Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 02:19, 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

3 RFAs in process

It's long since we have 3 RFAs in process. Do you think the last time it happened? Thingofme (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the last time was September 2020. PhantomTech[talk] 09:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

March 2022 had 2 successful/1 unsuccessful, but the lat time we had 3 successful was September 2020. Worth noting there are 4 RfA’s in 2022 August, since DanCherek's RfA already closed as successful. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

However we have no RfAs for 3 months until DanCherek succeed. Thingofme (talk) 09:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Four in a month is pretty exceedingly rare in modern Wikipedia. Although it does show that there are still suitable candidates out there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! A yearly average of 17 RfAs since 2018 means even two RfAs in one month is uncommon. The direction has been continuous, despite a momentarily uptick in wiki editing during onset of COVID. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:RFA by month, in January 2020 we have four successful RfAs, September 2020 we have 3 successful RfAs. Thingofme (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DBM, by comparison is a scary read. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Mostly removals now are due to inactivity, sometimes are ArbCom cases or emergency. Next year we will have new inactivity policy so Jan. 2023 or Feb. 2023 we will have loads of desysops. Thingofme (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Timing and required notices actually means that the admins affected by the new rules will not be desysopped until April. Primefac (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Three months notice for the new requirement (5 years)? So the bot will start reporting inactive admins by the new policy from January 2023 or October 2022, 3 months before the start? Thingofme (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The former; the new policy doesn't come into effect until January, meaning we cannot send out notices until then. Primefac (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

What the hell happened in July 2011?!?! casualdejekyll 19:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Per the note, it was when we regularly started desysopping for inactivity. I suspect we will see a similarly large spike in January. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The low-contrast colour scheme (blue on black) makes the footnote very difficult to see, so I don't blame casualdejekyll for not seeing it. (I just checked and almost didn't see it although I knew it was there). —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No kidding; I only knew there was a note there because there had to be a note explaining why, so I hovered around until I lit up the note. My comment was not meant to belittle but to explain the provenance of my knowledge (though I can see how it could be interpreted that way). Primefac (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I only realized there must be a note because the number is off center in the cell. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

That's strange. Wonder what scared people off. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Four in a month is not that odd, we had four in a 30-day period earlier this year (Mar/Apr). Primefac (talk) 10:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

It's like waiting for a bus, then three come along at once. Perfectly normal for a random distribution, and even more so as RfAs effect each other. In fact, there's probably some clever study that could be done comibining the psychology of the process with the accordion effect or bus bunching Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Shushugah is highly inspired by DatGuy's RfA but I think he will probably fail. (But the accordion effect may encourage people to run RfA) Thingofme (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

When I transcluded my RfA, 14 others were already running. Those were the good times. Or the bad times, depending on your perspective :) —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I am newer so I didn't know of the time when 10-20 RfAs are happening everyday, like WP:PERM now. Thingofme (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I never knew that until now. In my opinion, that was definitely a good thing because there was less courage needed to run for an RfA, and there would be less scrutiny on an individual nominee. 0xDeadbeef 12:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that's why we tend to get spurts of 2-4 nominations all in a short span. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kusma: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

At this rate we might break even on the ever shrinking number of admins. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 11:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Number of admins may shrink down to below 1000 this year, and down to fewer than 900 after the new inactivity policy take effect. Thingofme (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There are less than 500 that are active, by one measure (defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months) [1]. 152 administrators have not edited in the last 3 months. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, despite the shrinking number of RfA per year, we have now balanced the shrink and we have RfA records broken, like most number of support votes in a RfA/support votes in a unopposed RfA. Thingofme (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

But that doesn't really mean much - a pass is a pass is a pass. Cullen328 has no more rights than Moneytrees. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The support rate (average) of passed RfA are mostly 90% or higher nowadays. Thingofme (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It is worth noting that we will have had more RfAs by the end of this week in 2022 than we did for the entirety of 2021. I don't know if it was the pandemic, but we really had nothing last year (less than one a month on average) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Also I expect next year to experience another increase based on the editors who joined during COVID-19 quarantine or became active in that timeframe (like me) and have gained experience in the project. To clarify: I'm not saying I'll run just that there's a cohort of editors I've seen learn alongside me who I expect will be good candidates a year from now. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

As an editor that got active during the pandemic and that is finally developing some clue, I agree with this statement :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Forget it. Since you've showed an interest in being an administrator, you're obviously unqualified ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you need at least two or more years of saying "no way" like me and Hammersoft did :-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Too true. If you're not dragged to the altar kicking and screaming, you're obviously incompetent. Anybody stupid enough to become an admin is too stupid to be an admin. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This suggests that people who want to be admins must keep the thought as a secret (to have a higher chance). That advice is worse than just stopping being biased against these editors. Heck, even self-noms are frowned upon by some! Makes me wonder whether anonymous nominations would be an improvement, but I don't doubt that there would be people who would like to have self-nom or not as a part of their judgement on character. 0xDeadbeef 13:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@0xDeadbeef Going back a few years, when we had dozens of RFAs, we had concerns of "hat collection" and need of the tools. We're in a very different wikipedia these days but unfortunately some of those old opinions have lasted. I was a self nom back in the day, but even I think twice about self noms when I look over a candidate. That was a big reason I made Request an RfA Nomination, which did help a bit. Worm^TT(talk) 14:29, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

You wink, but there's actually truth in what you say. More often than not, people who actively want to be admins are usually considered by the community to be the least qualified, absent all other qualifications present. It's a bit like being the Watergate special prosecutor; a thankless job no reasonable person should want, pressure from all sides of the aisle, and it pays like shit. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, the pay here has always been a problem, especially when you become an admin. It was explained to me though. Joking aside, I've seen oppose votes for RfAs where candidates had been expressing too much interest in being an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So people should not express our will of becoming an admin, and if you are really qualified you should request a nomination it's better to pass... Thingofme (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There's differing schools of thought on that. One school of thought recommends avoiding WP:ORCP if someone has an interest in becoming an admin. Seems counterintuitive, but it's true. Another recommends using it as a tool to evaluate where you are and what you need to work on. Yet, the former can interpret that as trying to burnish your resume to be an admin and views it as a negative. Personally, I didn't use ORCP, but not because I subscribed to any school of thought, but rather that if what I had done over the years wasn't enough to be an admin, then it wasn't enough to be an admin. I wasn't going to attempt to draw votes by having X numbers of AfDs participated in, or N numbers of WP:AIV reports, etc. That all seemed pointless. Either you're qualified and capable, or you're not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's not necessary (especially for those not planning to self-nom). One can get a similar idea of where one is pass/fail wise by reading RFAs from the past 2-3 years. Nonetheless, it still is one of many useful tools for future candidates. As with all tools, mileage may vary. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to throw cold water on all of this, but for all the rosy estimations, a good week can just as easily be a dead cat bounce. The long term trends shown by WP:RBM and WP:DBM are not easily reversible. In fact, it's very unlikely. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I wish there was a solution to this. I can name three dozen users that I believe are nearly/already at the qualified threshold (Including some involved in this conversation). But these old habits appear to have scared away plenty from stepping up to the podium. Personally, I think most of the general fear towards RFA is unfounded, seeing that the opposes in the recent discussions appear to be cordial enough. But hey, I have been here only seven months, so forgive me if my perception is too limited. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe requests for RfA nomination should be made private through off-wiki conversations, to reduce the number of opposes. Thingofme (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

They usually are, Thingofme. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Hitting the nail on the head again as he usually does so admirably, Hammersoft is dead right with his dead cat bounce. For a long time now, the sample size of RfA transclusions has been far too small to demonstrate any trends other than the continued disinterest in going through the process, and the perennial parlance here aren't going to change anything. Biblioworm's Dec 2015 didn't change much other than greatly increasing the voter participation, and I'm still trying to mentally unravel what Barkeep's massive programme of RfCs achieved other than the ultimate creation of yet another noticeboard for bullying admins by providing a dirt track in the forest with more rocks to turnover to look for something to complain about. The end effect of that will be to discourage even more editors of the right calibre from throwing their hat in the ring.

The vast majority of candidates at ORCP do not have the potential to become admins any time soon. Most of them can't/won't read the instructions and not reading instructions for anything is an immediate disqualification. Others seem to be just trolling. An occasional rare gem does score high and goes on to get the bit. Most editors who have read all the advice pages first don't bother with ORCP - they don't need to. ORCP nevertheless still has some shelf life life because it is probably largely responsible for the huge drop in the totally time wasting transclusions. Anyone who joins Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin (and plenty do) has joined for the wrong reasons; hence why those 'I wanna be an admin' UBX don't get much serious attention. I would advise any newcomers to this talk page to read this Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails? in which Hammersoft is cited and where the huge number of reader comments are even more telling that the article itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this month we will have 4 successful RfAs since January 2020. Thingofme (talk) 04:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Namely, DanCherek, DatGuy, Femke, and Z1720. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

But it seems like RFA are now remaining stable with high/low times, at 8-15 successfuls per year. Thingofme (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

With just under a third of a year left, this year is likely to end in the 8-15 range. But if it does it will only be the second to do so - and the other one was way back in 2018. So I wouldn't describe it as stable or running at 8-15 a year. I'm still seeing a slow downward trend, not as precipitous as it was from 2008 to 2012, nor as consistent. 2021 is the lowest year on record, but 2018 is the second lowest complete year and we now only need one successful RFA in the next four months to beat it and two to surpass it. The pattern I'm seeing is that each month we get 0-4 new admins. In the last 100 months there have only been two above that range, But months with one or zero new admins have tended to become more common. ϢereSpielChequers 17:44, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The next RfA is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish, which could be either the 10th successful or the 5th unsuccessful RfA this year. If the former, then the count would be the same as for 2018, and one more successful RfA would bring the count to 11. Only time will tell, of course, how many RfAs we will have in September, October, November, and December 2022. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA will likely end up being the 5th unsuccessful RfA this year. So, now, we would need two more successful RfAs this year after that to bring the count to 11. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For now it may be ending in the discretionary range so I think it's 50/50 or 30/70 chances that he will pass. Thingofme (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There is now currently a bureaucrat chat at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScottishFinnishRadish/Bureaucrat chat. The last time we had a no consensus RfA with a bureaucrat chat was for Jbhunley in August 2018. Let's see how the current bureaucrat chat will go. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat is more recent, May 2022. Bureaucrat chats can be a lot of stress; best of luck to the candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Tamzin was promoted. Ymblanter (talk) 10:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah good point, I misread, apologies. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Tenure at RfA

Tenures of successful RfAs

I was doing something and needed to know how much tenure each successful RfA candidate since 2017 had, so I ran some numbers. You all may find it interesting. I certainly thought the floor would be a lot higher! Data at User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA. The code's there, so it would be pretty easy to do for unsuccessful RfAs as well. (The "something" is this - soon!) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Legoktm has very correctly pointed out that this data needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt, as it should've been "date when active editing began". Something to keep in mind. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the around two years class is reasonably common as that includes users who start the site and are positive and active users for that time. After 18 months or so, you could rack up 15-20,000 edits and that's really the earliest I think the majority of users would get behind. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

So the X-axis is date of successful RFA, and the Y-axis is years since the account was created? Looks like quite a variety of tenures. I guess the pattern here is that RFA tenure 1) has a lower limit of about 18 months, and 2) after that is somewhat random? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I would be interested you could look at time since first month of "active editing" to RfA for overall tenure, and then consecutive months of "active editing" until RfA. And maybe define active as 250 edits in a month? (Definitely not a number I came up with by looking at my monthly edit count stats leading up to my RfA...) Legoktm (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I would like to collect those numbers as well. I want a fast edit counter to do it with, though - I don't want to wait for XTools... and so I'll begin the mother of all yak shaves and start writing my own. If you don't hear from me for a few years, that's why :) Enterprisey (talk!) 01:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

nominators

Why is it that the nominators are almost always admins? Where does this prejudice/bias come from? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The venn diagram of people trusted by the community to know what makes a good admin and admins is close to a circle. Can't really think of a situation where I'd trust a nominator's judgement on who to nominate but wouldn't trust them to help maintain the wiki through adminship. That's my hypothesis at least, though I'm curious to see if there are other reasons for why your observation holds true. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 21:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd love to get some non-admin nominators. I think the last one we had for a successful candidate was SandyGeorgia with Ajpolino in 2020? Anyhow if people are interested several experienced nominators, including myself, have contributed to this Nominator's guide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I would if I didn't consider my nomination hurtful to candidate's chances. In a year or two's time that's less likely to be the case. As of now I merely let editors know that I think they'd make good candidates and hope they contact more experienced nominators with a keener eye for candidate research and better community standing (e.g. SFR last month and Kavyansh Singh in March, latter of which did an ORFA poll last month mentioning my suggestion). I would also like for more people to do this type of encouragement as well. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Your larger point that a nominator having some degree of social capital is, to my eyes, right. But there are definitely some non-admins who have plenty of that. And truthfully for a large segment of our RfA voting block they're unlikely to know any nominator whether admin or non-admin. So in that situation the nominator has some narrative value, and some value behind the scenes, but it ultimately comes down to the candidate - as it should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, someone like yourself who has a track record of successful nominations carries much more weight with nominations than, say, a nomination from Trainsandotherthings, who has never nominated anyone for adminship (and won't anytime soon). Go to any recent RfA with a Barkeep49 nomination, and look at how often supporters will invoke "per nom" or otherwise say they trust the nominator, sometimes even explicitly saying they are supporting because of the nominator. That said, none of these things are inherently restricted to administrators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's true but I also think any frequent nom could get that effect, admin or non-admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. There was never a hint that any of my nominations were held in lower regard because I was not an admin; my nominations were judged on my track record, with frequent comments to that effect. In the earlier days, there were editors who actually <groan> specialized in grooming people for RFA and in bringing candidates to RFA, whereas I only and always brought people I had worked closely with, observed in conflict, and whose character, integrity, honesty, industriousness, and editing history I knew inside and out. Surprisingly, others were content to bring candidates after they had "trained them up", and so they often encountered surprises-- my nominations did not-- and people came to understand that if I nommed someone, they would be clean. I was judged on my track record-- not my status or not as an admin, and I believe that is still true today at RFA-- it's just that for a variety of reasons (probably off-topic for this discussion), and for better or for worse, we no longer have many top content contributors aiming for RFA, so I have less opportunity to nominate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Responding to both Barkeep49 and usernamekiran, I was once a regular RFA nominator, as my FA work put me in contact with many of Wikipedia's finest editors and allowed me to see how they responded under pressure. What has changed is that it was once pretty much assumed that admin candidates would have contributed at the FA level. As many candidates are no longer contributing at that level, there's less call/reason for me to nominate the fine editors I know. So I suspect there are several levels of problem lurking re "where does this prejudice/bias come from", and one of them is reflected in the decline of expectations re content creation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Not that this has anything to do with the current state of the RfA process, but when I was first asked to stand for RfA, I declined, partly because my account was less than a year old, and partly because I had never worked on an FA, and there were plenty of voters wanting a candidate to have taken at least one article to FA. When I was asked again 6 months later (almost 16 years ago) to stand for RfA, nobody said anything about FAs, which was good, as I have never contributed to an FA. - Donald Albury 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

An FA is an extremely high expectation and is not everyone's focus of activity. Among the 1000s of voters, there is, AFAIK, only one user who insists on an FA as a pass criterion. His oppose votes are generally met with a wry smile. There's not even much point in badgering him to change his style, doing so only creates more heat than light. IMO a candidate only needs to clearly demonstrate that they are capable of creating clean, policy compliant content that would not attract any maintenance tags, but that obviously means more than just a string of stubs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

While there was a fairly long period that an FA was an almost prerequisite to RFA, I agree with you that demonstrating that one is "capable of creating clean, policy compliant content" is what is relevant today, although I think there are large differences in where many draw that "demonstrating capability" line. My sons had to write ten 10-page fully footnoted term papers in the eighth grade, on par with 800 to 1,500 word good articles and I don't think we should have admins aspiring to what eighth grade schoolboys can produce. I would also extend your "demonstrating capability" to demonstrating an extended interest in and capability. A sporadic 1,000-word GA on the path to RFA in my view is one days' high school work and doesn't demonstrate anything. (But then I've also seen FAs that didn't demonstrate anything either ... but that's another topic). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone who ostensibly joins Wikipedia with the goal of becoming an admin someday has joined for the wrong reasons. IMO if they hang around more in maintenace areas than in mainspace they are 'governance obsessives' (and no, I didn't coin the expression). Every new editor's focus should be on content whether it be creating new articles, adding sources, or simply correcting typos. 'An aspiring admin should have preferably created at least 4 articles of at least 500 words (about 3,500 bytes) not including sources, perfectly sourced and formatted - no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor. FA, GA, or DYK are not prerequisites, but a very minimum of article creation and/or an equivalent amount of new content should demonstrate that we are here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia.' See also Why admins should create content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Kudpung, I'm wondering if no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor is overly strict? I always end up as a major contributor on articles where I'm not actually responsible for a good part of the content because of how I edit (ten edits per the usual editor's one). I can't put a finger on one at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I have probably created any number of articles that I may have walked away from rather than battle POV pushers. It's embarrassing to have maintenance tags on an article one created, but sometimes walking away and leaving the article tagged is the healthiest approach to persistent but polite POV pushers. I'm pretty sure I've walked away more than once on article where I appear as the major contributor by editcountitis, and then come back many years later and addressed the bad edits-- usually in the medical realm or fringey medical areas because better sources make it easier to put the POV editor content aside. In spite of the bogus interpretations on a current RFA, I don't believe we can evaluate content creation by the numbers, and that's part of why I so object when I see a couple of minimal "Good" articles put forward as examples of content creation-- more so if they look like something I could research and write in one setting. I am fairly certain there are numerous creators of multiple FAs I'd oppose at RFA based on their poor content creations as well ... we really have to look at the actual content case-by-case. The content area also matters, eg, what it takes to create and maintain medical content compared to a bio on a long-deceased person, where you can basically summarize an NYT obit. Long and short, minimal GAs as examples of content creation send up red flags for me. BUt so would a couple of FAs from some editors ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sandy, with all respect, I cannot agree with this. Not everyone is a strong writer, but there are many, many ways to contribute to the encyclopedia, and some people find different parts easier or more enjoyable than others. We don't require prospective admins to have voted in a certain number of deletion discussions either, or to have spent time at copypatrol, or have requested page protection, even to have fixed a single {{cn}} tag, and yet those are all important parts of Wikipedia. There are some admins who are prolific writers – and that's great! – but I do not think it's reasonable to expect every admin to have an FA, nor do I think there is a one-size-fits-all minimum for content creation. RfA is fundamentally about trust: do I expect this candidate to act in the best interest of the community? to keep a level head? to set a good example? to recognize the times they should not use the tools?

I myself went to RfA with one GA, and since then the major article milestones I've achieved are just one more GA and a non-GA DYK. By the standards you have laid out, I should not be an admin...but would you say I've done a poor job with the mop? I think I've done okay so far. And I've found some topics that I enjoy writing about, too! It's just about me figuring out where my time would be most productively spent. I sincerely believe that by spending my time dealing with sockpuppets or deleting spam or working in any of my other usual behind-the-scenes areas, I am making the encyclopedia a better place for those people who do want to write content. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

For a more direct example, according to this hacked-together quarry, I have granted IP block exemption 400 times (all but two of those grants performed since I became a checkuser). Almost all of these grants were to people who cannot edit (or at least cannot edit safely) without the use of an anonymizing proxy. I submit that the value to the encyclopedia of me handling those requests is far greater than the value that would have come from me spending the same amount of time trying to get an article to GA. Not every admin action has such a tangible impact, of course, but my point is that small backend tasks can have just as much value as article-writing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Just like a doctor, I prefer that specialists learn and understand all aspects of being a generalist before going on to a specialisation. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability There's a big difference between expecting someone to be a strong writer and expecting someone to have participated in the content creation process. The vast majority of our disputes come out of content, and being part of that process is essential. What's more, to be part of the process, you need to have had some sort of peer review - that ensures you experience how much effort is needed to meet Wikipedia's standards. Seeing why people feel OWNERSHIP and why it's difficult to overcome. Building that empathy. It's not about "admins need to be content creators because that's the only thing you can do", it's "admins need to understand what this major part of the community deals with". Worm^TT(talk) 11:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Worm, what a wonderful way to summarize the issue that fuels that divide! That's again part of my problem with the GA process. If you happened to get, for example, an Ealdgyth review, you got a real peer review. But all too often, a GA pass is meaningless; they are only as good as one editor's opinion, so it depends on who that one editor is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, I understand that (WP:Content awareness, not content creation was pointed out to me during my RfA, and says it better than I ever could). I suppose the base of my objection is that someone could have significant experience in all of those things without writing a GA/FA, and yet there is definitely an expectation out there that an admin candidate have achieved some number of those milestones. Could be explained as a mental shortcut ("if an editor has gone through GA/FA, then they must have gone through [all those things you listed above]"), I suppose. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

GeneralNotability you said you disagree with me, but then you said the same thing I said: but I do not think it's reasonable to expect every admin to have an FA, nor do I think there is a one-size-fits-all minimum for content creation ?? MY issue is RFAs that claim a high-school level GA as they tick off the boxes at RFA--it's meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia then I'm not sure I understand - I thought you were saying that you thought admins should have an FA in their pocket. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. I did say it used to be that way ... perhaps re-read? My issue is that claiming a high-school-level GA demonstrates content creation ability is off, and one really has to evaluate on a case-by-case basis. When I see an RFA postulate claiming content experience based on a couple of GAs, I take a closer look ... if I see a simplistic GA passed with very little actual peer review, I don't consider that a measure of content experience, but then, I could name more than a dozen editors with multiple recent-ish FAs that neither do I consider good content contributors ... really has to be evaluated individually. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Understood, I read it as more of a "too bad things aren't still this way" instead of a simple statement of fact. My mistake. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem GeneralNotability ... it's usually my lack of clarity. Now that you've experienced my prose, it puts some context to Worm's statement above, There's a big difference between expecting someone to be a strong writer and expecting someone to have participated in the content creation process! My FAs are collaborative ... I recognize my own prose limits and bring in more than one copyeditor before approaching FAC :). You don't have to be a strong writer to understand or be part of the content creation process; even weak writers can point out issues in other writers' efforts via content review processes. And my lack of clarity probably determined the outcome of SFR's RFA, because many of the supports were rallying around the false attribution of socking-- a claim made by no one. I guess the lack of clarity there is on me ... so much for a week of working a labor-intensive fundraiser while posting to an RFA :(. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA?

I realize that the community is obviously more cautious after what happened with Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eostrix, but is there any actual precedent for people openly speculating about someone being a sock at RfA? To me, this seems like it's kind of a personal attack – we're literally comparing a good-faith editor whose given us no reason to indicate otherwise in my opinion to a WMF-banned user that was ArbCom blocked. Openly speculating about someone being a sockpuppet (I'm under the understanding that actual WP:SPIs require more evidence) is basically saying "yeah, this person is totally a malicious actor out to dupe all of us by being an admin"! Am I the only one kind of in disbelief about all of this? Like it's not entirely unexpected, but it's unfortunate to see my suscipions confirmed. It's the first thing in awhile to make me seriously question the community, so I thought I'd try to open up an actual conversation here.

I looked up what the ArbCom noticeboard said about this at the time [2], it seems like there's a strong emphasis on the part private evidence played and how this could actually influence future RfAs and lead to a chilling effect. Clovermoss (talk) 08:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. I've been irritated by those accusations as well, and have hinted as such. As for whether it can change the course of an RfA, that's a bit more of an interesting question as RfA is kind of a vote, regardless of what anyone says. If the total percentage of support is above 75%, or probably even above 70%, it's probably not an issue. It gets a bit more interesting if the support is below 65%, as at that point the 'crats have to decide whether or not to pass the RfA anyway, or conclude that the accusations of sock puppetry gained sufficient consensus among the community to not promote. Neither of those is going to be popular. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited quite a bit in October 2021 but wasn't involved enough in the inner workings of Wikipedia as to know what went down in Eostrix case. Can someone please help me with a brief summary of Eostrix/Icewhiz? Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that Icewhiz is a globally WMF-banned user that caused harm to real people. Icewhiz is an LTA that also has a history of sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz/Archive). It seems like all of this happened after this 2019 ArbCom case. I've never been someone who was super into following all the stuff that goes on at ArbCom, so someone else could probably give you a much better summary. Clovermoss (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you're not the only one. It's disappointing to say the least. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

You're far from the only one. Unfortunately I'm hardly in a place to scold people about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:NPA#WHATIS notes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence..." Making an accusation of sockpuppetry is a serious accusation. When I commented in the neutral section regarding the candidate, I was very careful to layout evidence and ask for it to be reconciled with their statements about no prior accounts. I think that's a legitimate question. I think it needed to be asked. I was careful not to say sockpuppet. I also placed my comment in the neutral section, because doing it in support or opposition would imply that I felt one way or the other that it was true or false. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet does require evidence, and past disputes about this have noted that such accusations require evidence. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet without evidence is a personal attack. While not making excuses for RfA it is very common for the gloves to come off, so to speak, during RfAs. More abstractly (and NOT referring to SFR here...let me be crystal clear), there have been attempts of bad actors getting an account to admin status. Given how close Eostrix came to working (4 days shy, after two years of effort), it's likely some have succeeded without being detected. I've even heard scuttlebutt of admin accounts being sold in the past. Getting back to SFR; given the past, it's not unreasonable to ask the question. It is unreasonable to make accusations of sockpuppetry. I don't wish to fault SFR's nominators, but I do think that nominators should strive to uncover any potential hiccoughs a candidate might encounter. SFR's substantial knowledge on their first day of editing should have been addressed in the opening nominations and/or acceptance of nomination. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, Eostrix was already under investigation by Arbcom anyway when the RfA turned up; at the very worst they'd have passed RfA and got level 1 desysopped and blocked shortly afterwards. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. We'll never know, due to the private nature of the evidence (which is fine, certainly, in this case). Still Eostrix went at least most of 20k edits and 2 years without being detected. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually we've stated that Eostrix was already on our radar as an IW sock before the RfA started so I can confirm that. The RfA just forced us to complete the investigation in a way it might have lingered otherwise. I don't think the nominators for Eostrix could have reasonably known that socking was an active concern and indeed I don't think anyone at the RfA brought it up. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's true that some sock puppeteer has already passed RFA, then... where's the damage? Which rogue admin is it? What bad blocks and bad deletions have they made? Clearly if there are already sock admins, they're not doing any harm. Let that thought sink in a minute as you consider how important it is to ferret out sockpuppet RFA candidates. And let's remember Ed, the admin who made socks and used them to vote multiple times in an arbcom election. Sometimes socking comes after RFA.

It's completely bogus that you (and others) think there is something suspicious about SFR's first edits. It's not there. He's not doing anything difficult, complicated, or--most importantly--undocumented. What needs to happen here is for certain very longstanding members of the community to "come to Jesus" that just because something was difficult for them doesn't mean it's difficult. One of the great quotes, from SFR's talk page in March, is an admin saying that even after 14 years, they still have trouble with some of the tasks SFR did in his first year. Well here's an unpleasant truth: if you've been using software for 14 years and you still find it difficult, you're technologically illiterate. There's nothing wrong with that, a lot of people have difficulty with computers, but don't cast as suspicious that someone knows how to use wiki markup language, which is the easiest markup language in existence (and was designed to be the easiest). It's like you're amazed a child can build Legos on their first day playing with them. Wikipedia, like Legos, is designed from top to bottom to be easy to pick up. Here's another thought to sink in: 10-year-old children pick this up no problem. If you really think it's hard to file an AIV, and that someone doing that is somehow suspicious or has something to answer for: it's you. It's just you, unable to process the notion that someone is better at this than you are.

Having been on the receiving end of these same types of accusations four years ago, I'm a little bitter about it, if you can't tell. But we really can't let this place become an idiotocracy, where "too good at the software to be new!" is considered a legitimate concern. Levivich (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Helpful link for people who might not know: Edgar181 is "Ed". Deli nk, one of his sockpuppets, made almost 80,000+ edits and was created in 2005. To some extent it's impossible to predict whether someone is going to shatter the community's trust like that.

As for people can pick up our markup language... I started editing wikiHow (which uses MediaWiki) as a 12 year old. I have no other computer science-related experience. I recognize that my experience is not universal, but I do think it is kind of ridiculous that people often get accused of being sockpuppets simply because they're competent and "know too much" like Levivich. It gets to the point where actual sockpuppets might know to avoid looking competent "too soon" while actual newbies won't be examining their edits through the lens of "will this make people think I'm a sock"? Clovermoss (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that the rapid and prominent engagement with various drama boards is as much, if not more, of a sockpuppetry red flag as wiki-markup know-how. I was ultimately swayed by further explanations of SFR's editing history and various other arguments vouching for them, but I think it's worth noting that the original objections were not merely about a higher-than-baseline level of competence: it was higher than baseline competence, plus disproportionate engagement with dramaboards that are like catnip for sockpuppeteers. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I can see why this might make someone concerned but aren't we suppossed to assume good faith? No one brought this up in the Eostrix RfA and their entire thing was hunting sockpuppets, ironically! It was private evidence that nobody could have known that sealed the deal. As has been brought up, WP:SPI has higher standards for evidence and connection to a specific sockpuppeter (not vague wave-of-hand "we know they must be a sock we just don't know who" – I think in a lot of those cases WP:NOTHERE block would make more sense). I don't think it's okay to be blatantly speculating about whether or not someone could be a sock, even in an a RfA. Policies like no personal attacks shouldn't just be thrown out the window. Clovermoss (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure it's fair to call sock-related speculation a personal attack if succinctly raised in a civil and non-bludgeoning fashion. We'll see how this RfA turns out, but at least as far as my own voting process was concerned, being able to see early opposes raise concerns and questions that were then addressed satisfactorily seems like the system working as intended. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that dramaboards are like catnip for sockpuppeteers. Most dramaboard participants are not socks, and most socks do not participate in the dramaboards. There are a few LTAs who like to troll, but the type of sockpuppeteer that would run for RFA is not the type to be stupid enough to prominently engage with various drama boards, especially early in their career. The idea that dramaboard engagement is a sign of sockpuppetry is a myth, and a harmful one that encourages false, empty accusations. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, your response here clearly exemplifies why some people, myself included, strongly veer away from RfA. This is the sort of toxic response one now has to expect if they do anything other than support a candidate. The concern I raised was a legitimate concern. I wasn't the only one who saw the potential issue. I didn't accuse SFR of being a sockpuppet nor imply any malicious behavior on their part. I wanted the disparate points reconciled. I specifically placed my comment in the neutral section to avoid implying anything. Yet, here we are with you taking offense at my comments. Referring to my concern as "bogus" and further impugning me by stating I'm acting as if a child putting together Legos is amazing to me is right off the rails a personal attack. My concerns, as expressed in my comments on the RfA, were legitimate. It wasn't an accusation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I do think that people shouldn't be afraid to oppose a candidate for what they feel are good reasons. I disagree with a lot of the oppose !votes, but apart from the ones that imply socking or malicious intent from the start on SFR's part (which I definitely take issue with), I think reasonable people can disagree about what makes a good admin. I think SFR's experiences as a new editor are actually more likely to make them more sympathetic to the "average joe" so-to-speak, but maybe it's just me. We need more editors with from a newer wikigeneration with differing perspectives, in my opinion.

I think a lot of Levivich's frustration stems from their experience (some of which is even fairly recent!) of people accussing/implying that they are a sock. Two wrongs don't make a right in regards to the lego comment, but again, why is one borderline personal attack it considered socially acceptable on-wiki to imply someone might be a sock while someone calling that logic out isn't? Clovermoss (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC), edited 16:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Hi, my name is Bob."

"Hi, I think you're lying about that."

Only on Wikipedia is this considered normal. Only on Wikipedia would someone justify that by saying "well I'm just raising concerns" or "I have suspicions" (variations of the old lark, "I'm just asking questions!"), as if that was a justification for accusing someone of lying. Just because we call it "sockpuppetry" doesn't mean it isn't an accusation of deceit. And really serious deceit. And it also doesn't matter if you use the word "sockpuppetry" or the words "had another account". Those who have "suspicions" or "concerns" that an RFA candidate has or had another undisclosed account, in the face of the candidate denying it, are saying, in public:

1. That the editor is lying about who they are
2. That they are in fact someone who was kicked out of the community or otherwise had such a poor reputation that they cannot disclose who they are
3. That they are engaged in a sophisticated, long-term scheme to deceive the community into giving them advanced privileges on this website by making them an admin

These are some damn serious accusations! Here some actual opposes in this RFA:

• "This editor had a very unusual start, highly suggestive of a returning editor, and set about from the outset appearing to be checking all the right boxes towards RFA, which is where it always appeared they were aiming." - making all three of the above points
• "I've reviewed a number of the candidate's early edits, and it's pretty clear this isn't their first account. I would like to see ScottishFinnishRadish be more forthcoming about their past editing history." - a bald accusation that the editor is lying to us, with no evidence beyond the vague assertion about having "reviewed a number of the candidate's early edits"
• "I am concerned that this user has edited under another account." - an accusation of lying phrased as a "concern"
• "...per socking concerns raised by eminent colleagues"
• "It's really hard to believe this is his first account..."
• "Their start on Wikipedia looks suspicious..."
• "There seems to be something fishy about this editor..."

That's seven accusations that the candidate is a liar. And there's more "per" those !votes. Of course there are also plenty of other oppose !votes for other reasons that do not involve any accusations of lying. But accusations like the ones quoted above shouldn't be tolerated. It's smear, it's not reasoned argument. Only on the internet would people say these things; none of these people would say this out loud without any evidence if we were all in the same physical room together, even if they might be thinking it.

The concern you raised was not a legitimate concern. You either believe an editor when they deny socking, or you're calling them a liar. There is no respectable place in between those two options where you can publicly doubt that someone is telling the truth but not also be calling that person dishonest.

You did imply malicious behavior on their part. Here is what you said:

I'd like to point out that on this editor's very first day of editing they had already learned about wikilinking [12], knew about WP:CSD#G11 (admins can see deleted history of this userpage), knew about WP:AGF [13], knew about how to request semi-protection [14], and knew about WP:AIV [15] (and despite saying they didn't know about template warnings, they were using {{uw-vandalism2}} less than 3 hours later [16]. That's a rather astonishing level of knowledge for someone on their first day of editing. I would like to see this reconciled with their statement that they have never had another account.

You implied it was not their first day of editing. The examples you pointed to are ridiculous. Wikilinking? Knowing about CSD, AGF, and AIV? Learning how to use a template in less than 3 hours?! How many hours do you think it should take, ffs? You asserted that these things contradict "their statement that they have never had another account" and needed to be, in your words, "reconciled". You cast doubt on the veracity of their denying having another account, based on their having a basic knowledge of common parts of Wikipedia like wikilinking, CSD, AGF, and AIV, and on the ability to learn how to use a template in 3 hours. (I can't let that go, it's so... wow.) You implied SFR was lying to us, or appeared to be lying to us (the most charitable interpretation I can summon), based on nothing beyond their following directions in our documentation, and all the polite phraseology and rhetoric doesn't make that any better, and it doesn't matter if you put that in the neutral section or the oppose section, or on his user talk page as another admin did last year, or anywhere else.

And no, my calling you out for baselessly questioning whether one of our colleagues was lying will not have a chilling effect on RFA. Hell, if it is chilling these sorts of serious unfounded accusations, then that's a good thing. But in reality, I'm not calling out anyone for opposing (there are plenty of well-reasoned oppose !votes in this RFA), I'm calling people out for making baseless accusations of dishonesty. It doesn't even matter if it's during an RFA or anywhere/anytime else. It's just that it's particularly egregious when it happens at an RFA, and as you mentioned, when there are a dozen people engaged in it.

Funny you should say comments like mine are why you generally avoid RFA. Comments like yours are why I generally avoid it. It was not legitimate and I am not sorry for calling you out on it. This sort of behavior needs to stop being tolerated. I know there are some long-term editors who have spent over a decade casually accusing their colleagues of being liars by raising "suspicions" or "concerns" about having another account, and by asserting that competence in new editors is somehow suspect. They've been doing it for so long that they've lost touch with what they're actually doing: accusing their fellow volunteers of lying. I am glad to volunteer some of my time to help reconnect these editors with reality by reminding them to stop questioning the honesty of our colleagues without damn strong evidence of dishonesty, and reminding them that early competence is not damn strong evidence. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Levivich, I'm not going to read the above (and if you're offended by that, tough). Frankly, it's too long (north of 1200 words). It appears to be trying to prove what a despicable person I am. If that's the case, my talk page is that way, Alternatively, WP:AN/I. Further discussion about me is not appropriate to this thread at WT:RFA, which is about RfA. And no, I'm not trying to squelch conversation about me; it's just not appropriate here. Thanks. I hope you have a great day. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned Hammersoft is lying about not reading Levivich's paragraph. Should potential liars be admins? Hey, that rhetorical technique is easy! Thanks for showing me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand why, statistically speaking, certain patterns of behaviour appear suspicious. I think the community, though, should strive to limit the number of situations that trigger this reaction. Ideally new editors would familiarize themselves with the environment and be ready to contribute, and the community should welcome them. Expecting everyone to go through a floundering phase can become a self-fulfilling prophesy if everyone who doesn't is treated with doubt. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree 100% with this. Clovermoss (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We haven't had a bad-faith admin do anything truly horrendous yet. That's mostly a matter of luck - there are plenty of things that +sysop allows that are irreparable, either in a PR sense, or unrepairable without a truly stupefying amount of work, or in a few cases literally so. Most of them we don't talk about. One of the most obvious, and one that we can talk about because it's already happened (before we had cascading protection, so it didn't require being an admin at the time), is to put a shock image on the main page disguised in such a way that it takes a long time to remove. "Bad blocks and bad deletions" are about the least disruptive things an admin can do. —Cryptic 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that bad blocks and bad deletions were the most disruptive things an admin can do. In fact I chose those examples so as not to spill WP:BEANS about worse things admins could do. :-) But the point is, as you say, we haven't had a bad-faith admin do anything truly horrendous yet. After 20 years, I don't think there is any evidence to support the conclusion that it's mostly a matter of luck, although perhaps there is evidence and I'm just not privy to it. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't usually read this page, but find myself here because of BK49's ping to me in the section above, where I also had the pleasure of reading this misguided discussion filled with curious assumptions. Clovermoss, this might answer some of your questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I really dont see how its a problem. You can be suspicious that somebody is a sockpuppet of a banned user without knowing which banned user it is, or being able to prove it with or without checkuser. And the potential for a banned user to shift our articles as an admin increases exponentially over that of an editor, especially in one of the DS topics, so I dont particularly find it a problem that the standard of suspicion to vote no in RFA to be exponentially lower than to block an editor as a sock. And that is irrespective of the current RFA, for which I trust those nominator's judgement and I personally give approximately a 0% chance of being a sock of IW (no idea on anybody else, though I find the explanation on how one finds their way to understanding the dark side of WP totally reasonable, since it mirrors my own experience), but I dont see why somebody cannot say this feels too suspicious for me to be willing to have this person be given the admin bit. This isnt a ban discussion or anything other than does the community feel comfortable giving this person access to the rights an admin has? And being suspicious of sockpuppetry can certainly factor in to that level of comfort. nableezy - 16:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• the problem with bad-faith admin is not blocks or deletions. It is quite the opposite. They might intentionally not block other vandals. Thats negligible problem though. The major problem is undeletion. A lot of editors had exposed their real identity in the past, then got it rev-del'ed later. Either photo, or real full name/address/social media, or any information which can identify an editor. Imagine some bad-faith admin leaking that info elsewhere. There are more concerns, but there are WP:BEANS as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

All very true, and the histrionics above attacking somebody for not having sufficient confidence to grant somebody those rights is silly. Adminship is not some badge of honor, it is not something anybody is entitled to. It is something the community grants iff we feel we trust you enough to give it to you, and you do not need damn strong evidence of dishonesty to not feel that the level of trust you have in a person is sufficient to grant them admin. And it is not accusing somebody of lying by saying Im not convinced. I know of at least one redlinked RFA I have in my watchlist in which my oppose will be I just dont buy that this is your first account. And I dont buy it because of x, y and z, and as such I just dont have the requisite amount of trust to be in favor of you having these rights. nableezy - 19:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Pastor Theo happened. Eostrix happened. Edgar181 happened. Fæ happened. There are several other ancient ones I'm vaguely aware of that caused significant community division at the time but I'm not going to dig through archives to find.
  All of these caused significant damage to the project by causing divisions in the community and creating distrust, which is a real problem on a project based on trust.
  In my RfA I was asked if I had a different account before. The answer was yes. It's a completely legitimate question. The community is also able to decide whether or not they believe the answer provided.
  As an aside (I'm not commenting on the current RfA), but the typical reasons people look like they've edited Wikipedia before are because they've edited Wikipedia before. There aren't all that many people who pick up stuff quickly. There aren't all that many people who are wikiaficienados who have had a love of wikis for decades and just decided to join the most successful wiki of all time in 2022. I looked like a not-new account when I joined because I was a not-new account when I joined. Most people who look like not-new accounts are not-new accounts. That can be completely legitimate, but because of the attraction adminship has to the type of people who would be obsessive enough about a project to sock after being told they aren't wanted here, the damage that can cause, and because of the history here with actually damaging sock admins, the community certainly has the right to ask questions, and if they aren't satisfied, to oppose on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  You named only a few of the contemporary abusive admins. But well before any of them, Archtransit happened. I knew Archtransit was a sock, but I felt too new to speak up, anywhere, especially with a cabal of "we admins" after me already (not one of them still a sysop today-- two desysopped by Arbcom, one desysopped for socking, and one warned by the arbs and now deceased). So Archtransit got to have their way for a while. I see some editors who presumably aren't as aged as I am insinuating that none of the many desysopped and socking admins ever caused any damage; I disagree. Perhaps we have different yardsticks for measuring damage, and damaging editors is as bad as the proverbial erasing the mainpage. There are very good reasons we examine editors who submit to RFA, and when they seem to be less than forthcoming about their own editing history, they just make things harder on themselves. Since there has been no accusation of sockpuppetry on the current RFA, I don't know what Clovermoss is even talking about; that supporters twisted a valid oppose into that as a rallying cry is another matter. RFA is a place where we most certainly should and can examine editors, even if others are later going to twist and distort opposes into statements they never were and attach words to them that were never used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Since there has been no accusation of sockpuppetry on the current RFA". I interpret the following comments as aspersions of being a sockpuppet:

  • "Of the main space edits, the editor started out principally by undoing edits...a very strange pattern for an obstensively novice editor" [3]
  • "This editor had a very unusual start, highly suggestive of a returning editor, and set about from the outset appearing to be checking all the right boxes towards RFA, which is where it always appeared they were aiming." [4]
  • "But having read the comments above, as well as the observations by [other editor], I am 'concerned that this user has edited under another account. [5]

  Also consider "I don't endorse the sock accusations above" [6] which implies they exist. In fact, having reviewed these comments, I find the suggestion that there have been "no accusation of sockpuppetry" to be disingenuous; at best people did not intend to fire off sockpuppet accessions, but that's how they were interpreted by others. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Funny that, I interpreted the reference to "sock accusations above" as relating to the original thread with Spartaz, who hasn't weighed in on the RFA. We're all responsible for what we write, not for what other people read that wasn't written. A returning editor is not the same thing as a sock; maybe Tony's not-new is more apt. As SFR has acknowledged, they were in fact not new (rather had been following Wikipedia extensively for years, by their account). Had they not failed to disclose something they appeared to have known they should have disclosed in Q3, and explained that before they had to be asked, none of those questions would have needed to be asked. Considering they decided to stay mum, having now stated they had years of following Wikipedia, why would they or anyone expect the non-disclosure to be ignored at RFA, where everyone will examine your editing history, and then by hiding something, it becomes a red flag? This is a problem of the nomination and the opposer who mentioned "barreling ahead" seems to have pegged it the best; bad cases make bad law, and using this kind of messed up RFA nomination to imply excessive scrutiny at RFA can't lead good places for the process overall. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have now weighed in and have posted my support on the RFA. When I am active I spend a lot of time at AFD and it's an absolute Magnet for socks. I absolutely abhor the impact of socking on discussions so am generally quick to follow up a precocious new account. I used to do it off wiki through email but these days generally raise questions at account talk pages. The main reason is to create a permanent record of the denial if the user turns out to be a sock later on as I ended up having to provide off wiki evidence in an arbcom case involving an admin who had edited with a previous account. Anyway, enough ancient history. The situation here is that SFR was very quickly clueful and this raised serious doubts. I therefore challenged him. I also spent a considerable amount of time doing textural analysis on their edits and did not find any correlation with any other editors active or banned. Finally, I approached arbcom off wiki and had a conversation about my concerns. I have no personal knowledge of what background check arbcom conducted but the concern raised was not new to them and I was entirely reassured at the end of the discussion. Hopefully this will be useful. I am very comfortable in my support. If SFR is a sock, he is the most sophisticated one I have ever encountered. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It is helpful to hear from you Spartaz (apologies for not pinging you when I mentioned you here, but I was concerned that could be construed as canvassing). I am glad you were reassured, but your concerns are a bit different than mine, and by linking to your (old) concern, it now appears I gave a misimpression of what my concerns are. Had the candidate and the nominators not "barreled ahead" and instead put out this old concern, with your reassurance, from the start, we'd have a different RFA. Anyway ... It is interesting you bring up textual analysis in relation to ArbCom, as it has been my impression that some of the arbs ignore it, even when it is quite conclusive, but that's another topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The Textual analysis was for myself and my own concerns and was not shared during my conversation with the arb, indeed I have never disclosed before that I do this if I encounter a suspected sock at AFD. This would also be why the noms and candidate didn’t bring it up because I didn’t made SFR or anyone else aware of the extent of my concerns. To be clear also I was reassured by my own assessment & not just because I spoke to Arbcom. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I understood you to be saying that; I brought up the textual analysis re a very different situation ... one that leads me to wonder if you'll run for ArbCom at some point, so we might get an editor on the committee more conversant in textual analysis than what we appear to have now. Completely unrelated to this situation ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no realistic likelihood that the community would entrust any further powers or permissions to me and frankly I wouldn’t either. Too many flakey decisions, barely active and I’m too prone to being unacceptably abrasive. I’m definitely getting grumpier and less patient the older I get. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Growin' old ain't for sissies, but there is a sense of freedom that comes with it :) Thx for the discussion, and hopefully the textual analysis situation will improve somehow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assertion that "All of these [troublesome admins] caused significant damage to the project by causing divisions in the community and creating distrust, which is a real problem on a project based on trust." I think the impact of these editors is minimal and maybe affects a couple of hundred people at the absolute worst; I reckon the effect on the tens of thousands of people who pop onto Wikipedia just to make a small edit, or the millions of people reading an article, is near zero. I think Andy Mabbett said it best during the WP:FRAMGATE saga with admins jumping ship left, right and centre : "I've just taken a look at Special:RecentChanges and the project seems to be getting on with business as usual, just fine." This is what I would expect. The most disruptive thing I can think of in recent memory is Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Alan MacMasters and I don't think any admins were involved in that (aside from me closing the AfD as "snow delete"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Ritchie, I suppose that's like mortality arguments ... it's meaningless that X disease only kills one in a thousand people, until you're one of those people. Then it's very meaningful to you and your family. On Wikipedia, it's not only people-- processes are also damaged. This RFA is an example; we have people seemingly advocating that we can't raise legitimate concerns at RFA because others interpret them as accusations of sockpuppeting. It would be most unfortunate, for the process, if that thinking took hold, because I should have spoken up at Archtransit in 2008. (I've never heard of Esotrix by the way ... I don't read RFAs usually unless I have some familiarity with the editor, or unless I see unfounded claims of content creation in the nom statement, along the lines discussed above in the thread with Kudpung, so I missed the whole Eostrix thing, although I was aware of Edgar because of the FAs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I also looked into Pastor Theo. The link didn't say what articles or topics they were vandalising / disrupting / pushing a POV (delete as applicable, I don't know which) so I don't know about the disruption. I then note they instantly retired (no comment on that) and their talk page was protected to stop them filing an unblock request, despite not obviously doing so. I really do not get why on earth people care about this nonsense from thirteen years ago when we've got more important issues like hoaxes and extreme POV pushing on topics like WP:ARBIPA that has been going on for decades. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think that's a very apt summary by TonyBallioni. One does indeed have a right to be suspicious and it would be perfectly natural to be so. The problem is that some people are so desperate for a bit of drama that they will look under every rock for an excuse to claim something is controversial. Ironically, serendipitous detection of a corrupt admin and his (or her) socks and other antithetical exploits can have devastating consequences for the discoverer and that's why many of them remain schtum about what they found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are other reasons; I've learned the hard way not to give away the tells of a long-term abuser. I've even withheld tells from the CUs, as I simply don't trust the BEANS won't be spilled. Curiously, ArchTransit and Mattisse had a shared tell (not saying they were the same sock). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  So I've read the comments since I last responded here. I wanted to say a few things:

  • I do think trust is an important part of any RfA candidate. [7] I'm aware that people have different standards for RfA and I don't think people should be afraid to oppose a candidate. I've had some very tramautic real life experiences that have taught me that forcing everyone into an environment where they have to agree can have some devastating consquences. I have bad memories associated with these IRL experiences and thus tend to avoid conflict in general. However, I also try very hard to see other people's perspectives and I never want to feel like I'm exhibiting an us vs them mentality ever again. I was sincere about starting an actual conversation here.
  • The comments implying that SFR has used a different account before still leave me with unease. My conscience screams at me that it's simply just not right and I felt obligated to say something because of that. If I had to give words of what causes that, Levivich's comments about lying express a lot of how I personally feel. I do think it's important that these discussions have more faith in new editors. I think it is harmful that new editors who've done nothing wrong and are simply competent get people asking questions. I do not think this is the healthy, welcoming atmosphere we should have to new editors. New editors can be aware of what goes on behind the scenes, even without previous experience here or on other wikis. It's not impossible that someone could click "Community portal" from the main page, see the policy pages where we discuss things, find it intriguing and want to get involved in that. Same goes for anyone who clicks the Wikipedia:Task Center mentioned in a lot of welcome templates. There's instructions everywhere and most things on-wiki are fairly transparent. If a new editor decided they wanted to read my entire talk page right now, they'd be able to understand that the Wikimedia Foundation exists and maybe form an opinion on it. How well would that go for them in an environment like this?
  • Obviously, an actual LTA becoming an admin has the potential to do serious harm to the project. I do think an interesting point has been raised about how someone can not feel comfortable supporting or have some sort of private evidence that they wouldn't nessecarily want to blast on-wiki. I also agree with the concept that no one "deserves" to be an admin. I do think that looking at people who run because they have a sincere desire to help the community and then getting this is part of what makes the RfA environment called "toxic", though.

  I'm still going to give all of this some thought, but in general I think I should be stepping back here. I think I need some time away from all this for my own wellbeing. Clovermoss (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thx for the discussion, Clovermoss. The "lying" posts were the most offensive part for me, and hyperbolic, and they so distort what the concerns are. Perhaps we can conclude that mistakes were made all round. It is apparent that my initial oppose was muddy (my bad, my responsibility, and not entirely atypical of my writing). I'm fairly certain at this point the candidate realizes mistakes were made in the approach. I hope the nominators learned something about how not to position an RFA vis-a-vis past issues. It's also time for me to step back; I've taken more than my share of the discussion. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hi SandyGeorgia. I wanted to be a bit more precise about certain things after some time and reflection so you could try and understand my train of thought better, but I understand if you've reached a point where you're no longer interested.

  The main reason I wrote the first item in the list above was because I wanted to recognize that the opposes aren't a monolith. I think the reason supporters are focusing on the !votes that imply socking/previous editing (and there are quite a few, as described by Ritchie333 in this thread) is because they take issue with that mentality. I started this discussion on WT:RFA because of the general trend, not to focus on your oppose specifically. I mentioned Eostrix because at the time I started this discussion, one of the opposes explicitly mentioned it and said something to the effect of "because we were almost burned" by said RfA. But what I was trying to get across in bullet point one was some sort of response to this: Since there has been no accusation of sockpuppetry on the current RFA, I don't know what Clovermoss is even talking about; that supporters twisted a valid oppose into that as a rallying cry is another matter. I guess what I'm trying to say is I think the reason that supporters are focusing on this is because they don't inherently have an issue with the other opposes even if they disagree with that accessment. There are opposes where I go "yeah, I can see why someone could think that and not feel comfortable supporting the candidate".

  Which leads to my second bullet point. I don't think Levivich's response that mentions the part about lying is nessecarily hyperbolic. Personally, I would've toned it down a little, but I think they have a valid argument. Accusing someone of sockpuppetry or having some sort of undeclared editing history is essentially saying "yeah, I think you're lying about who you are". Words like that have impact and I think it's important to consider that. I think almost everyone putting themselves forward as an RfA candidate cares deeply about the project and wants to contribute in another way they can, so accussations like this shouldn't be taken lightly. It's important to remember there is another person behind the screen. Not to say you're taking this lightly but it was something I wanted to emphasize, again, given the general trends seen in this RfA.

  As for the third bullet point, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though an LTA becoming an admin could do very serious damage, I don't think accessing every candidate through the lens of "is this someone's malicious plan to fool the community?" is nessecarily the most productive way to view RfAs. I think it contributes to a more toxic environment. Going into the new editors side of this (because SFR has had people with concerns about their imo perfectly normal edit history from the start) is that people like us who've been around in the community awhile typically find it easier to make their opinions known. But new editors might feel pressured to self-censor if that goes against some established norm. Everyone knows that new editors don't do x... except the people who don't feel that way don't feel comfortable expressing that opinion. The overall harm of if we're wrong has a very real risk, too. It's not just about mitigating the effects of abusive LTAs. It's the difference between "hey, I've seen you doing x, y, z well. Keep it up!" vs "Hey, I've seen you doing x, y, z well. What's the past editing history you're hiding". I've seen more than one example of the latter and I think it's harmful and bite-y, when the very real possibility is that we have an actual newbie whose just interested in doing the best that they can. Clovermoss (talk) 12:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thx, Clovermoss.

  • Accusing someone of sockpuppetry or having some sort of undeclared editing history is essentially saying "yeah, I think you're lying about who you are" I strongly disagree, and levivich did seem to be pointing specific fingers here. Thinking something is so insignificant that you don't even need to raise it in an RFA nomination is not the same as lying. Which leads in to:
  • I don't think accessing every candidate through the lens of "is this someone's malicious plan to fool the community?" is nessecarily the most productive way to view RfAs which is why this RFA has been so frustrating. If you still think that's what's happening, the reason I opposed has been entirely missed. I will never support a candidate whose trajectory suggests they are barreling ahead and ticking the boxes on the path to RFA. That is the basis of my oppose. Which opposer has viewed a candidate through the lens you describe ?

  Had the candidate and the nominators consulted Spartaz first, and brought that past issue forward in the nomination statement, we would not be where we are (a contentious RFA). If an issue was significant enough that you had communication with the arbs about it, how can one think it's not significant to the broader community? Had this issue been covered in the nomination statement, I'd still be an oppose based on the editing history, but it would have been my standard mild oppose. We have a TOOSOON candidate who, with the years of observing Wikipedia they say they have, did not understand that Wikipedia is not like a personal Wiki you run where no matter how many participants you have, there's still more or less a group in charge. The arbs are not "in charge" here; the entire community is. The "lying" framing is offensive, and the "socking" rallying cry is a strawman.

  And finally, I tossed the candidate a "get out of jail free card" with my question about Mally. A clueful answer would have caused me to soften my oppose; an exemplary answer could have led me to strike it. A really bad answer would have caused me to double down on the strong oppose. The answer left me where I started: the candidate had not absorbed the full dynamic that led to Eric's demise, and did not recognize the power admins hold over content creators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: Since our opinions start to diverge after the whole "does this RfA include allegations of sockpuppetry", we should probably focus on that? Again, I was talking about the general trends, but personally I could see how someone would intrepret your oppose as implying that:

  Strong oppose. Creating their account on 22 January 2021, this editor has been editing only a bit over a year-and-a-half. When they started editing on 11 February, one of their first edits was to blank the welcome template—an odd way to start editing. My concerns are in line with those raised early on at the editor's talk page: "You must be the most precocious editor we have ever had". This editor had a very unusual start, highly suggestive of a returning editor, and set about from the outset appearing to be checking all the right boxes towards RFA, which is where it always appeared they were aiming. Content creation was never primary for this editor, who nonetheless indicated considerable knowledge of Wiki-processes. An 800-word and an 1,110 word GA—passed by editors I'm unfamiliar with—do not convince me, and in fact, look like another box to be ticked on the much-too-quick route to RFA. I can't recall recently seeing an editor with only 18% of their edits in mainspace. I'm additionally concerned that neither the nominators nor the RFA candidate addressed this editor's odd history in their nomination statements. Considering this editor's early history, there is nothing that can be said to convince me that it is not much too soon to trust this "new" editor with the tools. This is my strongest possible oppose. [8]

  What was it you were trying to go for in this oppose, if not an implication of socking or some prior undisclosed editing history? I feel like I might understand your perspective better if we can find some sort of common ground. Then continue the discussion from there, if you're still interested. Clovermoss (talk) 01:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Why does a new editor blank the welcome template? We don't know that answer, but I've never seen that before. Considering they started by intensely fulfilling requests from unregistered (typically new) editors, to remove the welcoming template (which shows that they too are new) seems like something that could mislead other new editors whose edit requests were filled. But why? Confusing.

  Most editors enter Wikipedia via a certain content area, and they branch out from there to other (eg governance, content review, noticeboards, copyright) specialty areas, while this editing trajectory went the opposite direction. Their start that way was so unusual that another editor called it out, and yet this wasn't raised in the nomination. I don't trust the tools to editors who show up wanting to be admins rather than showing up wanting to edit content and gradually discovering their strengths lie elsewhere; whether they edited as an IP, or are a cleanstart, RTV, legitsock, anything else, I still don't trust that trajectory. If I had stated that first, and then backfilled the other concerns, including that another editor had raised these queries, perhaps my construction of the paragraph would have been clearer. A new account moves straight into governance, but removes welcome template to (??) maybe not appear new is odd. But at this point, probably everyone is bored silly of the topic, and maybe we should take it to my talk if you still want more clarification. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'd prefer to keep the discussion here if you don't mind just so it isn't scattered. As for why a new editor would blank the welcome template, I've never seen that specifically, but I have seen many people blank messages they've read. So that's the assumption I would typically go with. Based off their answer to Q6, maybe they didn't think they needed the welcome message. As for your trajectory comment, I understand where you're going with that. My personal opinion is that just because it's different than what's typically expected, doesn't mean it's an inherently wrong path. I will say that it's a factor that results in me thinking this RfA wasn't going to be unanimous regardless of how the nom went. People in general don't like it when people focus on the "dramaboards". A lot of RfA-related advice mentions this specifically. Another reason I'd think this isn't a returning account, actually, is because wouldn't someone whose intent is to become an admin from the start know to avoid that? I think I expressed this line of thought a bit better in my earlier comments, though, which you've already read.

Temperment is something people mention in RfAs all the time. I wonder if maybe you'd focus on the latter concern more if we could rewind time? I see you kind of go a bit further into your reasoning on replies in the oppose section now. As I said, there are opposes that I find relatively convincing. I guess what I'm saying is that my issue truly is with the broader implication going on in this RfA is that SFR is hiding something. The nom could've been handled differently, but I think JBW made an interesting point in the RfA itself with I did some IP editing before creating an account. I have never made any secret about that, but nor, as far as I remember did I mention it in my RFA. That wasn't because I wanted to hide it, it was because I didn't think it in any way significant or relevant. I'm not sure how I feel about how people closing the RfA should take this part, though.

Anyways, this conversation has been slightly one-sided even if we've both been participating. Anything you want me to clarify in regards to my thoughts? Clovermoss (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC), edited 15:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

No clarification needed; I understand your thoughts (I just hesitate to keep putting this page through more of this, but neither do I want to ignore your questions).

Re Temperment is something people mention in RfAs all the time. I wonder if maybe you'd focus on the latter concern more if we could rewind time? hindsight is 20–20, but no, I don't think that would be the focus of how I would frame this particular oppose even if I could rewind. (I would compose my oppose more carefully and not write it from my phone while engaged in a labor-intensive fundraiser, but then, I knew I'd have no break for at least a full week.) RFA ultimately boils down to trust. If I pondered long enough, I could probably come up with an example of somehow who once or twice upon a time blew it in the temperament department, and yet I still trust not to use the admin tools in a huff, personal dispute, or when involved. Repeating, the focus on IP edits is misplaced (I edited for months as an IP, and only finally registered an account to initiate a mediation with a dynamic IP who was a COI/POV editor biasing an article using their own website as a source). IP editing is not the issue for me in this RFA; an editing trajectory suggestive of an editor who is here to seek adminship over content creation was, and is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I should have been more precise with what I meant in regards to temperament. I guess my off-the-top mental definition is a bit more broad. But I think of it as a "does what this person show me through their actions make me trust them" as a factor. One thing leads to the next. I will say I'm impressed in general with SFR in regards to how this RfA is going (even if you disagree). I'm not sure how I would react if I was in their shoes. I hope they're doing okay behind the screen, too.

Also, thank you for engaging with me. I haven't really changed my mind but I often have a hard time feeling comfortable disagreeing with people. While I definitely had to take some long breaks in this discussion, it's nice to know that it is possible for me to still defend a position I hold strongly without going over the top in a "nothing can ever change my mind" way. Clovermoss (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

After watching ScottishFinnishRadish's RfA unfold over the past week, I have two things to say:

1. This had better become the go-to link for every instance of someone asking why we have so few RfAs these days. I don't know when 18 months, nearly 30,000 edits, and 2 GAs became insufficient experience for an RfA candidate, but I've been around long enough to remember a time when that would be referred to as "overqualified" by the peanut gallery at large. Also, why are we using namespace distribution as a measure of an editor's value? There are so many different variables at play that a simple pie chart could never account for.
2. A returning editor with malicious intent who wants to become an administrator will likely try to avoid giving off any indication that they might have edited before. If they're especially smart, their contributions will be indistinguishable from those of a genuine newcomer. It is literally impossible to create a completely foolproof system to prevent a single "bad apple" from ever getting their hands on the tools. Any benefit we'd derive from doing so would be vastly outweighed by the fact that we would promote virtually nobody.

I have nothing more to add. I do respect a lot of the people in the oppose column, but I fundamentally disagree with the standards to which we hold would-be administrators. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree entirely with point 1. For every candidate I've nominated at RFA, I've had approximately two with similar qualifications decline a nomination specifically because they were worried about the climate, and about unreasonable standards. I suspect that ratio is going to get worse. Note that at the time of writing all five of my earlier nominees were successful, and SFR's RFA has just entered a crat-chat. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

"So few RFAs"

Kurtis wrote that "This had better become the go-to link for every instance of someone asking why we have so few RfAs these days."

1. You can scroll to the top of this page to see the results of the most recent (last 5) RFAs. On the last five RFAs, we have:

   two very heavy content creators (highly involved in the GA/FA and peer review processes) passing easily with essentially no opposes (Z1720 194–0 and Femke 200–2);

   a copyright patroller who also has an FA passing easily with no opposes (DanCherek 281–0);

   an editor who created a bot passing with some opposition (DatGuy 158–16);

   and one self-nom that seemed not ready for RFA, no real content creation (Shushugah withdrawn at 59–46).

2. You can see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year#2022 for more data, with similar trends.

   the next candidate was not a top content creator, and ended up in a 'crat chat.

   and scrolling on down the list for FA names I recognize, I see the prolific Modussiccandi at 196–0, among others who passed easily, too many to name.

I'm looking at three out of the last five passed with flying colors, and they all created top content. You ask "I don't know when 18 months, nearly 30,000 edits, and 2 GAs became insufficient experience for an RfA candidate"; I don't know when 1,900 total words of GAs became sufficient to consider one had engaged the content side of Wikipedia, but whenever I saw an RFA candidate nominated on content creation who did not actually fit that description, I opposed. If they presented with other strengths, not misleading, I was unlikely to engage. SFR was nominated as having a "solid portfolio of content work"; they do not.

For all the people I know who don't want to seek adminship, the factors that often come up are things like: distraction from content work; view admins as only here to block other editors; don't feel adminship is necessarily prestigious (the high rate of abuse and power-seeking); and don't want to give a full week of their life and endure 30 questions in an RFA.

I am not saying this was a desirable RFA, or that no mistakes were made, but they were made by all: in their incomplete presentation by both the candidate and the nominators; and by me as well in not more carefully composing my oppose for clarity, such that a rallying cry/strawman of socking took hold. Not being forthcoming about an early editing history that led to communication with ArbCom, and an editing trajectory suggestive of admin-seeking rather than content building are not the same as socking. But you seek to blame a poorly presented RFA that became contentious for all of RFA's problems, when there are many more, and more complex, factors that account for the declining number of admins, along with the equally declining participation in content review processes. Judging by the candidates who are passing easily, I see a trend. Judging by the desysops I'm aware of, I hope that RFA continues to do just what it is supposed to be doing when it screens a candidate we don't yet know well enough or have questions about. Well-prepared candidates with engagement of top content pass easily; that many of them don't want to be admins has often to do with the perception of adminship as not worth a week of their lives to answer an endless stream of questions. A well-prepared candidate will not face an RFA like this one, but they will still have to endure the 30 silly questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So then, what would you define as being a "solid portfolio of content work"? Do editors need to have an array of GAs and/or FAs before fitting the bill? What if someone finds articles, expands upon them by adding new content and references, but never bothers to nominate anything they contribute for GA-status, let alone FA? Would it be dishonest for them to describe themselves as "content contributors"? Kurtis ^(talk) 09:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kurtis "Finds articles, expands upon them by adding new content and references, but never bothers to nominate anything they contribute for GA-status, let alone FA" is a fairly good description of my content work around the time of WP:Requests for adminship/ONUnicorn. I did have several DYKs, but no GAs or FAs. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a hypothetical, and one of those things that "you know it when you see it"; there are plenty of ways to demonstrate content engagement without GAs or FAs (and we discussed that already in the lengthy thread above-- and I can think of many others on top of those you list). Focusing on this case, the candidate demonstrated essentially no other significant content building of the type you describe. Adding together the two factors (misleading on content, and not forthcoming on past editing history) doesn't help towards the main factor we are evaluating at RFA: trust. That the examples of poor temperament came in late is another factor; had they come in earlier, I'd wager there would have been even more opposition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

In the case of people doing expansion and adding references, the concern is that there's no understanding of the process of taking an article from creation to peer review, and that if you haven't done that, you don't understand why it's so hard and what those editors face. It's not that the work isn't valuable, it absolutely is. But an admin needs to understand what actual content creators face, and the only way to prove that is by the peer review process. Valereee (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And one can be a very good reviewer (at PR, GAN, FAC or FAR) even if they feel shaky about their own ability to write! Or they can work at places like WP:3O; there are so many ways to engage content without producing a little star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I will say Sandy, though, that there are very wide gaps between some GA reviews and others. To give an example of the difference, Here is my review of a Spanish vote of no-confidence article which I considered a detailed review, while This is a review of a similar article by the same nominee which I consider grossly incomplete. If a nominee had created 30 or 40 of the former I wouldn't see them as inexperienced with content, but the latter make a candidate look seriously unsuited for adminship at that stage. Of course, FAC and FAR are much much better. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, I do think Dispute Resolution Noticeboard moderation is something more future RFA nominees/candidates should do. The implicit goal of constructive conflict resolution without the use of tools, the strong understanding of PAGs needed to moderate the harder cases, and the conduct and character displayed in the successful moderation of cases is in my eyes one of the strongest indicators of admin suitability. Sadly there's only 2 or 3 active moderators there as well as issues with our internal guidance that encourages new editors to go to ANI before DRN in content disputes (as can be seen by the many wrongly filed ANI cases we see each week) resulting in few cases being requested. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Probably over 70% of my edits are in the article namespace, and I would define myself as a content creator because I am adding content to the articles other editors can not or can with some difficulties, but I do not have any GA/FAs and I am not planning to have any (since English is not my mothertongue, I believe that I better leave this last step to native speakers). For the record, as an academic, I am dealing with peer review every day in my life. Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And you gave a very plausible explanation for why you, primarily a creator of content, had no GAs or FAs, and no one opposed your candidacy for lack of content creation. :) Valereee (talk) 12:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I absolutely recognize how difficult the process is—that's one of the main reasons as to why I've never actually gone through the trouble of bringing anything I've written to either GAN or FAC. The notion of creating a nomination page for something I felt that I worked hard at, only for someone to ask me why I think that what I've written is even worthy of consideration for GA or FA-status, is discouraging.

Speaking only for myself, I am extremely perfectionistic in how I approach virtually every aspect of my life, to the point where I hold myself back from doing things because I fear the consequences of doing them incorrectly. Editing Wikipedia is no exception, and it's the main reason as to why I've never been a particularly prolific content contributor. When I attempt to write an article, it's not just a matter of making it legible and having a few external links here and there—the prose needs to be grammatically immaculate, there needs to be no close paraphrasing whatsoever (even unintentionally so), the references need to be thoroughly detailed, external links need to be from reliable outlets, the sources need to support the exact thing that they are referencing, the formatting needs to be clear, etc. In my view, you can't just submit content first, and then add references later, or revise the text so that it fits the sources; whatever you put out onto Wikipedia needs to be well-referenced at the time it is submitted. When I attempt to write an article, the very first thing I do is gather as many references as I possibly can from a variety of well-accredited sources, and then I attempt to summarize whatever they say in my own words. Writing articles is hard work, and being a content creator requires a very serious commitment. That involves maintaining a sustained focus on writing and copyediting a single article over periods that will often span weeks, months, or even years.

This is personal, but I feel it is relevant; I recently (i.e. the past few years) realized that I have ADHD-PI. One of the ways it manifests in my case is that I will often begin projects with a high degree of enthusiasm, invest a tremendous amount of effort into them from the outset, and then after a couple weeks or so I lose interest and move on to something else. This has made it incredibly difficult for me to live my life; I lack the type of sustained focus that is essential to maintaining a long-term, serious commitment to anything. The good news is that I'm seeking treatment for this, and said treatment seems to be more within my grasp now than it has ever been before, but whether it transforms my life or not remains to be seen.

This is why the “lack of content creation” argument hits somewhat close to home for me; it feels like my own contributions are being denigrated as falling below an ideal standard. The insinuation is that my value as an editor, regardless of what other good I might do for Wikipedia, is intrinsically tied to the number of high-quality articles I've written—which, in my case, is relatively few. I am the principle writer of forced evictions in Baku and capital punishment in Yemen, neither of which are "bad" articles per se, but I don't feel that either one of them is worthy of the green plus sign in their current state. Other than that, I am primarily a WikiGnome and I also like to engage in Wikipedia-space discussions, particularly on WP:ITNC and RfA. I put a lot of thought and consideration into everything I type, and I like to believe that everything I do is for the benefit of Wikipedia. I don’t want to subject myself to a week’s worth of having my entire contribution history reduced to “just over a quarter of all his edits have been to article space”. And if I don't want to deal with that, a lot of other editors probably don't want to go through it either. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, it's not that the work isn't valued and important. It's that in order to convince people you understood content creation well enough to be trusted as an admin you'd need to find some other way to show what a high mainspace count + a few GAs provide basic proof of. People use those as a sort of shorthand, but there are other ways to show it. Some editors have hard-and-fast rules about supporting anyone without peer reviewed content, but most would listen to an explanation. Valereee (talk) 12:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, my comment was not specifically intended to convince people of my own understanding of content creation and its tribulations. What I'm trying to do is provide my perspective as to why so many editors are hesitant to apply for RfA, speaking as someone who is not an administrator and has no inclination to submit an RfA at this time. I went through an RfA of my own just over a decade ago, which I'm loathe to link to because I withdrew it a few hours prior to its scheduled closure with a political statement that I find slightly embarrassing in retrospect; I was lucky that what I went through had turned out to be an overall positive, constructive experience relative to what others have had to endure. There is no guarantee that I would be so fortunate were I to run again. For me, the benefit of having sysop permissions is hardly worth the high possibility of having my entire history as an editor so heavily scrutinized. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kurtis, it sounds like you'd make a good admin. Self-awareness if worth a hundred GAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm a bit too sporadic in my editing for me to apply at the moment. I'll give it some more thought if I ever do get back into active editing (which I'd like to, I just... have to take care of the aforementioned ADHD-PI thing first 😏). Kurtis ^(talk) 22:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Best of luck to you ... at least the science behind treatment has improved considerably over the decades since I wrote Tourette syndrome (often comorbid), and I'm confident you'll do fine :) And I meant what I said about the value of self-awareness relative to content creation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Not looking for an extended back-and-forth here, so further engagement from me will be minimal, but two points need to be raised in response.
  1) In 2022 we've had a net loss of 32 admins at the time of writing (44 desysoppings, 3 restorations, 9 successful RFAs). When people complain of the number of RFAs, that number is typically what they worry about. It doesn't matter how well-qualified the successful candidates are if there's too few of them.
  2) By your own admission, Sandy, you look for admin candidates primarily (exclusively?) among those engaged with FA-related processes. That's less than a hundred editors, of the thousands of active ones we have. By definition, that's a highly non-representative sample, and isn't going to tell you about why eligible candidates aren't running; particularly so because if content writers want to focus on content, they're not going to burn through the backlog even if they are persuaded to run. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Aren't most of those in your number 1 due to inactivity? Not a factor in the control of RFA. On your number 2, I look for candidates to nominate myself, which is a separate matter from what I support or oppose or with whom I converse about adminship or the number of times I'm asked about candidates. But to a degree, yes, there is some skew towards content people in my sample. Having admins who are primarily content creators has potential to do more than "burn through the backlog"; it might lower it by helping not create some of the kinds of problems that fester and boil over to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Inactive admins are still admins we don't have, and much as I like having candidates from within the FA contributors, they simply are not representative of the larger editor body, nor do admins with that background frequently end up making large dents in the backlog. We can't rely on editors with one sort of background providing all our admins and admin work; it's plain impossible. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's a bit of a conundrum. We want admins to be content creators, but not primarily content creators. :D Before I ran RfA I routinely averaged 60%+ mainspace edits. As soon as I became an admin the numbers dropped into the 40s. I consider myself primarily a content creator, but this year my cumulative average dropped below 50% for the first time, which I am a little sad about. But here I am on a WT page not improving that. :D Valereee (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Although there has been much discussion about the rate of attrition of administrators, it seems to be happening very slowly. Even if we lost 50 administrators a year, and assuming we need 500 regular admins to keep things moving along, it would still take ten years for us to be in trouble, and that assumes nobody ever stood for RfA again. So I've never been convinced that things have been that bad. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  The number of administrators needed to keep the project going is effectively impossible to determine. We don't and likely can't know. As the project ages, and we continue to lose administrators, we will sometimes lose key administrators (defined in this case as highly active administrators or those in key roles). We'll note the loss of such admins, but the project itself will continue. The number of active administrators is already below 500, and slowly falling. Over the last 10 complete years, we've lost a net average of 82 admins (active and otherwise) per year (WP:DBM). Thus, in theory, we have 12.5 years left before the last admin packs up and moves on. In practice, various functions of the project will begin to decay, become unsupportable, or otherwise fall apart. We're seeing this now on Commons. Commons is effectively a failed project at this point. So, 12.5 years is a highly optimistic view of when the project will just fail. Reality is likely considerably shorter. I raised the spectre of how we handle a post-admin era almost 6 years ago (thread). Nothing's changed since I noted that. 6 years from now, we could be looking at a failed project if nothing is done. Is the sky falling? No. Is the atmosphere becoming increasingly difficult to breathe? You bet. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  The shorter-term problem is when the pipeline slows to a trickle, we aren't getting new cohorts of admins which can lead to fatigue in existing admins and less diversity in discussions on administrative matters. isaacl (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Trying to recruit admins from amongst people who mainly write high quality content is not a viable or sensible strategy. People who mainly write or review high quality content probably want to spend their time writing or reviewing high quality content, and there's very little intersection between that and admin work. It's not remotely surprising if they think adminship is a distraction from content work. Z1720, for example, said that his main focus as an admin would be DYK, and indeed he doesn't seem to have done any other admin work since becoming an admin three weeks ago. He's been writing and reviewing content instead. Even if we could draft our FA writers to do typical admin work, and make them delete corporate spam, block vandals and try to stop edit wars - why would we? I suspect the FA work they would have done otherwise would have been a good deal more valuable.
  The people who would be most interested in adminship, and the people who would make the most difference to admin backlogs, are the people who do admin-type work as a non-admin. An experienced NP patroller, for example, would find the admin toolkit directly useful in their everyday work. However someone like that would probably get a bunch of opposes for lack of content creation, unless they happen to write FAs in their spare time. Even if they did write some content to prove they can that's evidently not considered enough. I suspect that eventually the number of admins will dwindle to the point where the community will have to fix this, but for now it's one of the biggest faults in RfA. Hut 8.5 19:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  By your own admission, those people who don't produce high quality content would be a lot more valuable if they did. FA work is not like dealing with backlogs because you are capped at four or five FAs per year. So more people equals more FAs. I have written 98 but that is only because I have been around a very long time. Like most FA writers I spend most of the time on NPP, DYK, AfD, backlogs, bot maintenance and administrative tasks. The admin toolkit would be far more useful to me than your experienced NP patroller. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  Hut 8.5 Hawkeye addressed part of your post but re Trying to recruit admins from amongst people who mainly write high quality content is not a viable or sensible strategy if anyone in this discussion had advocated for that, I missed it. I have stated (somewhere) that I only nominate editors I know very VERY well, and those are the FA people. I (and others) have repeatedly stated that there are many ways to evaluate whether an editor has sufficiently engaged content creation sans the little stars. My intent when I started this section was to illustrate that, contrary to the hand-wringing about the state of RFA (which is similar to that state of all of Wikipedia), most content contributors sail through RFA. The numbers show us where the !voters stand, and they seem to agree that content engagement is key. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

  contrary to the hand-wringing about the state of RFA... most content contributors sail through RFA. OK, how do we use that observation to increase the number of successful RfAs? There are only two options: recruit new admins from amongst people you consider "content contributors", or try to force people interested in adminship to become "content contributors". As I've explained, the former is not a practical option. The latter isn't very realistic either. While some RfA candidates are willing to write some content to demonstrate they can, your oppose in the ScottishFinnishRadish RfA said that Content creation was never primary for this editor, suggesting you're expecting potential RfA candidates to change the entire focus of their editing. And no, it's not correct to say that the decline in the admin corps is reflected in Wikipedia generally. The number of active editors has been fairly stable for the last decade or so, as has the rate of edits. Hut 8.5 12:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The number of active editors has been stable, but participation in content review processes has declined (even to the point of WP:PR being practically defunct). And that's the answer to the first part of your response; you don't have to "force people" to engage content. By seeing the trends, they can be encouraged (without force) to help out in more ways than 800-word GAs. You can engage content without GAs or FAs. Re the wording in my oppose, I've already acknowledged several times it was not carefully composed, as I was editing from my phone while working on a fundraiser. It's fairly clear that if I had written it more coherently, the RFA would have unfolded differently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  The number of active editors has been stable, but participation in content review processes has declined - that suggests that people don't want to participate in those processes. Trying to figure out why that is and fixing it would be more effective than applying unrealistic standards at RfA. Hut 8.5 17:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  Participation in writing content (you know, actual sentences in articles) has greatly declined, as nowadays very large numbers of editors never do anything except deletion & other talk discussions, templates, navboxes, geolocations, infoboxes, gnomish reference fixing, categories, quality ratings, short descriptions, images and so on. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have 2 FAs and 17 GAs. I would still fail at RfA. There's more to it than writing articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• I feel that my skills and lifestyle make me more valuable to the project as a gnome than a content creator. I think it's equally or more valuable to the project at this point in time to make our existing articles exemplary than to make a bunch of new ones just so I can tick off a box of "created new article".

Also, I'm in the U.S. but tend to keep late hours, and I'd love to have more mop-equipped U.S. people online at midnight on the Pacific coast to block spammers and trolls whose contextual inappropriateness isn't necessarily apparent to people in the part of the world who are waking up at that time of day.

But what I don't think has been addressed sufficiently in this community discussion is the reason I don't want to do an RfA: I am deeply anxious about personal security and privacy, and I have zero trust in the WMF to provide supportive resources in this regard. I don't feel physically or professionally safe becoming a target of children who are capable of getting so wound up about being blocked for edit-warring the assertion that Chicago pizza is "a casserole" that they'll lose their minds and try to get me fired and/or arrested in real life for the lulz. I'm probably just some fat bitch who needs to die anyway.

Tell me how I'm being unreasonable. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

You aren't being unreasonable. Valereee (talk) 05:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep ... one of several reasons I've never wanted to be an admin; Wikipedia is dangerous enough as it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hammersoft above articulates my feelings almost exactly. If the attrition continues, we shouldn't be surprised when we're eventually unable to handle the flood of socks, spam, vandalism, and drive-by POV-pushing. I wouldn't be surprised if many editors were to apply unrealistic standards at RFA even under those circumstances, but for Wikipedia's sake I hope most of us don't. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think we're about to see a real impact about the diminishing capacity of the admin corp when this year's CUOS candidates are presented to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  On a strangely related note, my experience applying for CU in 2020 burned me out of Wikipedia much more than any other experience including my RfA. The combination of a high-effort application, followed by a lengthy public consultation with virtually no feedback, then a polite, vague "no" several weeks later after a secret discussion. For all the flaws of recent RfA's, I'd have taken that in preference! ~ mazca ^talk 23:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  A perspective that we often forget as desktop editors is that of mobile access. While the actions of socks, spammers, vandals, and POV-pushers are possible with mobile phones, many admin actions are not as accessible on the phone, at least to my knowledge. As the internet population continues shifting increasingly towards phones and those of us that have grown up or primarily use desktop become ever more the minority, our ability to recruit desktop editors will decrease (in my opinion). How that affects the rate of active admins I do not know. But I do expect the context of Wikipedia editing to change. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

With fewer active admins, the demands on the remaining admins increase, which may enforce the view some hold that adminship is a big deal. I don't see standards going down anytime soon.

I just wish we could apply some of the accumulated wisdom of countless other organisations: when (!)voting on content, it's public, when (!)voting on people, it's private. I believe that the oppose rationales + knowing who would vote against / in support are a way larger deterrent to run for RfA than the opposes themselves. Femke (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I used to be staunchly in favor of the !vote system over the vote system, as I worried the latter may be too easily game-able by socks and editors with past beef. At this point, though, I'd support an anonymous vote, provided the activity threshold for eligibility was high enough. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

RFX protection

Why are RfXs not protected by default? I'm just curious after the recent disruption at SFR's RfA. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes retired editors (possibly those who have retired because of trolling / harassment) come back as an IP and make thoughtful comments. As long as they're not disruptive, it's okay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

In a few different RfXs, I have seen meaningful comments, and/or questions by anons. The policy does not forbid IPs from contributing to RfXs, except for voting. If there is disruption, blocking a particular IP or range is preferable than protecting the RfX. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

RFAstats

Does anyone know of a way to look at RFA !voting history that's still functional? Scottywong's tool has been down for a while, AFAIK. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93, [9] is what I use (there may be others too). Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 08:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Giraffer: Thanks for that; I should have been clearer, I meant the history of a single editor's !votes at RFA, akin to AfDstats. We had an RFAstats tool, which has been down for a year or so, IIRC. I was wondering if there are alternatives. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Vanamonde, I've been missing that, too. Valereee (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I've found it a very useful tool when researching candidates at RFA (not just nominees), and ACE; and also whether it's worth discussing things with !voters. I find it quite informative to learn whether !voters are typically entrenched in their positions, or are willing to amend their views following reasoned debate. I've also found it informative to learn when an editors expectations are wildly out of sync with the community's. In past years I would run that tool for every ARBCOM candidate I was considering, and several times I have been swayed by observing a pattern with this tool that wasn't visible from individual !votes. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

# of people moving support/oppose

Worm That Turned made an interesting observation in the current cratchat Interestingly, I have not seen many individuals change their opinion during the course of the RfA based on the opposite side's opinion, neither side has persuaded the other, which is unusual at a contentious RfA. I decided to explore this observation and it indeed proved correct. Looking at RfAs that went to cratchat since 2017, this has the lowest number of people who struck a support or oppose (not counting sockblocks) - 2. As a percentage of overall supports+opposes it is also substantially lower than any of the other RfCs - 0.61%. The other percentages are:

• Tamzin 5.53%
• Moneytrees 1.83%
• Floq 2 2.27%
• RexxS 4.27%
• Jbhunley 3.87%
• Golden Ring 1.88%

So this truly is an unusual circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

My memory is correct! How unusual! Worm^TT(talk) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)