Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report ToadetteEdit 0 0 0 12:21, 6 May 2024 5 days, 23 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 07:57:41, 3 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

Poll candidate search needs your participation

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

There are encouraging results. The poll is having a good month. Six entries in April were editors who received the post.

Stats so far:

• 178 people into raw list
• 38 people vetted and received post
• 6 took poll
• 2 (wild guess) may become admins.

Further to the stats: Vetting a user completely takes around 3 minutes. (Please don't say it needs 20. This is only for the poll, not RfA.) Some vetting takes 30 seconds for obvious reasons. Average? Who knows. Maybe 2 min. So, 178 names x 2 minutes to vet = 356 minutes. That is around six hours of teamwork to get two admins. That seems worth it. The downside is that the raw list will get weaker. Its sources are wells that will run dry.

I am posting with the above update, but also to ask for help. The mini-project needs you to join and participate:

• The raw list needs raw list names added for vetting from anywhere you can think of.
• Scripts need to be made to generate raw list names for vetting. Already, a number of editors are working on that. Please join them.
• I (and maybe others) need guidance on how to improve vetting criteria. I am out of touch with that draws supports and opposes at an RfA. (Read [1][2][3] if you wish. The bottom line is that I'm not that good at it.)
• Participants are needed to help vet raw list names and post at user talks.

So, please join. Please participate. Results so far suggest that this could bring a number of much-needed new admins each year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Names needed

Okay, it looks like everything is sorted out. The holding pen keeps good records. The guidelines on vetting are sorted too. Now, all we need is a ton of raw names. I've asked a few people but am not sure anyone is working on it.

Around 40 people have so far received the post. One in five then took the poll resulting in a surge. There are good chances that the effort so far will result in a bunch of new admins.

I am puzzled why so few people have joined this mini-project, and why no new raw names have been added. I'm sitting here saying that I'll do lots of work vetting if people provide names, but alas, none has arrived.

If you all think this is a waste of time or a bad idea, please say. Otherwise, why not help out?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! I do a certain amount of admin recruiting privately, and I will continue to do that. And when they are about ready to take the plunge, I do advise them to take the poll first. You folks are working hard and you have definitely recruited some good people. I have just one suggestion: I think part of your vetting should be whether they have ever run for admin before. I recently saw the "Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator?" notice put on the talk page of someone who had had an unsuccessful RfA just a few months earlier. Maybe you could come up with some different wording for such people, or maybe exclude them from your recruiting efforts since obviously they HAVE thought about it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Melanie dear. Your private recruiting is very much appreciated, as I've mentioned. You're off the hook in terms of joining this mini-project. You certainly do your bit. There are a few people out there who have complained that we need more admins, and I don't see them joining this effort. (You know who you are. )

Good point about previous RfAs. I think some of the people who said they'd make a script to populate the raw list section would pre-vet for that. Also, some of the posts I've made to usertalks have had modified text that mentions their previous RfAs. Maybe a catch-all sentence would be good for the standardized post, so long as it doesn't cause too much instruction creep.

Best wishes and thanks for the fine suggestion. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you should change your standard post. I think it is really well written and is just fine for your target audience (many of whom probably have never considered the idea). Just maybe modify it for people who have been-there-done-that, or handle them on an individual basis. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Good plan! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Clusters of RfAs

They sometimes cluster. Is there a pattern? When one starts an RfA and others start theirs, are they doing it to be in a pack, so that the attention is distrubuted, making it less daunting? If so, could there maybe be some way to take advantage of that fact? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it's more an artefact of (1) the chatter about an ongoing RFA reminding prospective candidates that RFA exists, (2) the timing of school holidays in the US and Britain, and most significantly (3) the natural aversion in human nature to being the only person doing something (if you blank any talkpage, even ANI, there will usually be a significant delay before anyone posts on it again). I'm not sure how you'd legislate around (3); the usual method Wikipedia uses to prevent this happening is a "minthreadsleft=" parameter—e.g. when a page gets moribund, the most recent items aren't closed and archived until someone posts something new—but that wouldn't be practical here. (I suppose one could leave the last couple of RFAs closed but still visible on the live page to act as models and to make the place look busier, but that would be a little harsh on the candidates.) ‑ Iridescent 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting indeed, Iridescent. Rather than preventing this happening, why not go in the other direction. Maybe an announced time to encourage a cluster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

You mean, have "RFA week" once a month? I don't see that working—we (correctly) advise candidates to time their RFAs for when they know they'll be available to answer questions for seven days. IMO the "decline" at RFA is largely an artefact of Wikipedia's decline in recruitment; most of the people with the experience and knowledge to make good admins have either already run, or aren't interested. If that is the case, then any "candidate recruitment" exercise will just be scraping the last remnants from an already exhausted mine, not tapping a previously uncharted seam. The way to increase participation in these circumstances is to change the nature of adminship, so all the people who've thought "not for me" take a fresh look, but good luck with that. ‑ Iridescent 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. No, not an RfA week once a month, just some some sort of bulletin board or calendar. Something for those considering RfA to know, in advance, when others might run. I don't have any solid idea of how that could happen. I'm just throwing the idea out there.

As for "...IMO the "decline"...not tapping a previously uncharted seam", holy moly, I think you may be bang on, (and you usually are) but I hope you're wrong. The candidate poll search mini-project might have found a tiny seam, though. Fourteen sudden poll entries is encouraging. Anyhow, I'm a big believer in advertising. Suggest, suggest, suggest, and people do. That's why Coke and Nike spend 10% on product and 40% on marketing (guess). A good, ongoing campaign could be worth a dozen extra admins a year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic, but just so you know (and I was curious enough to look it up), Coca Cola spent 16.4 billion on production costs, and 16.7 billion on sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 12/31/2016. Nike spent 17.4 billion in production costs, and 10.4 billion in sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 5/31/16. Neil916 (Talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm a big supporter of the "clustering"/"shotgun" strategy. Yes, it is intentional. When a couple RfAs are already up, many people who were planning to go in the next month or two tend to go early with the hope that those who desperately search for tiny reasons to oppose won't find the time to find that one mistake 4 years ago among over 10,000 edits. I imagine the strategy would disappear if people nit-picked less, but I don't see that happening any time soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

So what about some subpage with a calendar on it titled "Tentative upcoming RfAs" or something, and then we post at those who took the poll or those who admins have been contacting privately, and let them know. Maybe they can discuss at the talk page and coordinate a time where they all take the plunge at the same time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAME, WP:SCRUTINY, then, arguably. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Huh? I've moved your post from above mine to below mine. You can handle things how you like from here on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I posted there because I was replying to Rob's specific point, that's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

True. I guess I was responding to Rob but not quite replying to Rob. Maybe I just should have outdented. Sorry to have moved stuff around like that. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that during the last surge of RfAs I joked that I should set mine up while the getting was good and people would be too distracted by the others to pay attention to my own. The sad thing is...I wasn't entirely joking. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What color is the RFA mood ring?

I had an RFA 9ish years ago. The feeling of the group was that my content building was weak. I have been on break for a long time and looking at some recent discussions it seems the mood has swung a bit more towards "helpful contributors" make good admins. I am not trying to dance around 'hey should I do an RFA gain' I am more curious that if I do, will my style of contributing to the project be worthy, or will I repeat myself without changing? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gtstricky:....you might want to have a look here; they give good advice, but the RFA-mood is changing with the wind, as far as I can see. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that reading tea leaves or whatever good or bad vibrations to discern an outcome is decidedly misguided. For example, I was foresquare in opposing corners in the last two occasions of RfA. There are too many unknown factors. It depends on the candidate, the questions, the comments (and then the mimicry of those comments by others), the co--nominees (and how everyone feels about them, as well), the four sections: (yes, no, neutral and comments) and who shows up to fill them, the talk page backlash, et all. Fylbecatulous talk 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Mini-quiz UAA questions...

Is it time to call a moratorium (again) on questions that require more than one answer? Specifically, what I have in mind are questions that follow the format of "here's 10 random user names, please tell me how you'd deal with each one individually." My understanding is that, as these questions require more than one answer, they fall foul of the two-questions-per-editor rule. Am I completely wrong here? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with them in principle, provided only one person asks such a question and they don't give more than something like 8 usernames. The answers required from the nominee are generally short and don't often require much nuance, so I suspect they don't take much more time to answer than your typical open-ended RfA question, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who's gone through an RfA recently and answered such a question. I do think they're largely pointless if the candidate hasn't expressed the slightest interest in working at UAA though. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Question 9 demonstrated a good answer to this :D — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the answer to question 1 on that RFA is also relevant... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that's the best answer to Q1 I've ever seen, maybe I'll plagarize it someday (just kidding don't banninate me) ansh666 09:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It is generally ok, as long as they don't surpass 10 usernames, otherwise, they are considered to be two questions. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The thing about the UAA question is the individual responses are short, but in order to actually test the candidate's knowledge you have to cover a few situations, so you need to list a handful of usernames. I was given 12 in my own RfA, which was really fine since I wasn't asked that many questions overall, I was only slightly annoyed that several of the names were really testing the same thing. Maybe it would be different if it was one of those RfAs with 20+ other questions, I can't say. I asked the question myself a while later in Cyberpower678's second RfA and tried to make sure that each of the 7 names I listed was testing a different aspect of the policy, including a couple that weren't really covered by the policy at all but were just current issue questions, to mix it up. I don't think it should count as multiple questions, and besides everyone who runs these days ought to know it's coming. However I do think it should only be asked once in an RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

These are fine when someone specifically claims interest in UAA, but the more important question is why it's relevant to "test the candidate's knowledge" of something they don't intend to be involved in. People usually give some gauzy hand-waving response along the lines of "once you're an admin you can use the tools however you want!" but somehow that never prompts quiz questions about template syntax. IMO there's been enough feedback on these UAA questions that a) the askers should be taking the hint, and b) candidates should be able to predict that they are unlikely to damage their candidacies by declining to answer, at least if they're not planning on doing any UAA work. (Personally, I'd be more inclined to support someone who responded to these questions with "I'm not interested in this aspect of adminship and this question is tedious busywork", but I more or less think that about every pop-quiz type question.)

I have to admit I feel pretty similarly about the "what would you do if you found a speedy tag on this hypothetical barely-coherent unsourced substub about a topic that turns out to be notable" question genre, but in that case I know the questions are motivated by the askers' long-standing interest in broader related issues. I suspect that part of my irritation with the UAA stuff is that many of the people asking seem to have little investment in UAA as a process, or history of participation in conversations about newbie treatment, or engagement with RfA issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

↑What she said. I'd be far more inclined to support a candidate who told the people who play these nasty WP:NEWT hypothetical games, on what's already a stressful and unpleasant process, exactly where they could shove them. ‑ Iridescent 10:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? I normally try and put forward an opinion based on existing contributions, but if I'm on the fence and can't tell, an open-ended question is a way of seeing how they work things out and how to break the logjam in my mind. I realise RfA is unpleasant, but having to read off-wiki comments about how people hate Wikipedia because they got stung by an unnecessary drive-by deletion (random example) is even more so, in my opinion. I agree that the username questions are pretty bone-headed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

It's Andrea James again. Hardly a "random example". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're the only one who's done this, but it was your essays on newbie-biting I had in mind. That suggests a question being asked with a broader purpose in mind, as opposed to the UAA stuff that mostly looks like it's done to show off.

That being said, I don't find those hypothetical substubs very useful in "breaking logjams"; I don't think it's likely to be a good use of admin time to go digging on google to see if this barely-coherent misspelled single sentence might actually be a real subject, nor a good use of candidate time to do it for a completely made-up example where the only clue that the reaction you're fishing for is "oh, this is real after all" rather than "delete, that's nonsense" is familiarity with your previous RfA questions. In fact, I'm not convinced it's a net positive to rehabilitate this kind of borderline useless article even if a willing editor sees it; it communicates to new editors that they can just write crap and expect someone else to do all the real work. (But IIRC, I did that once and then got accused of biting newbies by fixing it myself instead of teaching them how...) And while there's no doubt some over-enthusiastic deletion going on, I find that boingboing article, um, unpersuasive. The whole thing needs a liberal sprinkling of {{cn}} tags. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

A significant number of questions are posed by newbies who simply think it's cool to participate in such an important meta area. Some of them have been around for all of 140 edits and already have one of those silly I wanna be an admin uboxen on their u-page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

When the candidate specifically expresses interest in, for example, blocking usernames, then it would be reasonable to expect a question on it with, perhaps, two usernames. Anymore than two is unreasonable and the latest loophole seems to be packing as many into one question as possible under the guise of their being all related. Aiken D 19:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the community really support someone who expressed an interest in blocking usernames but had to rely on a "test" because they had no practical experience reporting UAA violations? We expect editors who are interested in vandalism work to have experience at ANI and AIV. Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many questions asked at RfA are BS anyway. More and more, I think, they're for the self-aggrandisement of the questioner rather than to allow the candidate to mull answers over for the community to assess. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)