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: 15:44:00, 16 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

Some good news

I have some fairly good news after reviewing some statistics. For the first time since 2007 into 2008, the number of active administrators has grown substantially over the last four months. Between November 2016 and February 2017, we've went from an all-time low (for WP:LA's standards) of 516 active administrators in October to almost 570+ during this four-month span. A consecutive four-month span in the number of administrators growing hasn't occurred in nearly ten years. Wikipedia topped out on the number of participating administrators in February 2008 at 1,016 (the last time we saw four+ months of gain), collapsed, and went as low as 516 by 2016. I have some working theories as to why we've seen so much activity recently during these months, but nonetheless, we should at least enjoy this brief spurt of positivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• As the saying goes, there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. Sure, there's reason to be hopeful, but take it with a large grain of salt. For whatever reason the period November 1 to March 1 of most cycles shows an increase in active admins, and if there is a decline, it's usually very modest. Whereas, the rest of the sustaining pattern from 2007 forward shows a long, long pattern of decline. Minor ups/downs are going to happen within the pattern. This is a very, very limited data set but the increase we are seeing so far is inside of one st. dev. Thus, this is pretty much an expected result. A bit of a high roll, but within the expected range. If we'd increased by more than a hundred, then we'd be juuust beginning to get into three sigma land. We saw a flurry of passing RfAs to start off the year, but minor blips like that are going to happen. What is more important is the overall decline. We saw peak admins in February of 2008. Since then, we've lost 44% of our active admin corps. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Classic RFA response. Take good news with a big helping of cynicism and see if the good news is still good in comparison. "Something that hasn't happened in ten years isn't significant since we began our decline ten years ago." No wonder everyone gave up on reform. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Moe, my comment wasn't to criticize. In any long pattern minor blips are going to happen. Based on the data, this is a minor blip that falls into the first standard deviation...i.e. where the majority of the blips are going to lay. This isn't unusual. It's at the high end of the first st. dev., but it's not unusual. Here's another blip; the number of active admins declined on March 1st by 8. This is THE largest single day drop in at least two years. Is this cause for panic? Should we presume this decline sets the new pattern and we will run out of admins by mid-May? Of course not. The same applies to this upward blip. It's just a blip. Nothing more. Yet. As I noted, there is reason to be hopeful. Please don't criticize someone for raising statistical reality. It just is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• The question I would ask is what is meant by "active". Alive? Doing 4 or 5 actions a year? Or continually working on Admin. stuff? If this is a simple headcount of all qualified admins, including those quasi-dormant or catatonic, it does not inform in a very useful way. Leaky Caldron 09:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• As I specified in my original comment, it's by what WP:LA considers active. If you need the specific wording, it's mentioned under each heading. Whether that is an accurate measure of "active" for you or any other person isn't really of concern because it has consistently collected this data for over a decade under the same parameters. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• WP:LA says "Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months." That's a weak measure of useful work done. It might help to have some overall stats on admin-specific activity like blocks, deletions and protects. Is that up or down? Too high or too low? Anyway, FWIW, I just noticed some vandalism at the article gossip – a fake source that I noticed while adding a real one. I fixed that without any admin activity being generated. I could have logged it and maybe an admin would have clicked up some edits investigating, but I doubt that this would have been productive as the vandal used an IP address. What we should be measuring is the extent to which the encyclopedia is being built. Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: What does "being built" mean, though? That's just a common "content creator vs. administrative work" argument. My OTRS responsibilities aren't "building" anything, but they are engaging with the community, potentially helping others build the encyclopedia, covering our asses so we don't get sued on copyright violations, etc. All very useful work. My work at SPI isn't "building" anything, but it's preventing it from being torn down by sockmasters. Both content creation and administration are necessary for the encyclopedia to exist. You'd have to explain your metric of "built" in great detail to convince me it's better than edits or actions (though I agree 30 edits is far too low a bar. It should at least raise to 30 edits and 1 admin action). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• My point, valid I think, is that it proves nothing quantifiable about Admin. activity. An Admin. "actively" editing articles is no more active than an Admin. making a once a year action to keep their mop wet, or for that matter, a prolific content creator who is not a Admin. or for that matter me, who does sod all. Active admins should be measured (if we really must) by the quantity of their Admin. work. Otherwise it is a measure of, well, nothing useful really. Leaky Caldron 21:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Moe. That is good news indeed and very encouraging, and I am happy to hear it! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's exactly as Moe Epsilon describes it: a 'brief spurt of positivity', endorsed by another user's comment of '...a minor blip.' The occurrence of new 'promotions' is so low that stats are as meaningless as the sightings of whales in the River Severn at Worcester. And as BU Rob13 implies, the metric we've been using for years to characterise an 'active' admin are ridiculously low. The truth is that interest in all maintenance areas of Wikipedia is demonstrably on the wane - 340 New Page Reviewers created in the last 4 months and the backlog is still rising? I see an old fashioned hat rack bending under the strain... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I thank Anna for being the only one here for looking at a bright side. Maybe I made this post, most importantly, to point out that while we are looking at a clear four-month pattern of interest and activity on Wikipedia, that maybe it will generate some more candidates at RFA if you look hard enough. Where there are editors, there are potential administrators to promote. This page is not about statistics, measures of activity or whales in the River Severn at Worcester. It's about looking for potentially good administrators, is it not? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Statistics is not my strong suit. But I do understand "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." Whatever the reason or background we are experiencing a modest uptick in admin activity. Let us step back for just a moment from our customary perma-gloom and be happy. And maybe while we are at it, we can throw out a thank you to a handful of admins who have been actively recruiting new RfA candidates. Just a thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Thank you to those who actively get out their and recruit (you know who you are). That seems to be the single greatest source of admins. Maybe we ought to start a formal recruiting program, like in the army. We could promise some sort of engineering degree that would lead to a part-time job afterward. :) Seriously, maybe we need a recruiting team. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... its a thought. How about some recruiting slogans. Here are a few we could try...

"Be all you can be, as an Admin!"

"The few, the proud, the Admins!"

"Become an Admin and see the world!"

"Wikipedia wants YOU to be an Admin!"

And for our British editors... "For Queen and Wiki!"

I'm not sure how original those are but anyhow... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You missed the obvious "Become an admin and get a SVG of a crappy T-shirt" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• We should only have one admin and it should rotate to editors in alphabetical order by username for one-week blocks. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• My sockpuppets at usernames AAA1-AAA1000 will enjoy a lengthy reign! Look upon me and despair! --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, those are all great! Do we have some sort of recruiting poster? We could make one. I've been posting this all over the place for a year. Could that have a poster? And seriously, has Wikipedia ever had an admin recruiting program with a poster and a bunch of editors like us who got out there and, well, drew attention to the need? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:RFA wants you! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: The (I'm hoping) intentional typo is hilarious. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup - though that might have been better for copy edit recruiting :D — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad poster. However, it does sort of say "Come take this lousy, boring job becasue nobody else wants to do it."

Couldn't we have an Unclesamesque poster that makes it sound like adminship is all about glory, prestigue, obscene power, and the freedom to walk all over others? Would potential candidates be gullible enough to buy that? If so, perfect! They run, they pass, we shove a stenchy mop at them, the ether wears off, then it's too late. They have to get to work, suffering years and years of tedium until they get all snarky and burn out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

All we have to do is point out that you'll inevitably burn out as an admin, and that going that way is by far the best option. We all know it's better to burn out than to fade away. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup. Or become a 'crat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

@Blade, we have pretty good retention of admins. Maybe not as good as for editors who have crossed the 200,000 edit barrier, but far from an inevitable burn out as an admin. The real question should be does RFA predict that people will probably be around long term, or does it cause people to be around long term. If the latter is true it becomes another reason to appoint more admins; If it isn't that could be even more interesting. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think Moe Epsilon misunderstands my analogy to the marine animals that may or may not dwell in the rivers that run near my home town, and that's why I wouldn't use them to base any arguments as to the quality of the other fish that are in them. What has escaped Moe - and there is no reason why he should know - is that in the background I'm possibly one of the handful of users most actively recruiting for RfA candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the bureaucrats maintain the existing private mailing list for matters not suitable for on-wiki discussion?

Interested parties are invited to comment here. –xeno^talk 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seeing this, my initial reaction is: duh; on me of course, for I would have thought such a private means for communication already did exist. Being wrong, I unequivocally say that we most certainly should. Accolades to xeno for bringing attention to this question.--John Cline (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo, John Cline- the 'here' xeno mentioned is a wikilink for Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Community_Discussion; not actually here, I think :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input John Cline. Please comment at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Community Discussion - to clarify we already do have a list, but there are some bureaucrats who feel that it is no longer serving a useful purpose. –xeno^talk 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  I admit first believing comments in support of the proposal belonged here. Upon realizing the discussion's actual link, I decided the comment should remain for the kudos it was intended to carry; I believe they are due and their threaded existence on this page is therefore not misplaced after all. I did append support in the linked discussion as well, leaving all mention of gratitude here, where, it turns out, a better fit with less collateral distraction exists overall. Thanks for looking out all the same.--John Cline (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

TBH I don't think this discussion is relevant to anyone who isn't a bureaucrat. Thanks for being open about this purported mailing list's meaningless existence though. Deryck C. 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:rfplinks

It has just occured to me that we use the rfplinks template for all the lower permisssions such as rollback and autopatrolled, but not here. For those unfamiliar with it it works like this:

Beeblebrox (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb)}

I can't think of any reason we wouldn't want to use it here when it is used in request for permissions with far less potential for damage. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No loud objections from me, but the template overlaps with {{RfA toolbox}} and {{usercheck-short}}, which we already use on RfA pages:

Links for Beeblebrox: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could integrate the functionality of the two for use here? Obviously we don't need the "assign permission" link, but the links to edit analysis tools could be very helpful in informing RFA particpants. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good to me too. If there are any helpful tools in {{rfplinks}} that aren't in the toolbox, I would be happy with combining them. Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Graveyard RfAs

We have a lot of unclosed RfAs sitting around doing not a lot, that are unlikely to go live any time soon, if indeed, ever. These are:

The only one I would pause on is OnBeyondZebrax, who I've seen working on articles I'm interested in. I don't think he's got any serious interest in being an admin, but it might not be a SNOW / NOTNOW. As for the rest - not a hope in hell.

Any objections to deleting them per WP:CSD#G6? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion I had no idea we had so many bad-faith, never finished RfAs. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all - All of them are just crap from newbies. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd suggest keeping any that transcluded properly (are there? -I checked a few at random, and mostly not, I believe)- but dumping the rest, as if it hasn't ttranscluded then strictly it's not even an actual 'RfA.' — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

None of them have ever transcluded. What you might be thinking of is the timer template (which stamps itself as now + 168 hours the minute you uncomment it, hence you need to do it after transclusion to ensure the full week is run properly) - even if it that was done, nobody would notice. Anything that gets transcluded onto WP:RFA will get picked up immediately. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion - I suggest notifying any non-blocked users who have been active in, say, the last 180 days, in case they've just forgotten about them and want them WP:REFUNDed. I speedied one which was for a vanished user under their former name, and I would defer to OnBeyondZebrax's preference regarding his own, otherwise nuke the lot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all - although I agree with Ivan notify those who have been active but other than that get rid of the lot, no point them sitting around if nothing's going to ever happen with them. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd quite like to keep the one (can't remember which) who replied to question 3 about the time he had edit conflicts in the Mediawiki software and tag it with {{humour}} myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Heh :) someone the other day was edit-warring with a bot, and 'moaned' at the bot's rudeness and incivility in not going to talk where they had indeed started the discussion! All good fun in an innocent kind of way. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 19:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Scumella2 appears to have been written by Donald Trump Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

And quote-! #FakeRfA- Sad! :D — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 19:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 - I had only clicked on 3 random ones and they seemed bare, ofcourse if there are any humourous ones then I have no objections to them being kept :), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion providing the user hasn't been active recently (180 days, as suggested above, is fine). Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like consensus. I've started going through and deleting the obvious ones that haven't been active in years. If any other admins want to join in the "fun", please do. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/13jospin, incidentally, has just been banned from at least two other websites that I know of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Isn't this the sort of thing that should be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? I don't see a need to keep these around either, but there are established processes for deleting pages, which I would expect folks that hang around at WT:RFA would be familiar with. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working based on the instructions on WP:RFA that say "RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Most of these do seem to be uncontroversial deletions, being incomplete and untranscluded, although possibly not all (for example, I spotted at least one that has opposes in it). --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete all Each and every candidate has the opportunity to re-apply, in earnest, if they would ever like to request the tools. Mkdw ^talk 22:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• CSD G6 I have slapped CSD tags on most of them. There were a few exceptions. One has already been sent to MfD and a couple looked like they had (partially?) transcluded and or there was at least one legitimate !vote. But most are just sitting around collecting cyberdust and are obvious candidates foe speedy deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Batch deleted whatever you tagged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy

I want our bureaucrats to explain why Godsy's ended in no consensus, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy. I am not looking for answers like WP:DROPTHESTICK. This had 1% more support than GoldenRing and many opposes were due to self-nomination. Bureaucrats considered self-nomination as a good oppose, while lack of experience as weak oppose. --Marvellous Spider-Man 05:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

+1. I'd love an explanation of that one that doesn't involve bureaucrats applying their personal beliefs on what is weak or strong, especially given that almost all supports on Godsy explicitly said the self-nom opposes were awful (more emphatically than the supports discounted the opposes in the GoldenRing RfA). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The bureaucrats are not a monolithic group, we are a collection of individuals, so we each have our own explanation of how we determine RFAs to have consensus or not. So I can only provide my own reasoning. But it's going to be pretty much the same thing I said here. I found enough opposes to be strong enough to wrest consensus from the supports. Hence my assessment that Godsy's RFA had no consensus. I know @BU Rob13: specifically asked for an explanation that doesn't involve weighing supports/opposes, but sorry, Rob, I can't help you there. To @Marvellous Spider-Man:, regarding your statement of "Bureaucrats considered self-nomination as a good oppose, while lack of experience as weak oppose," I cannot speak for any of the other bureaucrats, but I can tell you that that is not true of me. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I did not ask for that. I asked for an explanation that does not involve imposing personal opinions over the opposes. There's a huge difference between weighing supports/opposes according to community norms and weighing supports/opposes based on which a closer personally agree with. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

See, I don't think you'll receive such an explanation. Most Wikipedia processes do involve a bit of "weighing" and since RfA is more free form than say AfD where there are a dozen policies to consider, weighing of opinions happens. In fact I've always assumed that the high thresholds of RfB exist exactly because of this wide latitude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The bureaucrats do their best to interpret the community's opinions. It's not really surprising that an RFA with a lot of both supports and opposes was closed as "no consensus"; it's more surprising when occasionally that doesn't happen. I don't believe that self-nomination is a good reason to oppose, but since some others do, Godsy can always decide try again after a while, and ask one of the editors at Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination for a nomination.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

At which point this previous "failed" RfA will be held against them. Which is why a coherent explanation now would be welcome. Reyk _YO! 14:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, the problem here is that we are not talking from a common premise. I could give an explanation, which to my mind would be "weighing supports/opposes according to community norms", but that you would say was "weighing supports/opposes based on which [I] personally agree with". I don't see a way around that. I think it is a "community norm" that general experience concerns (whilst valid, no one has suggested discounting them altogether) are less weighty than opposition based on actual errors in the application of policy (shown through patterns of past edit / answer to questions) or misconduct/temperament issues. You disagree - you think it's just my personal opinion. Having done this for a number of years, I can say that it's a curious feature that those who agree with a bureaucrat determination tend to think we did our jobs properly, while those who disagree tend to think that we ran away with our own ideas/opinions of the candidate. If it helps, I can say that I would have virtually no regard whatsoever for an oppose on the basis of the nomination being a self-nom, which I think is clear from the Godsy bureaucrat discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you and Nihonjoe voted no consensus for Godsy Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat, while voted "consensus to promote" GoldenRing. If I am correct GoldenRing made self-nomination like Godsy. I never voted in any Bureaucrat election. Bureaucrats are chosen, as they are trusted. Some people saw self-nomination in Godsy's RFA, but they couldn't see self-nomination in GoldenRing's RFA. I don't have much problem with GoldenRing's successful RFA, but I hope in future, hard-working and experienced editors with clean block log are not too much scrutinized in their RFAs. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

With regards to your last sentence, bureaucrats have zero control over how the community chooses to scrutinize a particular candidate. Acalamari 15:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

RfBs are held far less frequently than RfAs. The last one was Xaosflux's (a self-nom ) in early July 2016. Your account was created the month before, so you may not have even known about it. But they aren't "chosen", and as for trust, admins are elected because they are trusted too. The standards for electing the two are different and, often, editors look for slightly different things in evaluating them. As for the 'crat consensus here, I disagree with it, and whether you believe me or not, not simply because I opposed GR. That said, I don't see how 'crats can evaluate any RfA without weighing the votes. This was a tough task, and I respect the efforts the crats put into it to try to do as fair a job as they could. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I think any less of them, collectively or individually.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any bureaucrats considering "self-nomination as a good oppose" in the Godsy bureaucrat chat, quite the oppose. –xeno^talk 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• In order to pass at RfB Bureacrats are held to the highest standards currently practiced on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should regard them a bit like an Upper House in a bicameral democracy (although that is probably a poor analogy). Just because some individuals may disagree with results of their 'Crat Chats, I think its poor form to criticize their decisions either as a group or any one member of the Bureaucrat group. We should respect the role we've elected them to and move on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • So what you're saying is that Bureaucrats are above criticism? Reyk _YO! 17:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that, Reyk, but taking things out of context leaves one open to criticism - don't you think? That is a rhetorical question - WP:DTS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Asking for explanation to an apparent disconnect between two similar instances is nowhere near the same as criticism. It is what we should expect from our "elected" officials. Telling someone to drop the stick is tantamount to an attempt to suppress discussion and openness amongst Wikipedians and administrative personnel. --Majora (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You said, "I think its poor form to criticize their decisions either as a group or any one member of the Bureaucrat group". How else shall that be interpreted, other than that you think bureaucrats shouldn't be criticised? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? Under what circumstances do you feel bureaucrats' decisions are open to scrutiny? Not this one, clearly. But which ones then? Reyk _YO! 19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• I don't have anything to add to my comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Likewise, — xaosflux ^Talk 21:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  We're trying to figure out how GoldenRing succeeded while Godsy failed. I've already advised two potential RfA candidates to stop editing in difficult (or anything-that-requires-a-brain, really) areas, skip over anything that isn't 100% unambiguous to avoid the trivial mistakes that led to Godsy's opposes, and dedicate their time instead to studying the answers of previous successful RfAs. If that is not the message we should be taking away from these two crat chats, bureaucrats should speak up quickly, because it certainly looks like the only sensible message to take away. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  No, it isn't the message. And I hope those potential RFA candidates are smart enough to read over the two discussions and come to their own conclusion. WJBscribe (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Certainly seems like the message. Go nowhere near any contention whatsoever. Interact with no one. Never edit enough to get into any disputes at all. Mistakes tank RfAs so do everything in your power to avoid any situations that might even lead to one. If you can answer the questions in a semi-coherent manner you are golden. --Majora (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  RfA candidates don't want to find themselves in the position of Godsy or GoldenRing. They're not looking for a knife-edge result that leads to all the bureaucrats congregating scratching their heads to work out whether a consensus is there. Trying to emulate either of those editors would be mistake. I've seen plenty of RfAs sail through from people who have made mistakes, owned up to them and addressed them. So I think the conclusion is flawed anyway. But advising people to replicate GoldenRing's editing patterns to pass RfA is bad advice. His RfA showed that such editing patterns might just be enough. But there are better ways to pass RfA, if that's your goal... WJBscribe (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Majora and BU Rob13: Why don't you take it up with all of the support !voters? Because the 'crats didn't decide that 'message'. The voters did. Quit blaming them. Their only job was to weigh the consensus. They couldn't throw it away outright because of the 'message it would send.'--v/r - TP 23:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Actually the 'crats decided which messages they were going to weight more and which ones they were going to discard. Seeing as they are the ones that flip the switches around here they would be the ones I would want to talk to. And, lets get this absolutely clear here. I am not blaming them. I am asking for clarification so I can participate in future RfAs with the knowledge of what is useful and what is pointless. Your assumption that I am blaming them is incorrect. --Majora (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  No, and that's about the most disingenuous comment I've ever seen. Let's try this again. "The 'crats decided that they couldn't ignore a supermajority and that a supermajority firmly rejected a minority viewpoint." That one sounds more honest. If you were only interested because of future participation, then your comment wouldn't be full of accusations about the message they're (not) sending. Either go back and start over, or explain your aggression. Because they don't deserve it. If you want to be pissed off at anyone, face the community. Blaming the 'crats is a cowardly way of avoiding the people who really did send a message.--v/r - TP 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  Bravo. Not only putting words in my mouth but reading my mind! Why even have a conversation at all if you can do that? Now see, that was snarky. That was aggressive. That was disingenuous. My actual point is what I said it was and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to discern my ideas and my thoughts as, as far as I know, reading minds if impossible. If you are reading pissed off in my request for clarification that is your problem. Not mine. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  If you agree that anger and snarkiness aren't needed and that it is disruptive, I invite you to retract this comment and try to engage with the 'crats a bit more collaboratively.--v/r - TP 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)As I !voted in the GR RfA, I recused from the closing/chat - and have not put in the hour(s) of time it would take to analyze that discussion (and don't really intend too). From a general RfA trend: editors that both contribute encyclopedic content and participate in some back-of-the-house areas generally have the most community support for adminship. Personally, I feel that avoiding recent bold edits to contentious topics would be helpful for those wishing to become admins as they will likely get less opposition (which can reduced not by avoiding the topic completely - but by being slightly less bold and starting proposing updates on discussion pages first). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• "I want our bureaucrats to explain" - What a self-righteous and arrogant start to a demand. The only real answer here is "go fuck yourself". But the generous answer is that each RfA is judged on a case-by-case basis and in isolation to the rest. It's impossible to compare two RfAs. If it were easy, we wouldn't need a discretionary range - or crats for that matter.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  Please be civil. Jonathunder (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TParis Please civil and polite in your replies. When I said I am not looking for answers like dropthestick, I didn't mean this type of replies. There are many similarities between the two RFAs. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Civility is more than just avoiding 4-letter words. Just because you haven't dropped an f-bomb doesn't mean you haven't been incredibly uncivil and rude. So don't expect me to retract my comments. Between the two of us, I'm polite.--v/r - TP 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Please remember that you are an administrator. By the way I am not going to get provoked. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I think WJBscribe made a good point in response to judging between "community norms" versus personal beliefs. The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become a Wikipedia administrator (WP:ADMIN#Becoming an administrator). There are no documented "community norms" for becoming an administrator beyond what individual users personally believe to be community norms. As a result, when an RfA within the discretionary zone heads to bureaucrat discussion, the job of assessing a consensus becomes difficult. We don't want administrators to be selected based on a numerical vote; we want RfAs to be decided based on "the strength of rationales presented" (WP:RFA#Discussion, decision, and closing procedures). Yet unlike closing something like an RfC or an AfD, bureaucrats have no official standards that would inform their decision.
  Instead, they are left to make a judgment based on their own experience, having observed and judged RfAs in the past. I'm afraid it may be more of a "feeling" thing than a "knowing" thing. The way we've designed the system (i.e. with no official documentation in policy of what community standards for adminship are), I think WJBscribe's observation that those who voted the same way the bureaucrats decided tend to think we did our jobs properly, while those who voted the opposite way tend to think that we ran away with our own ideas/opinions of the candidate makes sense. The editors who are making the arguments that the bureaucrats are saying "weigh less" or are "weaker" will obviously disagree with them about it. Perhaps there is an underlying structural issue here, rather than an individual issue with the bureaucrats. Speaking as a user who voted the wrong way at both Godsy and GoldenRing's RfAs, I think they did the best they could under the circumstances. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA post GoldenRing

I'm starting a separate section as I'd like to hear from bureaucrats and others about RfA in the post-GoldenRing wiki-world. This is not to disregard the questions about the outcomes for Godsy and GoldenRing, but to explore in another direction. I start this conversation as someone who did not !vote in the GR RfA but who has concerns about content-writing experience for admins and who was uncomfortable with some of what I read in the GR 'crat chat and on its associated talk page. A few relevant points, as I see them:

• Lowering the discretionary range was a response to the trend towards unreasonable expectations from some RfA !voters, and the risk was that it would make some !voters more likely to oppose – and I wonder whether the GR RfA will have this effect.
• Most RfAs are clear-cut and 'crat chats occur only in cases where there can be reasonable disagreement about consensus, and in the remaining cases our highly respected 'crat team typically comes to a decision which most will accept, even if they disagree.
• The level of harsh criticism in the GR case is unusual and the tone of some of it unfortunate. Our 'crats are human and can make mistakes and certainly are open to criticism and critique, but only reasoned discussion is likely to be productive going forward and I ask that this discussion be kept civil and collegial.
• WJBscribe commented on the relative weight of opposes based on specific concerns / incidents v. those of general inexperience. My view (with which he may disagree, I may be misinterpreting him) of what he meant:
  • Editor A: 10,000 edits, 2,000 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
  • Editor B: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
  • Editor C: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - opposes based on general inexperience but no specific incidents / mistakes raised

I think WJBscribe was saying that the specific issues raised against A and B would sink their RfAs (and thus be seen as having more weight in influencing !voters) than general concerns about inexperience, especially in the case of A where the inexperience claim appears weaker. By contrast, while C might not pass with the concerns of inexperience, the RfA would be less likely to collapse in the way B's would. This does not mean that inexperience is not a valid concern about C and a reasonable basis for opposition, but that the greater effect on consensus of concerns in the A and B cases means those sorts of concerns attract greater weight in a 'crat chat as they are typically more influential on consensus in a clear-cut RfA.

• I am concerned, however, that the message from the GR 'crat chat might be that !voters with general inexperience concerns which they see as disqualifying for adminship will now seek additional, more specific grounds for opposition in order to have greater influence if a 'crat chat becomes necessary.
• I am also concerned that !voters wavering about their decision may be more inclined to oppose out of a fear of borderline candidates being promoted after a 'crat chat because the decision might be based more on the opinions of participating 'crats rather than on their reading of the RfA consensus.

Is anyone else concerned that the fallout from the GR RfA might be a hardening of opposition, frustrating the reasons for the lowering of the discretionary range? How should general inexperience concerns best be expressed, if they can be seen as less persuasive reasons for opposition when the !voter sees them as sufficient to be disqualifying on their own? Would it be helpful for the 'crats to add some details on what is / is not seen as persuasive / relevant / trivial etc. in evaluating RfA consensus at a 'crat chat? Are there other concerns which anyone would like to share / express about future RfAs as a consequence of recent events? EdChem (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm concerned. It's simply kinder to say your lack of edits don't give me basis to support you, than dumpster diving, and trawling, and making them look bad. (You missed another that the Crat advice was to ask them questions about their lacking - maybe you might trip them up, one supposes - it all is required to become intensely adversarial). It's hard enough on the candidate that the message is the trust is not there, but to have to go on and on about it, is a whole other level. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If the community did not want candidates promoted who achieved a two-thirds super-majority, then why was the discretionary range lowered? Unless a bureaucrat has a reason to significant weight the support section lower (said adjustments bringing it below the discretionary range), seeing a candidate promoted that had over 66.6% support should not be seen as some unexpected power-play event. –xeno^talk 23:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If I recall correctly it was the Crats who made up the idea of a discretionary zone and generally set it at 70-75 (although once they may have dipped to 69 and another time a bit lower) - when in fact, the Crats actually have unlimited discretion no matter the total. WP:CONSENSUS actually prizes as close to 100% agreement as possible, and admins who are as close to universally trusted as possible have advantages - the Rfc did lower from 70 to 65, but 30% to 35% is still a significant disagreement/distrust. (Also, I don't think EdChem said anything about power play). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'd like to note that I have tried not to characterise the exercise of discretion seen in the GR RfA CratChat, and am asking about how is might impact on future RfAs. I recognise that the 'crat community has been heavily criticised, both collectively and with comments directed at individuals, which is one reason I sought to separate this discussion from the one immediately above it. There is no doubt that the bureaucrats have the discretion to make decisions on cases like this, and the holding of CratChats on-wiki with others able to comment on the talk page is an excellent example of open decision making. There are legitimate grounds to question discretionary decisions (even though the civility has been disappointing in this case) but that is not the purpose of this thread, so I ask that you recognise that I made no claim of a power play having occurred. I welcome your comments on evaluating consensus, though (if I understand your comment correctly) I am surprised to learn that a 2/3 majority based on !vote count leads directly to promotion unless there is a reason to underweight the support section. Would you comment on circumstances where the oppose section might be overweighted and thus detract from the 2/3 majority, or where a lack of consensus is found around the 2/3 support mark? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As a note on the second to last bullet point, I can confirm that I will be doing just that. Normally, when someone new and relatively inexperienced comes to RfA, I try to oppose with "kiddie gloves" on. I don't look for detailed opposition reasons because I think the lack of record is enough unto itself. A more detailed opposition would just discourage an editor who could make a fine admin in the future, and no-one wants that, including myself. When I was operating under the assumption that 'crats would honor concerns about experience, there was no benefit to tearing apart an unsuitable candidate, and so I've never done that. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Since the 'crats do not appear to weight concerns about experience very highly, I will have to be more detailed, digging into contribution histories extensively and laying out every poor edit the candidate has made. I'll have to ask more difficult questions that I'd normally leave unasked because I think the record speaks for itself that the candidate would not know the answer. There's really no alternative when that's the only type of opposition that the bureaucrats will consider "strong". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion showing that feelings are running high but not really addressing BU Rob13's point that the GR RfA will alter his style when !voting on candidates he sees as having inadequate experience. Please can we keep this a discussion and avoid arguing and posts which degenerate towards fights? Please... EdChem (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"when someone new and relatively inexperienced comes to RfA, I try to oppose" - See, that's your problem. You should give each candidate the benefit of the doubt before you decide to oppose.--v/r - TP 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I'm glad we're at the level of discourse that includes pulling quotes out of context. Requiring a record that allows me to evaluate performance is not an unreasonable criterion for adminship. I've edited 40 RfA pages, according to my RfA stats. I've opposed only 6. I'm hardly the face of the "typical" opposition. ~ Rob13Talk 00:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC) If you want to be treated like you're a good-intentioned Wikipedian with the benefit of the project in mind, why not first offer that to the 'crats? Because this comment doesn't give them a whole lot of credit. You can offer criticism without all of the doomsday predictions and the RfA manipulation rhetoric. Wikipedians made those calls, not the 'crats. They did their job well.--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC) It's not a doomsday prediction. It's an accurate description of the optimal strategy to pass an RfA given apparent community standards and how the crats are weighing votes. If you think the result is doomsday, then you should be as concerned as others are. I'm just trying to understand what happened, because I most certainly do not as-is. ~ Rob13Talk 01:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I don't think the result is doomsday. I think you're overreacting and you're directing your fears and anger at the 'crats because you didn't get your way. I really doubt I'm the only one questioning previous esteemed respect for you. Not because you're questioning how the 'crats came to the conclusion they did. But because you're blaming them for your fear that this will be the collapse of RfA standards.--v/r - TP 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC) That is not accurate. If anything, I think standards just went up and RfA just became a nastier place. Due to uncertainty over how bureaucrats will consider different opposing arguments, those who oppose are now going to be pushed to oppose as thoroughly as possible with as many reasons as they can possibly dig up instead of pulling punches to avoid biting premature admin candidates. That's a major concern of mine. Separately, I simply don't believe the bureaucrats assessed consensus properly, especially in light of the Godsy result. I was largely silent after the Godsy result, which I also didn't agree with, because I trusted that the bureaucrats applied the same standards they usually do and the discussion didn't have quite enough to get in the goal. Here, the goal moved. ~ Rob13Talk 01:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC) If you wanted to wait 3 months, find people quoting "the GoldenRing RfA" as a reason they're opposing so strongly and then come back and tell us you think this decision sent a bad message then we wouldn't have an issue. Instead, you're imagining all sorts of terrible futures before they even have happened. 'Crats don't have a precedent to follow. It is impossible to compare one RfA to another. And even if it could be done, the community itself isn't required to treat two RfA candidates fairly or evenly. It is out of the 'crats hands. They cannot change the result of an RfA just because the community acted differently a different time. In this case, a super-majority developed that directly opposed the primary concerns of the oppose !voters. Each RfA is it's own case. And, frankly, your manipulation strategies have only hinted that I should review your future noms with skepticism. Even if you had those ideas, you're really doing a disservice to your nominations by sharing them.--v/r - TP 01:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC) What incredible hypocrisy by someone that said You should give each candidate the benefit of the doubt before you decide to oppose. just an hour ago. Saying that any Wikipedian should not share their thoughts on a matter is, again, tantamount to stifling discussion. Something that should be shunned by any editor. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, please, don't let me stifle discussion. When the finger pointing stops and the discussion starts, please invite me. I'd love to participate in a real discussion about shifting community norms. But this farce about how the 'crats are ruining RfA is a joke.--v/r - TP 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC) (edit conflict)"Manipulation strategies"? It's not manipulation to note that the community in the Godsy RfA more wholeheartedly rejected the oppose reasons (to the extent that many voted purely citing the horrible opposes). It's not manipulation to note that the support percentage was higher for the Godsy RfA, indicating a smaller percentage of editors agreed with the opposes. It's not manipulation to note that your claim that the community acted differently is correct only insofar as that they supported Godsy to a greater extent by any metric. ~ Rob13Talk 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) This is called manipulation: "I've already advised two potential RfA candidates to stop editing in difficult areas, skip over anything that isn't 100% unambiguous to avoid the trivial mistakes that led to Godsy's opposes, and dedicate their time instead to studying the answers of previous successful RfAs." That is manipulation through and through.--v/r - TP 01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I would be doing a disservice to those candidates if I did not factor in new information on how RfA results are determined when offering advice. Do you suggest I pretend this RfA didn't happen? I will not. ~ Rob13Talk 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I supported GR for his intelligent and in some cases unique answering style, his lack of behavioural issues, his evident lack of trophy hunting, and the fact that he has held tenure since 2004. GR was a lurker pas excellence, quietly learning the way the community runs, and mildly asking 13 years after regestering, if he can be of service. This was a unique RfA. I do not see this as some kind of year zero. If anything, it makes the RfA experience more sophisticated and more nuanced, both for candidate and !voter. The crats made an excellent and enlightened decision in my opinion. The community as a whole conducted this RfA with maturity and dignity. I think it is the future. Good. Irondome (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I know that you and I have been discussing this elsewhere, and we respect each other's differing views, but I really don't think it's a good idea to advocate for the wikt:throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick approach. You may not be advertising your intent to employ that method, but the WP:BEANS factor alone is probably detrimental. To me, this whole premise implies that some voters will now, as a direct result of GoldenRing's RfA, be hatching a slew of tenuous "oppose" reasons to bolster their organic rationales. I'm not a fan of that "prediction". You contend that the bureaucrats have overstepped their discretion, and in order to stop unsuitable candidates being promoted by way of supervotes, we must bombard the crats with so many different points of opposition that they can't possibly nullify all of them. That just seems like immensely disproportionate pushback against something that isn't unprecedented and hasn't yet had any negative repercussions. If you have many concerns about a candidate that all reflect poorly on their eligibility, you should always share them, regardless of the user's tenure on the site. If you have one main objection, I think fluffing it up with paragraphs of niggling criticism on a diff-by-diff basis actually weakens the main argument. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to present the one-liner rationale of "not enough record to evaluate", but if I cannot, I must dig through the record and find specific weaknesses. That means bringing up things that I normally would leave unsaid because I don't think saying them adds anything to the oppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure everything that's worth saying has already been said, so I don't see a need to rehash the debate on what constitutes a valid oppose reason. I would just caution against taking out our dissatisfaction on the next poor sap who requests the admin tools in good faith. RfA should never be an us vs. them endeavor (whoever "they" are); we're all just trying to achieve what's best for the project. The next candidates will have had no control over the fate of GoldenRing's RfA, and shouldn't be dealt unduly aggressive criticism. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it puts concerns to rest, my criteria have not changed. The chances of me opposing the "next" RfA are quite low, because I don't oppose that many RfAs. But when I do oppose, it will change how I oppose, because it must change how I oppose if I want my oppose to be counted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

All this, and we wonder why so few people want to run at RFA. Can someone do the stats and find out how many 'crat-chat sanctioned admins have subsequently gone rogue and destroyed Wikipedia please? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

New project to find admins

Please consider joining and participating.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)