every Admin is going to wade into complex RfC's or GA or FA work is a dangerous one. The fact is, we don't need all Admins to do that, and there are plenty of Admin and Admin-wannabes who have no interest in that, and would rather stick to playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets and IP trolls – those guys don't need to understand every complexity of "content work" to be useful to the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "other important tasks". Is my meaning clearer now? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do have a PhD. The fact is that I would rather do the WP:UAA and WP:RFPP work myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Biblioworm, you are fully aware of where I stand on these two questions, so I don't understand why you are asking them here. Unless it's intended as a conversation piece. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I may have an idea, but it would require some people with technical know how's to setup. We could create an external interface, some where on toollabs perhaps, when users OAuth into this interface to !vote. Here's the condition. Users cannot see other user's !votes, until they have !voted themselves, or forfeited their !vote. In other words, once they are allowed to see how others have !voted, then they can no longer change their !vote. They are given the option to not see other users' to be allowed to change their own !vote. Other users who can see !votes, may then choose to comment on other users' !votes. Leaking information before the RfA is over is to be considered forbidden, reverted, and revdel'd. Bureaucrats have the inherent access to see all !votes, and to close and/or extend the RFA. Once closed, the interface prints the RfA to an RFA subpage in the standard format.

  This would eliminate a lot of the blind me too votes cast by inexperienced users, and encourages every !voter, to do their own research on the candidate. Also because users are now required login via OAuth, it screens out sock puppets, IPs, and new users likely trying to be anonymous. I can say as a developer, it's definitely a feasible task to do.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  We already have the basis of what you are suggesting with WP:SecurePoll. The only difference is that method doesn't show the vote tally, just that you voted. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

  Except that because RfA is still a discussion, users should still be able to discuss a vote. We'd need something new.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than turning RfA into more of a vote and less of a discussion we should instead agree as a community on actual criteria. We want people to sway each others opinion, that is what makes it a discussion. If we let AfD run like RfA we would have people voting "Keep I think garage bands are cool" and "Delete I don't like their music, they should not get an article". Instead we expect people to justify their opinion based on criteria the community arrived at, and if they don't their opinion is given less weight in the close.

Allowing people to oppose or support for any damn reason one reason why people are afraid of RfA. There is no clear target to aim for as a candidate. HighInBC 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If that is in response to my suggestion, then let me clarify that I'm not suggesting removing the discussion part of it. I'm suggesting that this will force !voters to do actual research on the candidate to make an informed decision and will easily those who blindly vote without reason to. Any user can still discuss another user's vote.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If someone wants their vote to be seen all they have to do is "discuss" it. Also we can't lock in votes, people need to be able to change their mind if new information or arguments come forward. HighInBC 04:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA reform won't happen so long as the community gives so much social status to admins. The technical abilities gained by admins are significant, but not powerful; all can be reverted easily. To me, the most important ability given to admins is viewing deleting content, since there is no logging or accountability for this. The problem is the social status that admins get, such as closing discussions and threatening blocks with little/no potential consequence.

The solution to dispelling the social status isn't clear, but I can think of two things that might help. 1. Lower the barrier for participation. Make RfAs pass at 60%. It's just sysop tools, really. 2. Have a confirmation system for admins, whereby anyone can start a request for confirmation during a normal, entrenched process, once or twice a year. If an editor has a problem with how an admin is using the bit, they can start a discussion, and if there is consensus to remove then the sysop can be removed. This means that admins are less entrenched, and people don't need to rely on an arbcom decision or inactivity to get rid of them. While we're at it, no more re-sysopping after going inactive - make them go through another RfA.

In general, we need to get more "part-time" editors involved. Wikipedia is not a job, and admins shouldn't be expected to spend their lives here - a surprising number of people don't seem to understand this. But in the real world, changing the structure of a system can change the outcome; we need some of that on here, I think. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your initial point that some parts of the community give too high a status to admins. I also agree that our expectations in a volunteer community should be of a level of activity that is possible for a hobby. But your final point of requiting all formerly active admins to go through an RFA with no auto resysopping would move things in the opposite direction. We already desysop after 12 months activity and we only autoresysop after gaps of under 36 months. I can see people arguing to reduce that term if we had a pattern of people returning after more than two years inactive and causing problems, but I'm not aware of that being a problem. Of course the price of getting rid of more admins, either by tightening the inactivity rules or by making it easier for unpopular admins to be bullied off even if there isn't a case against them that would be taken seriously by Arbcom, is that you increase the status of the rest through making them scarcer. Those who want fewer admins need to make the case for why they want fewer admins despite the inevitable increased status from scarcity. ϢereSpielChequers 17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Good points, and removing autoresysopping with no other changes would not be useful. When combined with more people getting through RFA, imo it would have the impact of making adminship more "easy come, easy go", which would go a long way to reducing the social status associated with the role.

You slightly touched on a recurring myth that I see regarding admin confirmations, that they remove good admins who take controversial but correct actions. Looking at other wiki confirmation processes, this doesn't happen. See the steward confirmations for an example. In the last five years, confirmations have only removed stewards for inactivity, lack of clue, and unresponsiveness. None were removed for taking unpopular actions. Further, it is possible to design confirmations to prevent removal for that reason. Require consensus to remove, and let bureaucrats evaluate consensus and discount arguments which do not relate to taking unpopular action. Confirmation processes keep admins accountable, and really don't need to be the horror stories that some people say they will be. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It is a recurring myth that the current systems in place to remove problematic sysops are somehow not working. I have seen dozens of admins be desysoped, and whenever I ask for an example of failures to remove problematic admins I don't get any names. Who are all these admins that should have been desysoped but the current system has failed? I fail to see how adding another way to do the same thing is going to increase the number of admins we have. HighInBC 18:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The current systems are very good at removing admins who abuse their tools in a grandiose way, but they do not act as a control against admins who behave abusively or have a history of poor use of the tools - I won't bring up examples, because that isn't my goal here. Having a confirmations system wouldn't necessarily remove these admins, but it would put a social cost on poor behaviour. When you know that you'll need (or might need) to undergo confirmations every year, that changes how you behave. In an ideal world where admins are just regular people with access to a few more buttons, this wouldn't be needed. But that isn't reality. Confirmations will also help with "borderline" cases at RfA, where people often oppose because supporting would grant the user indefinite access to the tools. Similarly, on projects with strict inactivity criteria and easy systems of removing admins, people often support while referencing the process to remove the person if they are bad within short order. This might not be the best solution, and there are certainly problems with existing confirmation systems, but in the areas of concern for getting new admins here this is one part of a solution which has helped elsewhere. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz: Yes, I hear that a lot but I don't think it is the case. Who are these admins who "behave abusively or have a history of poor use of the tools" but remain an admin? You say you won't bring up examples but guess what? Nobody else will either. No matter how many times this claim is made nobody can ever name even one name. No surprises here.

I cannot think of a single admin that the community does not want to be an admin but continues to be. There are plenty of admins with people that have an ax to grind with them, but ones who the community at large don't want? I cannot even consider a new process to desysop people until I know what type of admin such a process aims to desysop. This is not a community that is afraid to complain about people, if there were such admins they would be named. HighInBC 14:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I'm not naming names because I have nobody that I know of who I would want to desysop. I'm bringing it up because I know it works in other situations; as a steward, I need to go through a confirmation every year, so I understand the impact that it has, and why a community would want it. If you don't believe that I could possibly be here without some nefarious purpose, look through my contributions for the two months that I've been active here - you'll find a grand total of 0 instances of me "clashing" with an admin, or any other user for that matter. But, as I said in another reply here, confirmations may well not be a good idea - if the goal is making adminship less of a big deal, creating more bureaucracy around it probably won't help. I thought it might be a good idea because of the impact it has within the steward group - not in removing people that I dislike, but how it structures the entire system. For sysops, that probably isn't a worthwhile idea to propose. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not assigning any motive to you at all. Rather I was challenging your argument. I did not mean for it to seem personal. I don't know of who I would want to desysop either, everyone who I ever though should be has either been desysopped or improved their behaviour in response to community input. I think reconfirmation works for stewards because we don't need very many of them. It could only decrease the number of active admins around, other wikis have shown that. HighInBC 17:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It may not be your goal to bring up admins who Arbcom won't act against but your system would desysop; but it is a common criticism of deadminship proposals. There have been innumerable proposals to remove the safeguards in the current system so that admins can be disposed of who can't be disposed of if you have a system with as much fairness and due process as Arbcom has. Some of us get very cynical when people try to pretend that such a change won't deter lots of good candidates from standing. There's also the issue that our current admin cadre has a "long tail" of hundreds of admins who nowadays only use the tools occasionally, losing a dozen or so of them wouldn't be a big deal in the short term; Losing hundreds would be. As far as I'm aware those wikis that have introduced some sort of periodic requalification have lost lots of admins. If people want a smaller admin cadre where admins are more separate from other editors and spend a larger proportion of their wiki time doing admin stuff then they need to build a case for that. Not try to pretend that doing so is somehow a path to recruiting more admins. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it isn't a good idea. It could potentially dissuade people from applying as much as it encourages them to do so. I also think that any admin who meets the activity criteria is a net positive, since they are volunteers and this shouldn't be a job - maybe more strict inactivity criteria would be very bad in that sense. I guess I'm not sure how to reduce the status of it beyond that :/ Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But it's precisely this that has distorted the position of Admin. If everyone went into Admining the way they went into Arbcom – I'll only do this for a year, maybe two, before going back to "regular" editing – it would have the effect of making Admining much less of a "privilege". I think all of these "safeguards" again "unfair desysopping" are actually some of the very things that have elevated the status of Admin beyond all reason (esp. for a "volunteer"-run project). And, yes – I do want fewer Admins (I think 200 "active" Admins would be plenty, combined with more unbundling), and more "mid-level" editors being granted tools to do page moving, page protection and page deleting. I'd be happy if Admining was primarily focused on granting rights to other editors, doing things like revdel and viewing deleted edits, and probably blocking. I'd be quite happy if a lot of the other current Admin stuff was "kicked downstairs". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But why? I quite like the idea of passing a community discussion in order to gain access to advanced permissions. And I see no problem with admins only making a few actions a year. Admins are volunteers too, there should be no requirement for them to spend their life on Wikipedia. Harsher inactivity standards and confirmations do start treating adminship as a bigger deal than it should be, so maybe that's the wrong approach. In an ideal world, any user who can be trusted to not maliciously or incompetently use the tools should be able to be trusted with them; there should be a lot of admins who don't spend their lives online. But as I said, I'm not sure how best to get to that ideal. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because "naming names" can put you in the crosshairs. I bet we can all think of at least one current Admin that should probably be desysopped, but usually not on the grounds of "abusing the tools" (more on WP:ADMINCOND grounds), that we won't mention in public for fear of being put in some Admin's LOS. In any case, there is a (small) population of Admins who have probably worn out there welcome, and a significantly larger population of essentially inactive Admins who are WP:GAMEing the system in order to keep the bit (why they do this when they never intend to use it, I can't figure out). But it's this latter behavior that tells me that Ajraddatz is correct – that there is some "enhanced cache" to holding the bit which is distorting how this place should optimally operate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I take your point about naming names. Perhaps it can sometimes be done in the context of a desysopped admin "why was this incident not addressed x months earlier. A good time to do this would be in the arbcom elections by asking the candidates "If an admin did x would you support a desysop?" whether they agree or not at least you have an indication as to cases you could bring. Alternatively it should be possible to do this in an aggregate way, as you have done with your example of "essentially inactive admins"; The difficulty with the latter group is a matter of perspective. We both know that at any one time hundreds of admins are inactive or nowhere near active enough to pass RFA. I regards them as the "long tail" of our current admin cadre that collectively makes a useful contribution to the project currently, more importantly as the pool of volunteers some of whom we will reactivate and be important parts of the admin cadre in the future. If they were paid staff then I could see your point about making best use of scarce mops. But we have no shortage of mops, our shortage is of mop wielders. You clearly take a very different view. I think my view would change if someone analysed the semiactives and inactives of the last decade and showed that despite my experience and assumptions, once people stop using admin tools they don't restart. What would it take to change your view on this group? ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• To my knowledge, Kudpung, you have not proposed or even mentioned any reforms that would successfully replace the "failed" ones of RFA2015. For instance, you wholeheartedly supported clerking and seemed to believe that it was the key to fixing RfA. Clerking was one of the accomplished reforms of RFA2015—but now you are saying that all the reforms which I "initiated" (and clerking was one of them) did "not address the core issue of RfA" and actually "enhanced" the problems. What now? You were always promoting clerking and saying that it would address the heart of the RfA problem, but since (according to your assertion) my reforms (and, by necessity, clerking) failed and simply made things worse, where do we turn? Biblio (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Biblioworm, your knowledge of Wikipedia is very, very short. Before criticicing others'work, you may perhaps wish to commence with my very first postings here on 3 April 2o10, and then read through everything that has been posted by everyone else on this page over the past 6 years including my 800 or so posts and the 1,500 by Wikipedia's major adminship dettractor. Then read through everything at WP:RFA2011. There are others who have spent even more time on RFA reform than I have,and you can rest assured that every single possible solution to RfA has been discussed and anything that is mentioned here today is simple recycling of older suggestions. Your RfCs introduced two new aspects: reducing the discretionary range, and limiting the number of questions. Anything to do with clerking was a simple confirmation of what has occasionally been done on and off for years; Whether those will prove beneficial can only be estimated when sufficient RfA have taken place for us to be able to apply any kind of metrics. None of the solutions you offered have addressed the core issues, and for once, Risker appears to be right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to strongly advise against this reading programme, on mental health grounds. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnbod is right, I doubt any human has been through all those archives and the AIs who have done so have not fared well. However I have tried to summarise the RFA reform suggestions at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform with 24 of the most common suggestions. It has a talk page if anyone spots one I've missed. ϢereSpielChequers 14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

"Whether those will prove beneficial can only be estimated when sufficient RfA have taken place for us to be able to apply any kind of metrics": I think this is the crux of the disagreement; you previously seemed to indicate that the reforms can be judged already as being harmful ("appear to have enhanced [the core issues of RfA] and even caused some new, negative trends to develop"). I agree that time is needed to better understand the potential impact of the changes, and that these changes are clearly not the end-all and be-all of solutions. They were not advertised as such, nor were they offered by a single person. For good or bad, they were just the ones that managed to obtain consensus. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• Most curiously, Kudpung, I was expecting a reply very similar to the one you gave. Firstly, attempting to automatically discredit my assertions on the basis of "shorter experience" is not a logically valid tactic. The numbers may show that I haven't been around too long, but in reality I've done many things in my relatively short time here: I was substantially involved in multiple reform campaigns and other meta activities, and I also have a good deal of experience with content. Secondly, as Johnbod noted, the proposed reading program is far beyond the capabilities of the average person. Not all of us are retired, and even those who are probably don't have the time or mental energy to read through millions upon millions of bytes on disorderly WP discussion forums. In any case, we have interacted enough times for me to understand that you thought very highly of clerking and that you believed it was one of (if not the) most important reforms of all.
• Finally (and this was especially the part I was anticipating), I can see right through your attempt to say that only my new reforms are the problem. That doesn't hold up: you said that all the recent reforms which I initiated (in clear reference to RFA2015) are failures, and that the situation has worsened. One of the proposals implemented as a result of RFA2015 was clerking, so therefore clerking was one of the "recent reforms." To argue otherwise would be hideous—of course clerking was part of the recent reform package. But the situation has allegedly worsened as a result of the recent reforms. Therefore, it logically follows that clerking (which you promoted with all your heart and soul as the reform to address the heart of the issue) is part of the "problem"—how could it not be? There is not the smallest shred of evidence to show that only my "new" proposals are the problem and that all the old favorites are not; such an argument is enitrely illogical. I could just as easily propose the opposite: the newer proposals are fine, but the older pet proposal (clerking) is causing the real problem by getting voters angry and stirring up an even more vicious environment. With the blanket assertion that things are now generally worse, all the recent reforms must stand and fall together. And I still have not received a clear answer: What is the solution for RfA in light of RFA2015's "failure"? Biblio (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

WDR, Biblioworm, I think you could do WCS the courtesy - and yurself a favour - by at least reading his excellent User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform and its talk page. Do bear in mund while doing so that he, like me, has read every single word that has been written on the subject of RfA since 2010 (or even earlier). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just looked through that page, and I am actually very familiar with about 90% of the information there. (After all, I was extremely active in RfA reform.) I have actively participated in discussions and RfCs about many of those ideas; I have even personally proposed many reforms similar to the ones mentioned on WSC's essay. By the way, I should really mention that I have read much more than you might think—in the course of my reform work, I looked through personal criteria pages and RfA-related essays, WT:RFA threads from many years ago, and several draft pages/discussion threads from RFA2011 and other reform projects. Put simply, I'm hardly an uninformed newbie. Biblio (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if changing the name from "admin" would help anything. The word "admin" has connotations of power and status in other contexts. KSFT^C 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think we have a lack of people running for the role of "admin" now, just imagine how many applicants we would get for "janitor". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Adminship should be like being a janitor. I think the lack of people trying to become admins is caused by how seriously people take it. I think changing the name would emphasize to everyone that it's supposed to be "not a big deal" and could help people relax and treat it like that. KSFT^C 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculously early analysis of results from changes

It is way, way, way too early to come to any conclusions about the impact of changes from the Phase II RfC. Nevertheless, I did it anyway out of pure curiosity. I took a look at all RfAs since the change (basically, all RfAs this year) vs. all RfAs for the same time period last year:

• RfAs fell from 15 in the same time period of 2015 to 10 this year so far, a 33% drop.
• RfA voting increased by 74% from ~64 per RfA to 111 per RfA.
• The proportion of supporting votes has dropped from 75.2% to 70.5%
• The success rate of RfAs has dropped from 33% to 20%.

There are plenty of factors that could affect these numbers that have nothing to do with the changes that were made from the RfC. I'll be curious to see if these patterns hold up for the year. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly these are relevant things to look at, but I would suggest after a long enough time period to have statistically meaningful numbers. Though I'm not sure the success rate is that relevant. I see the running of candidates who will snow fail as something so very different from the running of potential admins that their mutual ratio doesn't tell us whether we have a shortage of one or an abundance of the other. What I would be interested to see are some stats on our recruitment of new RFA !voters and how many of them go on to become admins within 3 months, 3 quarters and 3 years. As that includes the number of 2016 !voters who become admins in 2018 I'm prepared to be patient. Where I'm expecting faster change is in the really big recent change, RFA's very own AFC Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. It has attracted more candidates this year than RFA, and possibly with a higher standard. I don't think any of them have yet actually run, I'm hoping that it isn't deterring them from running and the only ones it delays are those where a delay would be useful. If it works out well then most of those dozen will be admins before the year is out along with many more who've yet to try the poll, and this year will convincingly top last year in numbers of new admins. Or we could be looking at it this time next year and saying surely some of them will eventually run? ϢereSpielChequers 23:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, give it time. Andrevan@

• It might well indeed be a little early to start drawing any conclusios, just like my prediction of a total of 8 new admins for 2016. But what are important are the stats that Hammersoft didn't report in his analysis above - or presented them the other way round. One thing we must also take into consideration is that AFAICS there have never been any marked seasonal trends for RfAs, so comparing Q1 2016 with Q1 0f 2015 might not be realistic.

Three interacting factors do appear to become clear though: The dramatic rise in voter participation is probably due to 1. the watchlist notice, while 2. producing a greaer number of opposers in spite of 3. - the bar having been reduced (all of which demonstrate BTW that now is the perfect opportunity to start sorting out the wheat from the chaff among the voters). So not only do we appear to be back to square one, but we seem to be even worse off than before. I may have sounded harsh with my criticism of Biblioworm's reforms (some of which I nevertheless strongly suppored), but if his ultimate aim was to make RfA more attractive to potential candidates of the right calibre, then those reforms have failed. Certainly none of them addressed the core issue of the reason for the disturbing trend shown here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: If it can be shown that the situation completely fails to improve over the long term, then I would be willing to admit to it and consider new ideas. Still, I do not believe that all the reforms are actually bad in their own right, to the point where they actually caused the continuing trend of decline. I think it is good that questions are limited and that it is now slightly easier for candidates to pass. Although some of the reforms are certainly beneficial and should be kept, perhaps they just didn't address the real heart of the issue. These events are really forcing us to reconsider what the heart of the problem really is. Perhaps clerking is not the answer. Maybe people just don't want to be admins anymore, regardless of how good the process is. After all, in previous years, the number of promotions still declined, even as the environment was "improving." Maybe we're just quickly running out of editors who are both qualified and are willing to take on the burdens and responsibilities of full adminship. If that is the case, no reforms to RfA itself will ever fix the problem. Maybe we should ask editors why they still don't want to run for adminship. Biblio (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that limiting the number of questions per user has at least made the RfA process less demanding on the people running. Less time being taken up to answer questions results in more time editing other things or having more of a non-wiki life. Even if the number of successful RfAs do not increase, that was one clear benefit of the most recent RfC. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the reforms had a negative effect. I'm saying quite clearly that they have not reversed the trend. And that's not quite the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The anon is absolutely spot-on. BTW, longer-term editors (and just experienced Internet users in general) understand that IP-addresss editors' IPs often change, even daily, and that any given IP may be used only briefly, or conversely may be used by multiple people (even in the same day) and rack up an edit count after a while that looks impressive, but is really 200+ different people. "You have not learned enough yet" (applied to you, or to the OP, Johnsmith2116), is not an insult, it's an analysis of the clearly visible evidence, and it describes a self-correcting state that improves with experience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Admins get special T-shirts now? Duuude, I am SO applying. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: As the anon said, it was no snark, and is correct. Don't confuse honesty and brevity (the latter of which I'm rarely accused of!) with rudeness. No one is obligated to use flowery, euphemistic language with someone to soften reality into a comfy pillow, and doing so will not prepare them for the actual trial-by-fire of RFA, or rigors of being an admin. Taking this much umbrage at the mere suggestion that basic competency with WP's built-in search and willingness to do some "homework" reading are required of admins means someone else here isn't destined for adminship any time soon, either. You may lack the maturity yet (also not an insult, but an evidence-based interpretation of a situation that improves over time), or your may just be (like me) constitutionally unsuited for the role. Regardless, it's silly and hypocritical to accuse someone of being "snarky" for speaking the truth, and then be really rude to someone else who disagrees with you, especially when they present a very well-reasoned argument, and your response basically consists of a childish "nuh-uh!" with no actual rationale.
PS: If I post as an anon it's by accident, and I correct it later, or it's because I'm on an insecure device, in which case I note that it's me, and log in and correct the sig later (or, rarely, it's because the topic is controversial, and I don't want my edits to it showing up when nosy people research me; I edit under my real name here). Regardless, I never post misleadingly like I'm someone else, and it was a WP:JERK move toward both me and the anon to implying that I was. If you want to accuse someone of sock puppetry, there's an accountable process for that at WP:SPI, where you have to provide evidence; if you have none, making such an accusation is uncivil at best, and also WP:ASPERSIONS. For the record, I am being snarky now (per WP:SPADE) with you. See the difference? Before you wind up for another rant, consider that your own future RfA (I'm betting you want one) will dredge up past examples of you losing your cool when you were validly given constructive criticism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Again...Delegate tools so those of us here for the past decade .....do we really need admins to fix Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons--Moxy (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

42

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

How about:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Liz, While I'd agree that those are important qualities in an admin, I'm struggling to think of many RFAs where those qualities were deemed relevant by many of the !voters. That's partly a criticism of RFA, far too many !voters judge things on stats and the Q&A section rather than looking at the candidate's edits. Judging a candidate on the available stats is pretty much guaranteed to distract 1voters from important issues like the candidate's judgment and communication ability. ϢereSpielChequers 12:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Plenty of non-admin have told others to "fuck off" with no consequences. I think people recognize that there are absolute "civil" jack-asses all around here more that deserve it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Just so we're not dealing in hypotheticals I have no regrets about directing the exact words at this jerkoff, and there's no way I'd ever block someone for doing the same. There's a time and a place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I see things are getting sidetracked. I've started User:Anna Frodesiak/43 and intend on working on it there. I could use some help. See you at User talk:Anna Frodesiak/43, bunnies! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Work many areas, especially AfD" is self-contradictory. Try, maybe, "Work many areas, especially those with backlogs."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. Is it self-contradictory? Isn't it like "Eat lots of fruit, especially apples"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It is contradictory. The constructions are not parallel, and the two halves of the first construction are in direct conflict, while those of the second are mutually compatible. "Many areas" is plural, indicating variety, breadth, distinction (analogy: "I have many pigs" means more than one pig, not one giant pig as big as three pigs). "Especially AfD" is an instruction to instead focus on a single thing. (Compare: "I have many pigs, especially one named Buster." Does not parse.) "Lots of fruit" is a quantity description of a mass noun, and implies nothing about variety; 4 ton[ne]s of pineapple is "lots of fruit" just as much as is a truck full of samples of every edible fruit on earth (Cf. "I have lots of pork.") "Especially apples" does not conflict, but perfectly complies, with "eat lots of fruit" (to go back to the barnyard analogy – and apologies to the vegetarians – "I have lots of pork, especially from that huge pig that was named Buster.")

Even aside from that matter, one should not mix conflicting instructions in the same sentence or it sends mixed signals. Better to use separate sentences, about breadth, and about areas of especial admin focus. Anyway, AfD actually needs only minimal admin attention; it's "sexy" and attracts lots of activity, while we have huge backlogs in lots of "boring", or genuinely difficult/stressful, areas. If I'm misreading the intent, and the concern is caution/judgement, AfD is still not really something to highlight. Anyone competent can figure out what consensus is at an XfD; CSD requires a great deal more judgement, as do a lot of disciplinary matters, and page protection. These are the things we're afraid to give people admin power over if they're not competent. AfD stats are used in RFA discussions primarily to assess judgement about policy and how attuned the candidate is to WP norms. It's not that much of a trust matter. There's a reason, though, that so many people ask candidates questions using CSD test data, and potential block/ban scenarios, and protection cases, since they involve often unilateral, discretionary admin judgement, not "can I read a consensus discussion and make sense of it in light of policy?", which is mostly just basic reasoning and pioritization skills. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. "Especially" is not an instruction to focus on a single thing while excluding other things. "Especially" means "...used to indicate something that deserves special mention..." as in "...food seems cheaper, especially meats..."

I think AfD is something to highlight, or at least a history of good judgement when it comes to page deletion. Your statement that "...AfD stats are used...WP norms..." would be more accurate if it mentioned what norms, i.e. norms about deletion judgement.

Anyhow, our opinions don't matter. We simply need to look at past support and oppose rationales to find out. There we find evidence because !voters say.

There ought to be broad consensus that !voters (not us personally) want to see: trusted, experienced, and some content creation. Could we agree on that? The yellow lines could have those three lines and sections could have more detailed info, like section "Experience": "...in areas admins commonly work, particularly regarding deletion".

My very best, :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

My central point – regardless of the linguistic disagreement or different views of AfD's importance (and why it's important) – was: one should not mix "potentially conflicting-seeming" instructions in the same sentence or it sends mixed signals. As for the three highlighted things: I suppose those are correct, but the first two seem kind of obvious, while the third is something that some people dispute as a criterion (though I certainly don't). Anyway, I think we ultimately have different essays in mind, It looks like you're trying to explain to new editors why they can't be admins just because they've been here a month and think it would be cool, while I want to explain to nine-month editors who only do one thing, like vandal-fighting or gnoming or arguing on dramaboards, why they may not be ready. Both of use are thinking about what the historical rationale trends are. I'll continue to draft the points I've been working on (as I mentioned vaguely, below), and post something when it's cohesive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about avoiding any sort of conflicting-seeming instructions.

The content creation thing is not completely agreed upon, however, the section about it makes it fairly true. Whether or not it deserves to be the third yellow line is uncertain. Anyhow, this whole page, in order to satisfy the community, may have to be so broad as to be useless.

For its usefulness and application, please see the bottom of User talk:Anna Frodesiak/43#Getting to the bottom of it. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This should maybe be abandoned. Please give your views at User:Anna Frodesiak/43. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Working on it, but I've run out of steam for the night, so will post it tomorrow. I think the idea generally has a lot of merit, despite my quibbling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries, my friend. Our quibbling is quality quibbling. Quibbling. Sounds like some sort of knitting stitch. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I use a double under-tuck quibble when I make cat sweaters. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi SMcCandlish. The "double under-tuck quibble" is essential in cat sweaters. Otherwise they won't have proper freedom of movement around their little kitty armpits. You know your stuff. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Our knowledge of pet clothing construction proves what better admins we would make. Who needs collaboration skills or policy awareness?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Really simple guide to requests for adminship per this. Please feel free to enter or start a discussion about improvements, etc. Please feel free to add it to navboxes, see alsos, or put it into use at the Teahouse, SNOW usertalks, etc. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Link to "Really simple guide"?

Please see this discussion about how to use the new "Really simple guide" page. The top of "Requests for adminship" already has quite a complex layout. Would readers prefer to: leave the page alone; add another box linking to "Really simple guide"; or substitute such a box for some of the existing material?: Noyster (talk), 09:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

30/500 protection

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.

---

Now that we have this new protection level, I suggest that it be applied to WP:RFA. This will stop more brand new users and trolls from listing their RFAs. The protection level can be applied upon authorisation by the community (or Arbcom), but in this case, it should clearly be uncontroversial. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean per WP:30/500 they wouldn't be able to list or !vote? That policy says "...prevents edits..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Presumably, protecting the main RfA page so that they won't be able to list a self-nom (or break the formatting trying to). Though, considering the current limits on the use of extended protection, it would have to be by ARBCOM motion. ansh666 06:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ohhhhhh, right. The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. That makes sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A day in, and already proposed policy creep with the new permissions group :-). That said, this is one instance of creep that I would support - a 500/30 requirement to file an RfA sounds reasonable, and would cut down on some of the SNOW candidacies. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• I have a solution to cut down vandalism project-wide to almost nothing. Apply 30/500 to the entire project. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  Now why didn't I think of that? XD—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• EMPHATIC NO; once again a solution in search of a problem. Wanna take a guess at how many RfA attempts there have been in the first quarter of this year by candidates who would fall into this 30/500 block? You can count them on two hands. Oooooo that's a huge problem we have to protect this page from!!!!! HURRY!!! <cough>. We have previously shot down minimum requirements for voters recently, and many times in the past. We have shot down minimum requirements for candidates many times. This is an end run around all effort the community has put into stopping this sort of nonsense. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No way - this is not a problem that needs solving like this. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Well intentioned no-hopers aren't enough of a problem that it's necessary to find a technical solution to the issue, and I can certainly conceive of plausible situations in which candidates who aren't doomed to fail would be caught up by this, particularly as long as tools remain unbundled. (A Commons admin who needs the ability to view deleted images on en-wiki to assist with some kind of investigation; a long-term editor who's recently had their account renamed, which for technical reasons requires the creation of a new account as accounts with above around 100,000 edits can't be moved; someone who does all their work in an off-wiki text editor meaning that they only have 400 edits, but each of those edits is the creation of a 5000-word FA-level article from scratch; a new WMF employee who for purposes of transparency would like community approval for being granted the tools rather than just having Jimbo flip the bit as an office action; someone with two legitimate accounts who has the bulk of their contributions on account A but for whatever reason wants the admin account to be account B… All these examples may still fail RFA, but none would be WP:NOTNOW candidates.) ‑ Iridescent 14:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In each case, the user can create the RfA page himself and ask at WT:RFA (this page) that it be transcluded. @Iridescent: isn't that clean enough? 103.6.159.82 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. As I see it, enacting this proposal would create a rules conflict with the "no minimum requirements for creating an RFA" rule. Therefore that rule would need to be changed first (which would require a separate proposal) before this could become a reality. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Objective Comment: This proposal isn't as ludicrous as it sounds. While it would give the appearance of creating minimum requirements for RfA, that still is false. They could be nominated by someone, and have that RfA transcluded for them. Though who is insane enough to do that, is beyond me.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's still a solution in search of a problem. What minor problems happen due to this are readily fixed. Orders of magnitude more vandalism happens to a featured article on the main page than happen in several months here. We don't protect those articles, and shouldn't be placing restrictions here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  I thought articles that get featured on the main page do get protected. I think Legoktm has a bot that automatically does that.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Nope. Any IP editor can edit the day's featured article, unless for some unrelated reason it was protected before it went to today's featured article. 5 IP edits have occurred to today's FA [1]. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no. They should, but they don't. I think it's one of the WP:PERENNIAL... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Protecting_Today.27s_Featured_Article_on_the_main_page. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but it'd have to be cleared by ArbCom first, and my guess is that they'll never go for it. But I support "min. levels" for running in RfA (and even voting in one)... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• ArbCom wouldn't approve it unless it were part of sanctions regarding a dispute where major disruption is happening. But, since disruption isn't happening here, they wouldn't have reason to do so. The community can apply it, but it would be a serious mistake to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: This will mislead the hat collectors into thinking that they'll succeed at 500 edits and 30 days. Esquivalience ^t 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This is one of the more highly watched project pages on the English Wikipedia. Especially now that notices are put at WP:CENT. While we do get the occasional disruption from considerably premature applications and vandalism, it's cleaned up within minutes. If there were a bigger problem I could see a fix being needed, but I don't think it's ultimately a problem to warrant an ArbCom sanction on the page. Mkdw^talk 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as not particularly useful (sub-30/500 editors nominating themselves for RfA is not a big problem), and as going against the consensus on what 30/500 should be used for. I'm not even sure semi-protection is necessary, although it seems to have met the "significant amount of disruption" criterion back in 2008. The new protection level was purely introduced for ArbCom stuff, as a technically superior method to edit filters, rather than to introduce an alternative to semi or full protection for normal pages. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see what problem this would solve. HighInBC 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose There isn't a backlog of nominations that are below this threshold waiting to be SNOW closed. I prefer letting newer users be bold and nominate themselves even if they're aren't going to succeed. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with others: this is basically a solution in search of a problem. There are few candidates who apply who don't meet those requirements, and when they do it's not a massive problem. Also, there are some legitimate reasons for requesting before meeting the requirement. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite this discussion as clear WP:SNOW (my watchlist couldn't get enough of this discussion) but I think of all the new Wikipedians who could think in terms of hat collecting and "500 edits and i can be admin!!" rather than focusing on quality contributions which is what would deem someone suitable to succeed in RfA in the first place. What if an artificial requirement like this creates more failed RfAs than the current system? Y NottNott talk|contrib 23:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (edit conflict) per Biblioworm. And as per Esquivalience' example of WP:BEANS. This is a solution looking for a problem, and in any case, anyone who has rigorously followed all the RfAs, discussions, and developments as for example WereSpielChequers and I have, will know that this is nothing like the problem it used to be. Since the watershed year of 2007, the drop in junk and/or unsuccessful RfAs has followed the almost exact same proportions as successful RfA and all RfAs. So that's three almost parallel lines on a graph (IIRR, supplied by Opabinia regalis several months ago)). It's an issue than can, and is addressed by anyone who has RfA on their watchlist. That said, and completely off topic, it (or preferably 90/500) should be applied to the voters as it is (or similar) on other Foundation projects. It won't keep the regular detractors from voting, but it would certainly keep socks, trolls, and vandals away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose good faith proposal. I am not seeing any anything that justifies this. As another editor noted above, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose and recommend closing per WP:SNOW so that more people don't waste their time here. Besides the fact that the use of this protection level is an ARBCOM-only thing, there is no evidence that the problem the proposal is meant to solve is actually an issue. ansh666 03:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment When I said "That makes sense" above, I meant it made sense that this was intended to apply to the page where the RfA is transcluded and not the RfAs themselves. It was not a support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• This is not a solution in search of a problem. At best, it would prevent RfA self-noms like the following from taking place. This year itself, we've had the following selfnoms by users not meeting the 30/500 requirement. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/NeatCoronet458 Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Josef9 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tremmee Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pablothepenguin isn't it worth stopping these requests? The cons of the protection are too trivial. I believe there is a consensus that the community want to see less of SNOW and NOTNOW RfAs. Per C678, I don't think this is equivalent to creating minimum requirements for RfA. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
  • As you can see from this discussion, there is a general agreement that these types of RfAs are not common and/or harmful enough to be a big concern, and you can see yourself that they're often closed very quickly. The consensus that you claim to exist isn't really there. ansh666 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Pull the other one It's amusing that this proposal has been made by an account which would not itself pass the 30/500 test. I think we're having our leg pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2016 (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.

Please come forward

I would like to ask a question of any and all experienced non-admins watching this page: Why haven't you run for adminship? With the application numbers still rapidly declining, it is critical that we discover the root of the problem, and obviously we can only find out for certain by actually asking those who refuse to run. So, if you're an at least somewhat experienced non-admin who does not desire to be an RfA candidate, please tell us why. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Biblio (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Ultimately, it's the absurdly large range of oppose reasons that gives me pause. I think "Hey, I've written a few decent articles and have a good record of vandal fighting and AFD votes, I can do it" and then I see opposes based on an editor's age or because their name is vague or because they have too many user talk edits, etc. As hard as you try to prepare, someone inevitably throws a curveball oppose and, if you're really unlucky, gets a bunch of pile-on votes that sink the nomination. Unfortunately, there's little, if anything, that can be done about that without telling voters what they can and can't say when supporting or opposing, and I don't think that's a solution at all. clpo13_(talk) 05:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• There's a little flaw with the system, evident even in the way you phrased your question: how do you define "experienced"? ansh666 06:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think most people don't want to be subject to the intense scrutiny and subsequent browbeating that takes place at a RfA. Once upon a time, I thought about putting my name forward but decided I hadn't been around long enough. Next I considered what I actually do here, and whether I had a genuine need for extra buttons, i.e., enough of a need to brave the sort of lambasting that regularly takes place in a RfA. I decided I didn't. Lastly, I stopped being so much of a regular contributor, and so would not be suited to the role. That's my experience. Plus, I've seen a lot of good people come forth and be shot down: people who really may not need to be admins, but have long served the project, are worthy of respect, and can be expected not to abuse the tools. If they can't make it, how could anyone? Kafka Liz (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't run because I've never been nominated. I have the impression that the nomination process is a significant obstacle because it has a reputation for being a big deal – technically complex and easy to get wrong. As potential nominators don't want to look stupid or spoil the chances of the candidate, there is pressure to make the nomination near-perfect and so the process is quite intimidating.

Now I wouldn't be a shoo-in because, with 10 years service, I have a lot of baggage and opposition. But I see lots of guys at Wikimeets that would make good admins because they are mature, professional, pleasant and their activities at Wikimeets and editathons indicate that they are dedicated to the building of the encyclopedia. I might nominate them but find the process to be a hurdle because I have never done it and there's this great pressure to get it right. Even having the wrong person as a nominator might be enough to spoil an RfA attempt and so I might not be doing someone a favour by nominating them.

Compare this with AFD. If you try nominating an article for deletion manually, you'll find that it is quite a clunky process. The reason that we still get plenty of articles nominated is that tools like Twinkle make it easy; perhaps too easy. So, if you want lots of nominations then make RfA equally easy. Of course, you should be careful what you wish for ...

I just got an edit conflict posting this. That's a general problem with Wikipedia – it's a complicated system with many actors and this makes even posting a message fraught with complexity and difficulty. The WMF is spending millions to try to improve this with tools like the VE but that's not going smoothly either.

Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The question is rhetorical because we all know the reason already. They won't. It's no good appealing. You've got to offer something that appeals to them first. Those of us who have been actively canvassing for candidates for years are almost always met with the same answer.It's been flogged to death time and time again by the experts and even invoked an extremely strong comment by our Founder, but for some odd reason, everyone else seems to side-step it - just the way they tiptoe carefully around a pile of dog's mess on the side walk in case it jumps up at them. The other reason is that any candidates that might have the required experience have seen how truly active admins get spit and shit upon by the trolls (and not so trolls). But untill he starts using the tools he asked for in November, Biblioworm won't have an inclinkling of that side of the medal. Incidentally, I supported supported (rather weakly) his RfA in an unusually long speech, which may have some resonance on the very topic we are discussing today, and some of the oppose votes were completely accurate, if not expressed in a particularly friendly manner. The RfA passed, as it should have done, but it's worth reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So I've just recently come back to enwiki (~2 months), with the intention of doing some more content work beyond just adding statements to Wikidata. At this point, I want to focus on that content work, and not really get drawn into dramaboards (but they're so interesting!) or maintenance areas, so I don't plan on requesting local adminship at the moment. But if I did, I don't think I would pass, so it wouldn't be worth my time either way. I would be criticised...

• for having too many automated edits, despite the fact that counter-vandalism is a necessary part of maintaining this encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.
• for not being consistently active, despite the fact that I'm a volunteer who should be held to no time commitment, beyond being active enough to use the rights.
• for not being involved on places like ANI, despite (again) being a volunteer who should be able to control where they are putting their time into.

At some point along the road, evaluation of candidates for adminship has gone from accounting for useful metrics (can they be trusted to not blow up the project?) to opposing candidates because they have too high a percentage of edits in the user talk space. Something is fundamentally wrong with how we the community evaluates RfA candidates, and I think it's in part because people are taking the technical abilities associated with it too seriously. Since coming back here, I've heard people saying that even innocuous rights such as 'suppressredirect' are "powerful and potentially dangerous". Come on. Any sysop action can easily be reverted, and adminship easily revoked. RfA will be broken so long as this myth of the power that admins hold remains, and so long as the community refuses to recognize the voluntarism associated with this project. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, in your case, I would definitely expect you to pass once you can convince (by means of edits statistics) the voters that you are committing to editing English Wikipedia and spend enough time here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but even if I were to pass, I would not meet the standard that is expected of most candidates (at least now). That suggests some issue with how candidates are evaluated, IMO. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ajraddatz: Disagree in part or perhaps just in emphasis - we have too many admins (or too many admins who don't 'use the rights'). Sure they volunteered, they volunteered to do a job (but they won't accept even a moderate level of doing it). By their inaction, they demonstrate the job is non-worthwhile or is uninteresting, which is hardly an advertisement for the job - it makes it seem like just hat collecting. Some seem to argue, because of this, we need more redundant admins, so their slogan should be 'join the redundancy' - also, hardly worth any thinking person's time. The case for more admins is just not made: 'the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing.' Others, and perhaps we agree on this, seem to argue 'it's a leadership position' as for why people should do it but experienced Wikipedians know, it is just tools to serve the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As an admin who does do things around here, I can tell you that we are indeed short on admins. I really don't follow your logic, we need active admins. HighInBC 16:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

As my main point was we need admins to be active, then your response makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We need active admins, but admins don't "need" to be active. I understand your point; my personal philosophy is that rights are for using, not for collecting on a shelf, and I resign any advanced access that I don't use. But what do you define as active enough? Ten actions a month? Ten actions a day? Admins are still volunteers, and we shouldn't be worried about how many there are who meet a certain arbitrary level of activity - if there are backlogs, then we must need more admins. Even if they just delete one page marked for speedy deletion every month, that's still a net positive for the project. Your argument would really only apply if admin was a paid position, at which time of course it should be treated as a job. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosophy is demonstrated in action, otherwise it is empty. Sure we can start with twelve per year, at least it's a start. Paid? Volunteer is volunteer, it's accepting the responsibility for doing the work volunteered for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to my advanced permissions, that's exactly what I do. Your last point is a fair one, while also recognizing that people burn out or lose interest after time in any volunteer role. Given that most of the current admins here were elected in 2007 or before, that might explain why we have so many inactives. Making more admins who would actually be active with the rights doesn't seem to be connected to the current dead weight that you bring up. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure it does. You just told me admins lose interest, (some of them seem to lose interest when they pass RfA, but regardless, having volunteered to do policy compliant editing for about eight years now, I have not lost interest in that because: it is interesting) -- you seemed to miss part of what I said, the inaction (more than any words possible) is telling us, 'the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing.' So now, you argue people lose interest -- that is not going to change anyone's impression that the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing, rather confirm it. What some here seem to be arguing for is, 'let's go through these RfA's for practically nothing at all - not to the project (except some hurt feelings or upset people), and not to the person.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• As a editors that has been here for over a decade and has tried to apply with no success years ago .....you wont get me to do this again...the same with many many other old timers that I talk to. The process if flawed....need to be in the right click or your left in the dust. No one actually looks at prospects in the right light.....the main question is what can you do as an admin .....over what have you done and how can the admin tools help our best editors-- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it humorous that running for ArbCom, which grants far, far greater and more destructive power than anything an administrator can do, is a blind vote. Sure, there's a Q&A session beforehand, but during the vote nobody knows how it's going until the end. Nobody knows why someone is voting a particular way. Here at RfA, we get all twisted up about it. RfA sucks because we let it suck. If we had a blind vote, we'd do much better. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we overstate the difficulty of passing an RfA. But @Hammersoft: having run for both Arbcom and RFA, I'd say the Arbcom election was easier, fairer and gave better opportunities to explain yourself and respond to others. The blind vote may well have been a factor, and is worth trying in RfA. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. It's also worth considering the process for appointing CU/OS, which is explicitly not a vote after voting failed to elect any new candidates one year. I'd say that RfA has a similar problem. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think this is a very interesting question and one that gave me a little pause since when I first joined Wikipedia (once I discovered Admins exist and what they did) I thought it would be really cool to be one. So here is a short list of reasons why I am not really interested in RfA in ascending order of the weight I attach to each.

• I am busy in the real world and would definitely be considered a part timer. Additionally I am just returning from a long wiki-break resulting from burn out and a bad experience with an Admin (a very rare experience). For a while I was not sure I would be returning at all.
• I doubt that I am qualified. My edit count is likely at the low end of what most on here would consider the minimum. My content creation is... yes I do have some, but it's nothing to write home about. Yes, I have a clue and am familiar with the common guidelines and policy. Yes I know the difference between a block and a ban. But no, I can't cite a lot of the obscure stuff and there are areas of the project where my experience is negligible at best (Arbcom and Tech just to name two.)
• I am on record expressing some controversial opinions and in my experience that's usually a show stopper at RfA.
• I don't have a long list of interpersonal conflict on here though I have had a few spirited disagreements. I also have come out on the loosing end of some AfD and other discussions. So infallibility is not my strong suite. If you look at some of my early editing around the time I first discovered NPP you will either laugh or cringe. Neither of which is a good thing at RfA.
• Lastly, I don't think I really want the job. My interest in it has declined at more or less the same pace as my understanding of what is involved has increased. It is very time consuming and requires inordinate amounts of patience as well as attention to detail. There is a very significant loss of freedom involved, to do what you want and spend your time working on things that interest you etc. And of course there is the abuse you take (damned if you do and damned if you don't).

In the end, I suspect that any nomination would end up as a SNOW close. To be honest, I'd be tempted to vote against myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• I did already; it just didn't go so well. I'm considering taking another shot at it, because six months later, it's apparent that the reasons I didn't succeed were mostly manufactured by myself during the discussion. I noticed that there's something that hasn't been mentioned yet in this discussion: the need for a compelling reason to be an admin. I thought I did pretty well with my talk of gadgets and deletion, until one doesn't need to be an admin [if] one's focus is on "coding and bots" landed in the oppose section. I agree with clpo13's statement about the absurdly large range of possible oppose reasons, even though I didn't encounter many during my RfA. APerson (talk!) 20:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Me too. Didn't go well either. There's nothing that can be done about it, so I am gradually disengaging from Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  And that's a loss for the project. But totally understandable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Since you ask, I will be an administrator. I'll suffer through the RfA process. Right now, I'm not quite ready, but I'm very nearly; see here: User:Prhartcom/Adminship Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• My reasons for not running are manifold. But the biggest issues, aside from real-world work obligations (that have seem to have grown over the last few years) is that:
  1. I don't want the "whole bit", but am only interested in portions of the toolset (e.g Page Mover, maybe Page Protector, possibly RevDel – I'm ambivalent about having article deletion powers, and definitely don't want the hassel (or the power) of the "block" button).
  2. I'm kind of philosophically opposed to the way the current system is run (i.e. with Admins with the bit eternally granted, and very little "unbundling" to subdivide tasks among more editors), and I kind of feel like running gives some moral sanction to that.

Then, of course, there's the pretty good chance that I wouldn't get through an RfA vote anyway, so the whole discussion is probably moot... And, also, I don't "feel" like I'm "ready" yet. Anyway, if the "community" unbundles more stuff, so editors like me can take "smaller bites" at the apple, then I'll be interested in pursuing that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• If my the answer to my question is so obvious, Kudpung, then why can't we seem to find the answer to getting more admins? If the answer were so obvious, we should already be crafting the perfect reform. But we can't. Clerking, the reform that was supposed to be the crowning improvement, hasn't caused a spike in RfAs (although it was still a good change). So evidently, the old assumptions must be discarded. And for what it's worth, I have indeed used the tools I asked for in November. In January, most of my time here was dedicated to the RfCs. At the end of January, following the reform marathon, I had enough and took a much-needed break of about two months; I just somewhat returned from that break, and considering that life is still rather busy, I haven't yet resumed admin work. Of course, that does not mean that I never will—in fact, I almost certainly will. I did quite enjoy working at RFPP and RFPERM. And I am certainly not unfamiliar with "trolls"; a certain vandal once created usernames that were very crude parodies of my own, and of course I had to deal with completely relentless userpage and talk page vandals who posted various fables about me. Some diehard obsessives make a huge deal whenever I protect one of the pages they want to change according to their liking. But in any case, why does everything have to be turned into another opportunity to criticize me in one way or another? This is WT:RFA, not WT:BIBLIO. Let's discuss substance. Petty jabs at some other editor won't help fix Wikipedia's serious problems. Biblio (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not WT:BIBLIO, no, but if it's petty jabs you want, then you'll have to wait for a Nachfolger to the one admin hater that everyone else has tried to emulate but with rather less intelligence and without the immunity to being banned - then you'll understand why one needs a thick skin as an admin, and then you'll understand how and why RfA became a place where it was traditional for every one to be as spiteful as they like with total impunity; these are features of the catastrophe that you appear to have failed to recognise. If you're going to launch huge projects like RFA2015, then you need to expect and take some criticism. Not all the criticism is negative. I supported your project but I did keep trying to suggest that perhaps there might possibly be some improvements to the way you were going about it, but you chose more or less to infer that I should mind my own business as if I didn't have a clue about what's needed to improve RfA, but RFA2011 was a collaborative effort by a large team - no one, and certainly not I, thought they could change the world alone. It might have been 6 years ago, but it was run by many highly experience old-timers.

The home page at WP:RFA2015 started off well and very accurately reiterated the the issues already clearly identified and examined by RFA2011 and supported by huge amounts of raw data. The only reason we abandoned the project was the harassment, which has also been confirmed and discussed here in the archives of WT:RfA. Unsurprisingly, he project's detractors were among those who still perform their possible inapropriate comments on RfAs today knowing that they can't be taken to task for it because they are not allowed to discuss RfA on an RfA or even here at WT:RfA.Clerking RfC was a total failure. It was rejected by the community in the first few votes of the very first section. All that RfC did was confirm in writing the ad hoc clerking that been being done for decades already, and telling the 'crats that they are allowed to do what they should have been doing anyway, and still don't. I've just spent an hour reading the whole thing again - three times. And still no one dares to properly address the core issue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Clerking could never really fix major issues while RfA structure remains as it is. Theoretically it is supposed to be a discussion, but in practice it is all about whether oppose section builds up enough negative weight to sink whole thing, and clerking in whatever form ain't gonna fix that. But obviously chances for major reform actually gaining sufficient consensus are miniscule at best, so rearranging some deckchairs seems to be the best that can be realistically achieved.--Staberinde (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't especially want to do admin tasks, and am probably not best suited to most of them as I'm weak on technical stuff like templates. I think my efforts here are far more usefully directed at content-writing, so that's what I do. These days I spend most of my time improving longstanding but inadequate articles that get high views - I wish more people did this. I would not be especially concerned by the Rfa process - I have certainly, rightly and wrongly, upset many people over the years, but with 157K edits to search, I doubt many will find the smoking guns. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I did some time ago under my previous username and it was deemed that WP:NOTNOW applied. I also unsuccessfully ran for ArbCom last year as well, mainly because I was an unknown entity and many of voters were neutral towards me. When the community feels that I'm ready to serve as an admin, I'll throw my name in (or have someone do so for me). I do feel I'd serve well here as an admin overall, and have been working on a few article and the usual vandal clean up in the mean time (and AfD work as well). RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I consider myself an experienced editor, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks I'd be likely to misuse the admin tools if I had them available to be used. That said, I was nominated for adminship once upon a time, accepted the nomination, got a little giddy about it and mentioned the nomination to, I believe, fewer than five people here who I'd worked with in the past, and subsequently screwed my own pooch as the situation was perceived as WP:CANVASSING (it's not clear to me how my RfA might have panned out if that hadn't become a dominating issue). I grant that some of the "before you run" documentation mentions that what I did should be considered a no-no, but I also think it could be argued that while I made a stupid mistake there, it's not one that necessarily demonstrates I'm incapable of handling the admin toolset responsibly. In case any of this sounds defensive: I acknowledge that I made a stupid mistake. Again, it was a stupid mistake on my part.

That said, the experience was a bit bruising (not severely so), and if I were to ever consider running again, which I would, again, only do if someone else thought it was a good idea, I'd (obviously) be a bit more cautious in my approach to the situation. Ironically, I believe it was less than a week after my RfA failed that someone suggested I run again. Go figure.

If this all comes across as sour grapes or what-not, I would point out that I'm only bringing it up because the initial post begs the question. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I haven't applied because the RfA process is a huge hassle, and I'm not sure I'd use the tools very much. I don't even know what I'd do as an administrator. Is there some sort of mentoring program for new admins (or those considering being admins)? I believe in the project, and I'd like to help, but after 11 years here, I still don't really know what admin tasks are in demand or where I could best help out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I find the idea of going through RFA very unappealing. It would (afaics) mean spending 1-2 weeks of my wikitime doing things like answering questions (e.g. hypothetical questions about areas I have no experience of and no immediate plans to work in) and justifying why my percentage of edits of specific types is outside the range of the "ideal admin" - with no guarantee that I'd pass (the "only actors can hold the keys to the theatre" brigade would oppose). Under Kudpung's criteria each edit I make in Mainspace makes me less suitable as an admin (as it reduces the % of my edits in Talk/Wikipedia namespace) - how does that make sense? DexDor ^(talk) 21:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A careful examination of my criteria, DexDor will reveal two things: they are extremely flexible and the different items can balance each other out as can be quite clearly seen when compared with the way I actually use them in my votes. Secondly, a rough comparison will find that my criteria are not very wide of the mark that is generally practiced by the experienced editors who take the RfA process seriously and have published their criteria. These criteria have not been sharpened since the times when when RfA was more commonplace. The data mining done at WP:RFA2011 showed however a very interesting trend - the majority of RfA voters are a transient tranche of editors and it is those who vote only once on an RfA, or very rarely, who demand ridiculously high figures of tenure and/or edits, or who make inappropriate or untenable oppose votes. And this kind of thing still continues today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• The reviewer userright autoprecludes me regaining adminship. Only when reviewer is dissociated from sysop or PC is removed from en.wp will I try again. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think about running (again) occasionally. I am not concerned about the process, the "grilling" candidates get or anything like that. What deters me is the effort / reward ratio. What's it worth to me to be an admin v's how much effort do I need to put in to convince the various WP factions that I should be? I have been here a long time with very few gaps, I believe I have added valuable content over the years but it isn't an FA or bunch of GAs (e.g., Annie Warren Gill) and I certainly know technically how to operate the administrator tools safely. However, I don't want to "scrape through" the process - if I don't have broad support, I don't want to be an admin here - and I don't want to spend months building the impression that I am someone I'm not by trying to create an FA or work in areas that I'm not interested in. I am happy to help but if I'm going to have to fight tooth and nail to convince people that I should be allowed to help, well, life's too short. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• I am basically completely retired now (no time for regular WP editing, due to RL responsibilities), so the question raised here is not relevant to me now. At the time I was active, I never seriously wanted to be an admin, it just never appealed to me. I suspect that even if I had the bit I would have almost never used it (with the exception of one area, discussed below). For a while I was active at the AfD, but even then I was much more interested in participating in AfD discussions rather than in closing them. The only admin-related right that I ever had an interest in having was blocking IP vandals. It's quite frustrating having to repeatedly revert an IP vandal, file a report at AIV and then wait until an admin shows up to issue a 24 or 31 hour block. Nowadays I usually simply don't do this and leave it to someone else to handle the situation even when I see obvious vandalism, simply because I usually don't have 10-15 free time necessary to chaperone a particular page until the vandal is blocked or the page is protected. If the tools were unbundled and the ability to issue short term blocks to IP vandals became a part of a separate small package, I might consider applying for that. But I had and still have almost zero interest in any other rights that adminship entails. Nsk92 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm certainly never going to submit to all that bullshit again.—S Marshall T/C 14:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if your definition of "experienced" includes me. I would like to become an admin sometime (if the tools don't get completely unbundled before then). I don't think I would succeed right now. I have about eleven months of experience, I don't create much content, and I have used Huggle for a bunch of edits. I don't understand why those last two points matter, but they seem to for a lot of RFA !voters. KSFT^C 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Awareness

A call for them to come forward speaks only to those who are watching this page. Those people already have RfA in their mind.

How about an advert in that above-the-watchlist spot, or somewhere, encouraging qualified users to add their names at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll after reading WP:RFA42? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And we have ads for all kinds of things. Why not Admin awareness? We have:

• Join Wikiproject XXXXX
• Help with copyright issues
• Participate in Article rescue
• Fight vandalism
• Project redirect
• Send money because Harvard's 38 billion endowment makes our measly 75 million look like rubbish.

Okay, I'm not sure we have that last one. I possibly made it up.

So, why not? An influx of new admins is important, right? Just as important as copyvio participation, etc.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support Sounds like a good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry to be That Editor, but oppose. The ads you link to above are banners which individual users can choose to put at the top of their userpages to promote things about which they feel strongly—basically just slightly bigger userboxes. They're not general sitenotices, which should be reserved for a very limited number of issues which have significant impact on the readership (principally related to fundraising), or watchlistnotices which are only displayed to logged-on editors if and when they check their watchlists, but which are largely ignored as clutter and which already display an advert for RFA whenever there's one running. The precedent of allowing a section of the project which is of very marginal importance to most readers to use the watchlist to promote itself is not a good one, since it would lead to completely reasonable complaints from every other process suffering from a lack of new blood and a perception among onlookers that it's dominated by a clique of obsessive weirdos (WP:FAC and WP:AFD spring to mind, but I'm sure everyone reading this can think of half a dozen examples without trying) that if RFA is allowed to colonize watchlists in this fashion to try to recruit participants, so should they, and everyone's watchlist would end up looking like the world's worst lonely hearts column. If you want to get people who are engaged with Wikipedia but not engaged with a particular process, write an article for the Signpost and solicit comments at the end. ‑ Iridescent 01:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Then how about using the top third of the Main Page? Okay, points taken and good points too. Would there be any place you could suggest to bring awareness? We do have 75 mil. Highway billboards? Seriously, though. Suggestions (other than Signpost)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, an automated mailing sent to every editor on the second anniversary of their first edit, provided they have at least 5000 edits in the meantime; that should reach people new enough not to have developed an jaundiced view altogether, but experienced enough to offer opinions on the process, and by only spamming each editor once in their entire wikihistory it wouldn't overwhelm any one editor, and by doing it on the anniversary it would mean the notifications would be a gentle trickle rather than a flood and wouldn't overwhelm watchlists. If you explicitly want the views of editors who've been around the block a few times, you could try working your way through WP:WBFAN spamming everyone who's not already an admin, but be aware that would rouse some of Wikipedia's grumpiest sleeping dragons. If you don't mind sifting the legitimate comments from the crazy, posting at whatever Wikipedia Review/Wikipedocracy is calling itself today would likely get you some intelligent input. Your (plural) basic problem isn't that the majority of editors are hostile, it's that they don't care, and those that do care about adminship are often those least likely to be suitable. (As a thought experiment, if you were a judge how seriously would you take someone who turned up at your courthouse unasked, begging for you to put him on jury duty because he likes listening to endless legal arguments, and thinks he'd be good at sending people to jail?) ‑ Iridescent 02:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. Automated mailing, eh? I like that! And I'd be happy to spam those at WP:WBFAN. Anyone want to join a mini-project at one of my sandboxes to do that? We could share the dragon fire. Bring gauze.

Wikipediocracy? No way. That's one lair I dare not enter.

By the way, months a ago I posted at dozens of wikiprojects advertising the opinion poll page. It did well. I will do another round in a few months.

About your thought experiment: Point taken. Here's the flipside. If you were a populace, how would you feel about someone who turned up unasked, begging them for a gavel and cuffs? I guess that's why dear Kudpung has such a distaste for the ...hopes to be one someday crowd. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

How did you guess, Anna? Yes, anyone who joins Wikipedia with the immediate and main intention of wanting to police the project is either a power hungry troll who can't get his own way in RL, or just someone who desperately needs something to brag about in the schoolyard. 'I'm an admin, and I'm alright' - sung to the tune of The Lumberjack Song... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it would fit that tune very well. "Lumberjack" has three syllables and "admin" only has two. :-) Deb (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Mine's an admin acc and I'm alright, block all day and delete all night. ϢereSpielChequers 13:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

:) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support, providing and only providing that this is not shown indiscriminately to users who cannot even be called editors yet. Esquivalience ^t 02:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Favour Iridescent's slow-motion mass mailing, if technically possible. The protocol would have to be drawn up and implemented with great care, in the light of what happened with last year's Arbcom election notice...: Noyster (talk), 10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• (ec) Signpost articles are effective at getting an additional handful of admins. I and others have done that a few times over the years and most of the brief rallies at RFA link to that. I don't think there has been one in a while, so that could make a small contribution. I like the ideas above of watchlist notices and wikibirthday posts, but they need to be targeted. You can do watchlist notices targeted by geography, I don't know if you can do them to people with more than x edits etc, but there needs to be some targeting. Pretty much anyone who uses their watchlist would be welcome to !vote at RFA, but very few will be ready to run. There may be as few as a thousand editors currently out there who could pass RFA if they ran this month, so only a miniscule proportion of the editors who look at their watchlists could pass RFA. Targeted WikiBirthday notes are be a brilliant idea, but they do need appropriate messages, for some that might be encouragement to try DYK or GAC, for others the wikilibrary. Only for a small minority would the appropriate message be "have you considered adminship?". ϢereSpielChequers 10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed; what you need to be very careful with anything selectively targeted, is not to give the "You're reading this because we think you're ready" impression. If you succeed in getting a hundred new people to run at RFA, but all of them are obvious no-hopers, you risk ripping the heart out of Wikipedia altogether as it would not only discourage and demoralise a generation of editors, but would mean anyone looking at RFA for the first time will see a long row of people being shot down in flames, and also that the current participants would get bored nursemaiding a procession of well-intentioned but clueless newcomers and wander off to do something else. ‑ Iridescent 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
    • One advantage of doing it through targeted, personalised Wikibirthday messages is that if the wording or targeting is off you can tweak it before it does too much damage. Only 2% of editors will normally have a wikibirthday in any one week, and at the start of such a program it would probably make sense only to message a proportion of them. And of course any mention of RFA needs to be a softsell "We are running short of administrators, if you might be willing to become one, now or in the future, here is a guide to what RFA !voters look for and here is a list of nominators looking for candidates to nominate". ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd go further than that, and make it more an "advanced Wikipedia primer" than specifically about RFA. "You've been with us for some time now, here are some other aspects of Wikipedia you may not be aware of": RFA, FAC, ITN, AE, DYK, FAR, AFD and all the rest of the alphabet soup, with a two-line summary of what each part does and why they want new people. That way, people with no interest in the RFA process might still find it of value, and it would be less likely to cause "If RFA is allowed to send out spam, we want to send some as well" complaints. If all the semi-moribund fiefdoms were forced to write justifications of their existence and to prepare for an influx of new blood, it might even prompt the streamlining of processes project-wide which we've been postponing for a decade. ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

        (adding) What we definitely need to be careful of if we go down any kind of mailshot route, is any suggestion of "we think you're ready", since even a mailshot targeted only at people with 100,000+ edits and 10 years experience is going to go to a lot of inappropriate people. (WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits could be retitled WP:List of creepy lunatics with only minimal changes necessary.) The same goes for most aspects of the project; WP:GA isn't going to thank us if we point a large number of "promote, this topic is cool" types who happen to have racked up the requisite number of edits on Huggle in their direction. ‑ Iridescent 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

        • Yes agree with much of that. Not convinced that all of us with >100,000 edits are unsuitable for adminship - but having been in the support column for at least two such unsuccessful RFAs I appreciate I'm in the minority there. I think we can reduce the risk of any one area being swamped with new input by promoting lots of different areas of the pedia, and some careful work to only promote things that the person is ready for and isn't already involved in. But most importantly the message needs to be written so that it isn't damaging if it accidentally goes to the wrong person. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if this gets off the ground, I am at your service for any work that needs to be done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think awareness is the problem. Few who have been here long enough to have a reasonable shot at passing are unaware of administrators and the things they do. The Ivy League doesn't need to send out indiscriminate mass mailings to find enough qualified candidates. Gifted athletes get recruited. I'm not sure the optional RfA candidate poll is helping either. Note the first response there to our current candidate: "..personally think you'd be a solid addition to the admin corps but I'm pretty sure you'd currently fail at RfA because of your lack of participation at XfD and more generally lack of experience in admin-related areas." Order of the Arrow candidates don't volunteer; they are tapped in a call-out ceremony, and few who are tapped decline to go through the Ordeal. I suspect willingness to go through our Ordeal might be a function of the nominee's trust in the nominator's judgement. Yes, I passed that boy scout Ordeal, many, many years ago. wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, don't make the mistake that because you know about something, other people must know about it. There's significant evidence, both anecdotal and empirical, that many, possibly most, regular Wikipedia editors have no idea about the existence of aspects of Wikipedia other people take for granted—one only has to look at the spikes WSC alludes to when RFA has been publicised in the past. This page relates to an attempt to publicise Arbcom to existing long-term users, rather than RFA, but it's noteworthy how many long-term and otherwise apparently well-engaged editors were unaware of the existence of what's arguably Wikipedia's most high-profile process—RFA doesn't have Arbcom's luxury of a solid month of unsuppressible banner ads every year, nor near permanent discussion on multiple high-profile pages, nor of invariably being at the end of the "See Also" chain from every policy page, but I doubt more than one editor in 50 could name three current arbs. (All you have to do is watch WP:TFAR, Talk:Main Page or WP:ITN/C for a while to see how many long-term editors are unaware of how equally high-profile functions operate, or even that there are formal processes for such things as quality control, or seemingly basic concepts like "IAR doesn't mean you can go on a vandalism spree without consequences" and "we don't delete articles because you don't consider the topic interesting".) I don't know where you're getting "few who are tapped decline" from; in my experience most people who have RFA suggested to them are horrified at the idea and instantly decline. ‑ Iridescent 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that you (Iridescent) and Wbm1058 are actually somewhat in agreement, not disagreeing. I thought he was saying that it's not that people don't know about administrators, and the fact that people who might make it through RfA or be good Admins don't choose to run is because it isn't seen as a positive step (your last sentence). Maybe I'm misreading both sides? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No, re-read us; he's saying that people are aware of RFA and choose not to run, and I'm saying that there's a sizeable fraction who are either unaware of the existence of admins and think WP is run like a bulletin board with a flat structure aside from a handful of moderators, or are aware of admins but have no idea where they come from, and if pressed would probably guess that they were old-timers appointed by Jimmy Wales whenever he deems it necessary. (We really don't do ourselves any favors with the "Wikipedia is Jimbo's word incarnate" advertising in which the WMF engages. I understand why they do it—it's good from a fundraising perspective for the donors to think they're supporting kindly Jimmy from Huntsville in his basement, than a multi-million dollar corporation in San Francisco—but it means the readers have a tendency to assume Wikipedia is Jimmy's hobbyist site with the assistance of a few of his friends.) ‑ Iridescent 18:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Apples & Oranges. Sure, a lot of rank-and-file editors are not aware of RfA. Advertise to them, for the purpose of increasing participation (!voter turnout). But, if you're looking for successful candidates, they are almost universally aware of this project page. General awareness advertising for candidates will just lead to more WP:SNOW-falls. Of those who are aware, and could pass, there are two general types: (1) those who simply do not want the job, and (2) those who lack the confidence in their chances and are hesitant to ask. There is a reason that potentially successful candidates are aware – they are at least occasionally using {{Nac}} or {{RMnac}} or the speedy deletion templates. In other words, they are asking for administrator assistance, and importantly, their wishes are being granted most of the time because they are valid requests. These are the folks we need to reach out and tap. They need to have confidence in their nominator's judgement; we stub ourselves in the foot by calling out editors who end up in 'crat chats – or worse. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd encourage anybody interested in writing an op-ed for The Signpost. Kharkiv07 (T) 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  As someone with much experience in RfA matters (please don't be deceived by raw "experience" statistics), I'd be willing to do so, if I can find the time. I'm not making any promises, though. I did write an op-ed for the Signpost last year. Biblio (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA length?

Has anyone discussed whether reducing the duration of an RfA to 24 or 48 hours would relieve some of the stress? Yes, it would preclude participation from people who don't check daily or who just happened to miss it, but perhaps more people would be willing to run if they didn't need to be ready to answer questions at any time over the course of a week. The only things that currently run for a full week are things like deleting a page, centralized discussion, etc., that are a big deal, and RfA is no big deal, right?  :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary: I put forth this idea primarily for discussion, rather than thinking it definitely was a way forward in RfA, but it seems clear that while no one expressed direct a worry that they would personally be harmed by such a change, others would be disenfranchised and it could be seen as a way of hiding "dirt" about a candidate. Let's call this a no-go proposal (at least for now) and move on to other possible reforms. (I'd put the closed proposal tags here, but it was never a formal proposal). Thanks for the great discussion -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Well, that would dramatically reduce the amount of scrutiny that a candidate can get. There is a reason why adminship is not simply handed out by request - to avoid spammers, people who don't understand what the "job" is about and some other problems.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• It probably hasn't been discussed because it has absolutely no chance passing. "RfA is no big deal" stopped being true long time ago.--Staberinde (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• I think it would be counter-productive until the change is normalized. At the start, people will immediately be neutral or oppose just because of the rash time period. Eventually, people will treat it better but at the same time, we've had some RFAs derailed for (somewhat) possibly good reasons which did require some time. The issue is that people still find adminship such a big deal that the scrutiny is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Interesting idea. Kudos for originality, I don't remember this being suggested before. Most RFAs are very predictable before they reach 48 hours, though there are a small proportion that tank later. The normal reason for us having seven day processes is to include people for whom this is a one evening a week hobby. Shorter processes crowd them out in favour of the hyper active editors who are here most days. In RFA that can be important, I've seen RFAs tank because of issues raised on the 5th or 6th day. So the trade off of this change would be an occasional bad choice for admin in return for however many extra good admins this would encourage to run. That might be a trade worth having, but I'd first like to see a survey of active non admins with one of the questions being "would you submit an RFA if the process was shortened to 48 hours". An alternative would be to allow candidates to put RFAs on hold for a few days if they had a sudden change of plans and were no longer going to be around for the rest of the week. It would need to be whole 24 hour chunks to make sense though. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Not a bad idea, and it would place less stress on the candidate and less time for the trolls to nag and play with the candidate and participants, but a strict 24-48 hour limit probably does not give enough time for scrutiny, as in some RfAs, serious issues were raised only after 3-4 days of discussion. Perhaps it could be discretionary: if a RfA has more than 90-95 percent support with sufficient turnout and no substantial issues brought up by an opposer or another editor, it would be closed early. But that has about zero chance of passing. Esquivalience ^t 23:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Consensus requires patience; in particular, when participation is global, it's necessary to allow time for discussion to take place. Truncating the discussion to 48 hours would provide incentive for quick responses instead of reasoned, considered dialogue. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Even if that were true, I think a good argument can be made the 7 days is (far!) too long. I think the "sweet spot" is probably 3–5 days. Also, I wish the 'Crats had the option to do a WP:SNOW close in some cases – when there's just a single "Oppose" vote for several days (or, perhaps, no "Oppose" votes for several days), I really can't figure out why we don't just SNOW close it. (If someone hasn't dug up "dirt" in 72 hours, there's likely no "dirt" to be had...) Both of these – shorter RfA runtimes, and the potential for early "SNOW" closing, would probably be a mild incentive to get more people to run. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • As mentioned above, whenever the question of shortening the request for administrative privileges process comes up, people raise the issue of providing the opportunity for once-a-week editors to contribute. As far as I know, no one has explicitly accepted the tradeoff of limiting the amount of participation from these editors, and so the current time period for the process has consensus support.
    • Although I appreciate that candidates may feel like the sword of Damocles is hanging over them, I think someone seeking to be an administrator should be understanding of the need to allow time for consensus to form. Where there is no urgent reason for action, editors shouldn't feel pressed to make a rapid decision. isaacl (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJBall: May be good in some circumstances but without community consensus for successful RfA SNOW closes themselves can cause quite a ruckus, just like the clerking at Hawkeye7's RfA putting the bureaucrats in stalemate. Esquivalience ^t 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• My RfA is an example of the sort of RfA that WSQ mentioned; even though it initially went well, there was a later spike in opposes that ultimately tanked the whole thing. Had the duration of my RfA been shorter, it would have made an impact on the outcome, I think. APerson (talk!) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Very interesting idea. On the one hand, I would like to see more "part-time" participation in Wikipedia, and reducing the length of an RfA wouldn't be conductive to such a goal. But, reducing the discussion time would have some very big benefits - less stress for the nominee, and maybe less of a "big deal" for the process overall. I'd support looking into this more. It is worth noting that some places (such as meta for local bureaucrat permissions) have an initial short time of 48 hours, after which the request can be closed in absence of serious concerns. If there are serious concerns, then the request can go the full week to gain more input. This might be a good system to use here. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• I think I remember a proposal like this before and the reason to oppose it then and now is the same: Many editors don't check Wikipedia daily. Some, like me, have to work a lot and usually only manage to check it on the weekends. Others only check the page during the week and not check it at all on weekends. Shortening the RfA-period to any duration less than a week will always mean that those editors will be deprived of the chance to weigh in. As this is a community-driven progress, I'm advising against any changes that will exclude a significant part of the community from participating. APerson's RFA (mentioned above) imho a good example: Only 33% of the !votes were cast during the weekend with participation rising as the weekend ended and the week began. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know if a week is too long, but I'm sure 24-48 hours is too short. It would disenfranchise a segment of the community, and it would make it very difficult to do any sort of scrutiny or evaluation of the person. There are people who deliberately wait until day 5 or later before commenting, so as to benefit from everyone's research and comments - and as noted, sometimes an RfA can turn 180 degrees in the final days. Granted, that is stressful for the person. But what are we about here: coddling and sheltering candidates, or deciding who should be trusted with the power to delete articles and block people? Seems like handing a person that much power deserves at least as much consideration as an AfD or RM nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• I think a week is the perfect length - however I would consider a non "voting" period of time at the beginning of the clock say 24 hours or so. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • There has been some discussion of a two-phase approach, with an initial vetting phase, and a subsequent analysis phase when people would offer their opinions on the suitability of the candidate. (Note this proposal is quite different than the format of the Ironholds request for adminship.) Recently there was also a discussion of a quiet period before voting. There wasn't a consensus reached on whether or not it would make a difference. Some suggested that discussion would just move elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • There have been lots of proposals to make RFA longer, most of them were rejected because, well, they'd make RFA longer and a bigger deal. We now are in the fourth month of a trial of a system that makes RFA longer by adding an optional pre RFA phase. Thus far we know its popular, we suspect it has caused a short term drop in actual RFAs, but some of us hope that it is merely delaying them a few months and will actually be a success. ϢereSpielChequers 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
      • On a side note, the essence of the two-phase proposal does not require making the process longer, though of course if once-a-week editors were to be accommodated for both phases, then the process would have to extend over a longer period. isaacl (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • If a once a week editor's once a week was during phase 1, they would be aware and could stop back by later if they were actually interested. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
          • Sure; this is why I stated that for this scenario to be accommodated, the process would have to be extended to longer than a week. If this accommodation were not made, it is possible for a two-phase process to still be limited to one week, and the initial post in the discussion to which I linked proposed keeping the process to one week. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Another good faith suggestion, but one that isn't going to go anywhere. All our debates last for at least 7 days, which gives weekend Wiki-workers an opportunity to chime in. Anything less would be disenfranchising our users.

The only single reason why RfA needs to be reformed in any way at all is the way RfA is used by editors as the one venue where they can be as silly and/or uncivil as possible with impunity. This is what is keeping candidates away. My mantra for years has been 'fix the voters and RfA will fix itself.' It's time people woke up to that and accepted it and I don't understand why the community refuses to meet the issue head on and constantly buries its head in the sand instead, and continually comes up with other reasons for the dearth in candidates and suggesting solutions for those invented causes.

The thing that makes fixing RFA so challenging is, yes, the community... The thing stopping us from fixing RFA is us ourselves. — Tofutwitch11, Trying to improve RfA|TB| 1 February 2011

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident you do know why the community has been unable to address this problem. Until the community's structural problems are addressed, and in particular its current version of consensus decision-making, trying to make major reforms to processes in which a lot of people are interested is very difficult. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• One obvious reason for 7 days is, as many have said, to ensure weekend-only people get a chance, and I think it's important to widen the participation (which helps dilute the adverse effect of any destructive individuals, among other benefits). The other important reason is to give reviewers time to properly investigate the candidate's track record. I know a lot of people !vote in the early days (even in the early hours), and some of those will already know the candidate well. But many don't, and their !vote can only have been done after the most superficial degree of digging - and I've certainly seen RFAs tank later in the week when someone who did their investigations properly uncovered killer problems that the early participants overlooked. If we want proper scrutiny of candidates, I think a week is about the right length. (But thanks should go to the proposer for suggesting the idea.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• I would support this. Adminship is supposed to be "not a big deal", but it very much isn't right now. Reducing the length to one or maybe two days would really help make it look like a less serious thing, which is what it was intended to be when it was created. KSFT^C 19:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC for new "Page mover" permission

Now an RFC! Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RFC - Proposed: "Page mover" permission to be created.

Template:Formerly

Hear ye, all those with interest in permissions! Kindly see Wikipedia:Page mover for a draft treatment of a proposed new user group and comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover or improve draft directly. –xeno^talk 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

With thanks to everyone who provided input and insight, I would like to put forth a proposal to create the Wikipedia:Page mover permission. My suggestion is that page movers would receive

suppressredirect (The ability to move pages without leaving behind a redirect)

move-subpages (The ability to move subpages when moving their parent pages)

tb-override (The ability to override the title blacklist)

modified $wgRateLimits, allowing them to move pages more frequently than most users

This userright would be especially useful to editors who assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves. –xeno^talk 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a general comment about this. I'm not sure this is the right approach to solving the problem of the dwindling number of successful RfAs. It might actually further exacerbate the problem. Take away one of the last remaining routine-bureaucratic functions of administrators, and you're left with too much focus on blocking and protecting. I think a better approach than looking for more functions to move "downstairs" might be to move the most powerful function "upstairs". How about restricting the blocking of extended-confirmed editors for periods longer than 48 hours so that only bureaucrats can do that, after a consensus for it has been obtained through discussion, or by Arbitration Committee directive. wbm1058 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bureaucrats weren't appointed to police user conduct and there's far too few of us to put that all on our plate. –xeno^talk 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Y'all need something new to supervise, since user renames were globalized, right? An added function might motivate more to apply; it's been what, over two years since the last RfB? The point is that the community, or ArbCom, should police established-user conduct, rather than a single, potentially "cowboy" admin. You would just assess consensus, the same way you do with RfA. My expectation is that long-term blocks of extended-confirmed editors would be relatively rare, so it wouldn't be that much extra work. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps moving up user rights assignments may be something worth considering, seeing as it's the main function of bureaucrats anyway. Like edit filter, which does require a discussion unlike other trivial user rights such as rollback.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't think it;s entirely appropriate to brand all admins as 'potential cowboys'. Not only do such comments infringe on our AGF policy, but they play right into the hands of the anti-admn brigade and further discourage editors from running for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

As Xeno knows, I've been advocating for a long time for ways to draw the user right of Bureaucrat into a more active sphere of operations but I don't think taking the power of the block button from admins and moving it 'upstairs' should be one of them. Sure, admin abuse exists (and I usually see it from the same admins), and while good, experienced admins can sometimes make the very rare genuine error of judgement, those badmins are also rare individuals and should not be allowed to cast a shadow on the work of the rest of the admins who have to put up with the filth that is thrown at them for just doing the job they went through 7 days of hell for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Different approach

People seem to think because RfA is turning out less and less admins every year, that RfA is broken. When they try and figure out what is broken, they have no answers. When I run my mind over this, it doesn't seem to be the process itself, but rather the lack of participants. There's an inherent psychology, I believe, that people see very little users participating, and not many of those passing. This gives the impression that RfA is not worth running, because everyone else thinks that too, except for the minority that do run.

I think the real problem is getting users to participate, and I know this has been chewed up before, so bear with me here. If we can get at least one user to go through an RfA, every week, it might encourage others to join in, regardless of the outcome. Then we move up to making sure at least one user passes an RfA every week. When people see RfA turning out more users, other prospective users that have remained in the dark may come forth.

What do I predict will happen if this actually works? We will have more admins, and the elitism feeling that many users have regarding admins, starts to fade. As more users have the mop, more maintenance tasks will get tackled. Backlogs will begin to shrink, and the higher number of admins, more easily serve as checks and balances to one another. The loss of an admin, will become less of an issue, and the response of an admin gone rogue should start to become an easier to tackle issue. We have emergency desysop procedures, and cleaning up after an admin gone rogue should be easier with the higher admin count.

How do we do this? I was thinking of putting together a task force. A group of users who are familiar with the atmosphere of RfAs, and can predict what to expect. This includes current admins, like User:Kudpung, User:Worm That Turned, as well as former candidates, who were promising but didn't quite make the cut. This adds a perspective from successful and unsuccessful candidates. They will usually hang around some area of Wikipedia who would scope out possible users they frequently run across, and if they see someone experienced enough to be an admin. These users then mention them on some kind of noticeboard, or candidates' board. As a courtesy the user in question is notified. The task force briefly looks at the possible candidate's history, bring up the good and bad, and agree on if they are likely going to pass an RfA. If yes, the user who sniffed out the other user, will offer a nomination, and a couple of co-noms, if they want. If the candidate however feels uncomfortable being discussed, they can voice their opposition, and the discussion will end. This discussion isn't as long as an RfA. It's simply a brief discussion highlighting what this candidate to be could possibly expect in an RfA, what could be fixed before running, and what areas the should emphasize working in.

The idea of this is to start off by getting at least one user to run an RfA every week, to change the perception of RfA. When users start to see RfA activity increasing, and thus promotions increase, they might be inclined to run themselves, or seek discussion from the task force.

Any thoughts? I know this was a bit long winded so I thank you for taking the time to read and offer an opinion.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has recently considered making a run in the future (due to my work at TfD), I can say the barrier for me isn't the current activity. It's the atmosphere. After watching plenty of accomplished Wikipedians get smacked across the face going through RfA, it's natural to look at it and flinch. ~ Rob^Talk 16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggested this method, because yes, the atmosphere is a bit tough, but the advice you get from it is mostly invaluable. In my RfA, I took it as constructive criticism for the most part, and had no bad feelings when it closed as unsuccessful.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

That wasn't my experience. I received no constructive criticism, just a slander campaign that left me very discouraged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

What you are suggesting certainly has its merits but it's not entirely different fron WP:ORCP and the work some of us have been doing behind the scenes canvassing individual users mainly by email. THe answers we get are almost always the same: users reject the idea of having to be subjected to the humiliation of the RfA process as we know it. Even those who get positive and encouraging reviews at WP:ORCP are reluctant to take the next step. Collaborative projects are nothing new. What is new is the media of communication for managing such projects: the Internet. Through its intrinsic culture of anonimity, the Internet has almost entirely.changed the way people interact.

There are still a few of us around who remember a world without the Internet or mobile phones with their text messages; people knew, or at least the names, of the people they were communicating with. All written communications were done on properly signed paper. The Internet however with its vehemently defended right to anonymity has changed all that in the short space of just over 20 years, allowing people to exploit the this 'new' media to be as libelous, slanderous, and just downright nasty as they can - behaviour they would never dream of at home, at work, in the pub, or in their places of worship.

Many people of older generations who are forced to share these projects with people who take the Internet and cell phones for granted, feel it is a huge downward trend in traditional values, and frankly the behaviour of user:<redacted> and user:<redacted> who hide behind their copious content contributions to afford themselves the privilege of being obnoxious makes some of us older users wonder why we ever bothered to join Wikipedia in the first place. We persevere because we hope it will change.

RfA has been accepted by this strange Wikipedia community of ours as the one venue where even AGF and NPA are allowed to be flagrantly flouted and disregarded with almost total impunity, and with disdain for those who dare to intervene to moderate it. People keep trying to analyse RfA to discover what's wrong with it, permanently pretending that the behaviour of the participants has got nothing to do with it. It has, and I'll repeat my worn out mantra: Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

And likewise your comments as well carry merits. But as I see, there's no good way to fix a voter from doing what they do, unless you block them, topic ban them, whatever, which doesn't seem to be solutions anyone wants to implement. But you can go around convincing a possible candidate they are likely to pass RfA.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll agree with Kudpung here. The reason that people don't want to volunteer for the hassle of RFA is that (a) the burden there is so much greater than it used to be and (b) honestly, the benefit isn't what it used to be. Given how much NAC is permitted, there's no more need for "I need the tools to actually close discussions." Given the essentially systematic reduction in the most pathetic base trolls that require immediate blocking and how AIV actually works for the most part, there's no more need for "I need the tools to fight vandals." Rob, using you as an example, you went through all those headaches and for what, the ability to close TFD by actually deleting the template rather than tagging it with a G6? As someone with the G6 deletion ability, it's not that impressive a tool lol. That leaves essentially "I want the tools to be able to actually help out on the technical deletion/protection/blocking side" which is kind of a 'want' not 'need' more admins situation and people can easily go make up all sort of reasons not to add another admin because they don't have to worry about the negative externality that comes from drive people away from the rejection. The real solution is to really put bite back into AGF at RFA and to let the trolls be removed or just be called out and ignored which is starting to happen more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. Using myself as an example, my drive to run for adminship is to simply be able to help out more. Strictly speaking, do I need the tools? I'm going to say no. I've encountered situations where they would be nice to have, and I imagine myself being useful in technical areas more if I had them, but I possess the account creator right for ACC, templateeditor right, to edit protected templates, the global-renamer right, to help out more username related stuff, and made myself quite useful there too, and the common rollback, reviewer, and extended confirmed rights, and I am perfectly happy with those tools, because I can do what I do best, bot work, templates, and username stuff. I would image being able to unblock users after having renamed them would be useful though, but not really a requirement on my part. In short, I don't need the mop, but I could certainly put it to good use. I could make adminbots with it for example.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. After having the tools for over a decade, there's so little actual power involved in being an admin it's comical compared to the fears expressed. I'm always amused with people realize after extensive discussions with me that I'm an admin. The tools I use are never in conjunction with the work I do (you should see the difference in how I close MFDs than how I vote). The point is, the lack of need for tools reduces the pool of people who would want to apply. Combine that with the increase in headaches from actually applying, you have a combination that results in less people actually applying. Now, I'm not saying let's reverse all these programs but I think it's time to acknowledge that we have less admins in part because we don't actually need as many admins as we do (we have massive backlogs but few of those really require admin tools, those are just some miserable backlogs that no one touches because they are miserable). CFD and MFD has lunacy in backlogs but both could be solved if we did like TFD and allowed NAC deletions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The "need" mentality has always been a bit confusing for me. As a volunteer, I don't "need" any advanced access anywhere (nor do I need to be here at all). But I enjoy helping out in the roles that I have volunteered for. You're absolutely right that people are surprisingly afraid of the sysop tools, despite the fact that any admin action can be reverted and there is nothing *too* powerful there in the hands of anyone with the right amount of clue and trust. One thing that I would like to see is the removal of the current NAC system where non-admins tag their closures with "NAC", as if the fact that their account doesn't have sysop tools means that their judgement is suddenly questionable. The reason should be more important than the person. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

To be fair, I do support the NAC requirement (being a part of the cabal is a bias I admit). The truth is, whether or not it means much, I did pass an RFA and since no one has taken me enough to the woodshed to get rid of them, there's at least some indication I know what I'm doing and there's still an implicit threat that if I screw around too much, those tools can be taken away. Admins can overrule any NAC close (or endorse it) so I'd rather we keep the NAC and still allow some requirement for closing beyond simply being uninvolved (or uninvolved and possibly having an account as we don't generally let IP close discussions but I've seen that on a few SNOWs now). We've had some nonsense with GA/FA reviews which require nothing but that's not the same as an actual deletion discussion. Else the only tool is a DRV woodshed really. Of course I think I've had the tools ten times as long as I didn't have them so it's been a while since I edited without them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

You were elected an admin 21/1 in 2005, at which point you had ~8k edits to the project. I certainly think that this is more than enough experience to become an admin, but you wouldn't have a chance of passing a current RfA. You obviously are competent enough to close discussions, and I assume you feel so as well - but what about an identical version of you who joined in 2010 instead of 2004? Ricky81682-2010 would have not passed his first RfA due to lack of experience, and would still need to put NAC in every close. But you'd be the same person. The current NAC system assumes that only admins can be trusted with closing discussions, but it ignores the simple fact that most users who joined after 2008 aren't admins, all other variables being equal. I don't mind some common-sense restrictions on closing discussions, but I think it should be more about the reason and less about the person. It's also not like there can be no regulation of non-admin behaviour; we can block people for repeated abuse of their editing privileges, I don't see how this would be different. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"The current NAC system assumes that only admins can be trusted with closing discussions" ... This is one of the reasons I enjoy closing discussions at TfD, where I'm able to close as delete (technically, as orphan and then delete) as a non-admin. It's one of the few places that I can close discussions without feeling like a second-class citizen. I think the biggest problem with RfA is summed up by looking closer at this issue, actually. We have one side of people repeating the mantra of "Admins are not leaders, just people with a few extra tools" while another side insists just as wholeheartedly that "Non-admins should not make any non-obvious decisions while closing discussions". We have similar "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations at RfA. There's a large crowd that votes oppose for non content creators. In the ongoing RfA, there's been a faction that has voted neutral leaning oppose because the participant is a content creator (and therefore has no "need"). There's a large contingent that will vote oppose if you have no participation dealing with behavioral issues at ANI, etc., but another contingent that will vote oppose if you've decided to participate in the "dramaboards". Some will oppose on the basis of not enough AfD participation while I've seen others oppose "deletionists" who spend too much of their time there. The result is that a sizable number of potential admins feel like anyone other than the Wikipedian equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci, a true renaissance man who balances participation in all aspects of the project, will be rejected (or, at the very least, attacked as a bad-faith power-hungry megalomaniac). ~ Rob^Talk 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While a bit wordy, this is basically the essence of the problem as I see it. The community has too many competing, contradictory standards for anyone to feel comfortable. ansh666 05:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder how effective an "RfA standards" RFC would be in establishing some sort of criteria for evaluating candidates, so that comments could be evaluated against the guideline as they are with XfD. I feel like that would also make the RfA process less of a strict vote, for better or worse. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

We've tried several times; So we've established that agreeing a criteria isn't easy. I think that setting some of the criteria is still the way forward, there are a number of de facto criteria that we can calculate from RFAs. There are some issues such as good judgment that we can't simply derive from stats, and I hope that setting a criteria for the things that we can quantify will focus attention on the more important things. Or we can set the criteria by seeing which things have consensus to be criteria. But such an approach is going to be fought tooth and nail by those who prefer our current system - not least those who know they don't have consensus to get certain things into the criteria, but under the current system they can get the 35% or so needed to block a candidacy. ϢereSpielChequers 07:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Very fair point; such an RfC would have the ultimate consequence of disenfranchising ideas, and by extension those who subscribe to them. To some extent I think this might be good; it would give more efficacy to the community as a whole, rather than over-representing the opposition. Of course, reducing the standard for a passed RfA could work as well, but would face the same opposition. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it disenfranchises them, it just means that instead of needing to persuade 35% of the community to oppose candidates without an FA, those who oppose for lack of an FA would need to get consensus to change the criteria. That shifts the default for additional criteria to requiring consensus to implement instead of requiring consensus to ignore. It also hopefully shifts the debate about criteria from individual RFAs to the RFA criteria page. To my mind that would be a huge step to detoxifying RFA and making it appear less unprofessional. As for disenfranchising people; In the current system there can be a clear majority against adding some new criteria, but long before it has 40% support it is clearly part of the criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I was using it in more of a "looking at the practical effects" sense, but it's a value-loaded term so that might have been a poor wording choice. I basically agree with everything you said in your response, particularly about moving the conversation away from individuals towards the system, which definitely could make the process a bit nicer. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I do agree that RfA has bad PR, and that is the largest reason so few people run though it. But the way that wikipedia works makes it difficult to change. I also agree that lots of non controversial RfAs would help invigorate the system. However, I don't think this solution is different to what already happens. I already go around looking for candidates and them emailing them to talk about RfA. About 50 people in the last year have had an email from me entitled "Got my eye on you". Of that, I nominated about 3. Posting publicly only serves to put extra pressure on the individual and if they turn out to be not up to the task, it's quite unfair on them and can be very demoralising. Overall, I don't think this will really get more than 1 or 2 extra candidates per year, certainly not the 1 per week you're hoping for. Worm^TT(talk) 06:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Re the top post and specifically "When they try and figure out what is broken, they have no answers." There are shedloads of reasons why people consider RFA broken. The problem is getting a large enough consensus to change things. A more realistic sentence would be "When they try and figure out what is broken, there are many many answers, none of which can get consensus." ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  That is essentially what I meant. People suggest problems, but no one can seem to agree on a suggested problem. Hence, no real answers to the question, "why is RfA broken?"—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I still think if you made RfA a vote like ArbCom elections, a lot of the problems would vanish. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• With an election candidates would not know why they were not supported. By contrast the existing RFA process enables people to rebut misconceptions by !voters, and enables candidates who did not succeed to address !voters concerns before they run again. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  They could be designed so that if you oppose, you could give a reason why. That would help the candidate. It would also help filter out the "just because" bad apples. Just a thought.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• In most (all?) free elections today, people have no idea why someone else is voting the way they are. I fail to see why RfA is so incredibly special, so incredibly important, that voters must know why people are supporting or opposing. Even in ArbCom, while there is a period where people can ask questions, there is no open voting. Yet, ArbCom is far, far more powerful than any admin can be. We make RfA a big deal because we allow it to be, not because of the voters. This idea that we have to have reasons shown for supporting or opposing is deeply flawed. We 'accept' it only because it's entrenched. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Because that is exactly what RfA is supposed to not be. From WP:ADMIN: "A discussion (not a vote) takes place for seven days about whether the candidate should become an administrator." and "An uninvolved bureaucrat then determines if there is consensus to approve the request". Consensus means people justify their opinions and try to convince others, not that they get the most votes. The problem is that it has become a vote. We need to define what the community wants as an admin and require people to base their opinion off of that criteria. Imagine what a spectacle AfD would be if we let people vote for any reason they want? "Delete I don't like her music" or "Keep I saw them play in their garage once, it was good." HighInBC 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Right, entrenched. It's amazing we can elect ArbCom without a consensus building system, eh? It's amazing that any country in the free world elects leaders without a consensus system, eh? I say again, we allow RfA to be a cesspool. No reform ever will cause RfA to be an actual consensus building system. It's an utter failure at that, and always will be. Any notion that it is a consensus building system is absolutely laughable, and always has been. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think people don't want to run because it is in fashion to people to yell at admins and blame them for doing their jobs. While much of the community is supportive of the hard work admins do, there is a also a culture of abuse towards admins. When people are unhappy with a given policy, say NPA, and they blame admins for enforcing it. Some people chant "admin abuse" like it is a mantra, others see vast conspiracies of admins protecting each other in dark rooms wearing cloaks. It is a thankless job. I know it makes me want to not be an admin some days. HighInBC 15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• Whole "RfA should be discussion" is quite incompatible with current system where supporters and opposers mostly sit in their separate sections with minimal actual discussion. I think Hammersoft's suggestion has some potential, I have had somewhat similar thoughts myself. While requiring opposes to have a rationale obviously had good intentions originally, and probably means that perfect 99-100% candidates evade a few frivolous opposes, I suspect that it is also one of the reasons why more contentious RfA's are such brutal affairs for candidate.--Staberinde (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  I completely agree that RfA isn't much of a discussion as-is, and that removing reasons while voting might make the process nicer for the candidate. However, wiki history shows that moving from an open to a closed ballot tends to result in more opposition, just without public reason. I bring up the idea every year with the steward elections, but it gets shot down every time because we'd need to set a new passing criteria that is lower than the current 80%. I'm not entirely convinced that the relationship is non-spurious, given that there could have just been social forces within the community that raised opposition as some processes switched ballot type, but it's an interesting concern and one which would need to be taken into account. If anything, the current system creates a kind of social pressure to be on the winning side, and that is removed once you can't see how others have voted. Also worth noting that while I'd say that the current RfA process absolutely is a vote, changing to more of a discussion might not make much of a difference. Again at the global level, requests for global sysop (discussion) and steward elections (votes, albeit open ballot) tend to operate very similarly, with candidates being evaluated on cross-wikiness and experience with advanced permissions in both cases. The discussion format is really only useful for close cases, and I'd say that looking at crat chats here there is absolutely no actual discussion - they usually don't even bring up the specific merit of reasons given for supporting or opposing. TL;DR moving to a strict vote or a strict discussion could seem nice, but it might not have the desired impact or any impact at all. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  Greetings Ajraddatz. If my understanding of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC is correct, assent has been given to expand the discretionary range wherein a bureaucrat may close an RfA as successful from the previous range of 70–75% to the now accepted range of 65–75%. This change is a small step in the right direction in my opinion; away from the hard notion of an 80% passing criteria to a more sensible notion that 65% can be sufficient to pass. I hope it achieves its intended result, and perhaps allays some of your concern mentioned above. Do you feel that it may?--John Cline (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  I'm aware of that change, though the last RfA which was in that range was simply closed as not done without discussion. But my point here is more that vote, no vote, open polling all will probably result in the same thing. The only difference will be closed polling, which will result in less support, and the need to push down the pass mark perhaps even more. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you for your reply Ajraddatz. I understand your comment better because of it, and agree with what you have said. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  While end result is obviously important, the way it is reached will be also relevant for people's willingness to run. Failing RfA due too low support percentage is one thing. Failing it with too low support percentage, while also having all your faults spelled out several dozen times by all kinds of different people, is quite different thing.--Staberinde (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I read this article, which made me think that part of the problem of RfA currently is this pillarisation that has occurred within our community, which seems to divide people so strongly. That makes it very hard to bring people together on what constitutes a good admin. Basically, no matter why you seek the rights, you are guaranteed to lose, because you only fit in 1 or max 2 pillars, which is clearly not fitting well enough into the pillar of the majority of the voters. Good luck finding a fair voting system to work around that problem... (parliamentary representation?) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
• One of the possible solutions is to get a RfC consensus on "Is RfA badly broken and are major steps necessary to fix it?" that specifies that if the RfC consensus passes (w/ the typical 2/3, 3/4 or, hopefully more) that it is a consensus on implementing SOME major change to RfA among a slate to be proposed in the next month -- in other words, the highest vote getting change would have "consensus" even if fewer than 2/3 or even 1/2 supported it. If nearly everyone believes that the current system is wrong, lets replace it even if the particular solution does not have supermajority support. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me as if this thread is developing exactly on the lines I tried to explain in my post above, and in the (snippets of) some other commests I've made on this page over the pastfew days:

'I don't understand why the community refuses to meet the issue head on and constantly buries its head in the sand instead, and continually comes up with other reasons for the dearth in candidates and suggesting solutions for those invented causes.'

'The data mining done at WP:RFA2011 showed however a very interesting trend - the majority of RfA voters are a transient tranche of editors and it is those who vote only once on an RfA, or very rarely, who demand ridiculously high figures of tenure and/or edits, or who make inappropriate or untenable oppose votes. And this kind of thing still continues today.'

'The question is rhetorical because we all know the reason already. [...] Those of us who have been actively canvassing for candidates for years are almost always met with the same answer. It's been flogged to death time and time again by the experts and even invoked an extremely strong comment by our Founder, but for some odd reason, everyone else seems to side-step it - just the way they tiptoe carefully around a pile of dog's mess on the side walk in case it jumps up at them.'

' …preferably 90/500) should be applied to the voters as it is (or similar) on other Foundation projects. It won't keep the regular detractors from voting, but it would certainly keep socks, trolls, and vandals away.'

It seems as if it has to be spelled out: people know that a pile of dog's mess makes a sidewalk unpleasant. They don't do anything about it though. They simply step around it very carefully and then continue strolling along as if it were never there. Very often, even the brush-and-barrow street cleaner wont scrape it up either, preferring to leave it for the road-sweeper truck to come along at night and hose it away.

The trolling and obnoxious voting and commenting on RfA is like the pile of dog's mess, and is the only reason why RfA is such a shitty place. We can't just remain content to allow a few trolls to foul our footpaths and make them a place to avoid, and permit those who are systemically opposed to all things admin to use RfA as their playground. Instead of constantly looking for other reasons how a pile of fecal junk came to be on the pavement, let's simply and freely admit that the dog's mess was left there by a dog, and ban dogs from the sidewalk. Metaphirically, of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We have been making small strides forward of late, and I believe an RfC for a thing as prudent as a 90/500 !voting criteria for RfA/B participants may very well gain consensus if put forward. I will pledge to assist you at least ten hours a week while such an RfC remains open, if you've the strength to give another try; I'd understand if you would instead rather forgo the heaping portion of stress that such efforts too often engender. You mentioned that "other Foundation projects" use 90/500 or similar; it seems our own Arbcom also requires something similar of their voting participants. It is a sensible thing and I believe it is worthwhile to do.--John Cline (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• What you describe as 'sensible' was heavily shot down just six months ago by a 3:1 margin. The idea of their being prerequisites for voting has been floated before this as well, and has never gained traction. It's unlikely it ever will. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

  Thank you Hammersoft. I understand how you arrived at your conclusion; its a fair assessment of the facts at hand. May I ask, however, how do you personally feel about a voting criteria like 90/500 for RfA/Bs? And, do you know of a good reason for requiring tenure for Arbcom voters while practically forbidding the notion when it's coupled with the selection of Admins and Bureaucrats? Personally, I am perplexed by the disparity. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'm against voting requirements in the current system. A few reasons; I saw some extensive data from 2011 that showed that of nearly 1500 voters in RfAs, less than 6% would have failed to meet the 500 metric. The impact in terms of raw numbers is negligible. I've yet to see anything conclusive to show that such contributors are causing problems with RfAs. I've long held that we need an identifiable problem before proposing solutions. There's an automatic presumption here that new editors are bad. I strongly disagree with that notion as it is antithetical to what we are. Since RfA in its current form is not a 'vote', then an editor who shows up here with their very first edit to 'vote' on an RfA might have something useful to contribute. Of course, it might be negative too. But, Wikipedia has been founded upon the principle that we trust people until proven otherwise. You and I are here discussing for that very reason. Without it, we are nothing. Now, if RfA were to become a straight vote, then sure apply some minimal requirements to vote (perhaps the new extended autoconfirmed right). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like it's about 50/50 or maybe 1:2 (more support) if all the "Oppose because I don't see this as a problem" people were convinced that it was a problem; so even if everyone who was convincible changed their minds it might still not pass. (Personally, I find "WP:ANYONECANEDIT" an odd policy to cite in connection with RfA: if it were true that anyone really could do anything here, why do we need Admins at all?). But... (con't...)

• RfA's not really the problem as much as the symptom of the problem, which I see as, the site is getting to be too big to steer always through direct democracy consensus; we need to appoint more representatives who have power to effect direct change. How about a voter-appointed Admin committee who will appoint up to 10 new admins per month? Both the appointed admins and board members would be subject to recall, and the slate of proposed admins would be made public a week before the bit is granted. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do I have this right? You want to fix a voter appointed selection process by putting in place a voter appointed selection process? What problems do you think this will solve again? Not to mention that recall of administrators has been proposed more than 20 times and never succeeded. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hammersoft, can you point us to any RfCs on Rfa/Adminship reform that you have ever supported? (diffs will do); or indeed to any encouraging comments you have ever made on the subjects? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• I will not respond to your comments due to your overtly hostile comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The reason I asked the questions, quite obviously, is that anyone who takes a moment to review discussions around the site on these topics will soon see what true hostility is and where it lies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• In August of 2015, you indicated that you wanted "nothing to do with [me]". Since then, I've intentionally avoided commenting on anything you've said. Your ping comments to me just now prove the wisdom in avoiding you. Following your own advice (#20), I choose not to respond to your overtly hostile comments. I'd prefer not to respond to you at all, but since you pinged me the decent thing to do was at least respond as to why I wasn't responding. I recommend you avoid pinging me in the future, nor indeed responding to any comments I make anywhere, as I offer you the same courtesy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Dull

The word does not sound good, but that's how this page looks like. From a recent scanning of promotion history, there were no bureaucrats promoted since late 2014. There were no RfBs since 2015 and the bureaucrat numbers are on a decline. RfAs don't number as much as it used to before. This year, two RfAs running at the same time are extremely rare, but before, there could be three running at the same time. Is there something with active users, strict requirements and heavy tasks that makes less people attracted to running an RfA for themselves? 49.148.95.70 (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent RFB was in very early 2014. Anyway, in answer to your question, from looking over the archives, I feel as if the standards for adminship have gotten a lot stricter. Many excellent candidates have failed recently because of things that aren't really important. For example, if a candidate had a lack of AFD participation, even if they haven't shown any interest in AFD and thus spending months working there would be a waste of their time, they would most likely be rejected by the community. Meanwhile, possible adminship hopefuls see these kinds of users failing, and feel discouraged to run themselves. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's more tiring to request for separate permissions if one is planning to be an admin but think of not using one or two tools. 49.148.95.70 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's dull, 49.148.95.70, brcause you and others keep repeating the same stuff and asking the same questions. It's dull because we're fed up with comments from block-evading IPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It is repetitive, I am aware of it. But I'm not evading a block. (Try CU.) I have read the longer discussions above, and looks like Biblio's comments on RfA reform has led the process to the wrong direction. Let's try forming another solution by looking into the first problems, instead of talking fruitlessly about a recurring solution-turned-problem. 49.148.95.70 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

If the same questions keep coming up, why don't you or someone else who has been active in these discussions for years make a summary page and clearly link to it here? That might help focus discussion towards future solutions, rather than rehashing old ones. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

In contrast to the lack of administrators, nobody managed to demonstrate that we currently need more crats. I am sure if this need arises we will get candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

This is especially true given the removal of renaming from the 'crat package. All they do these days is manage sysop and bot rights, so there really is no need for more than a few. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as a Wikidata crat I have some understanding of the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

When you click 'edit' on this page, thee's a big yellow banner... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I am ashamed of how few of those banners I actually read. Regardless, there is a search box and links to old RfCs, but it might be beneficial to have a page which more clearly lays out the history, rather than simply providing links and a box for people to find it out themselves. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)