Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

Current time is 12:09, 9 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

Remove block

We have talked around and around "RFA is broken" pretty much as long as there has been an RfA process.

At the end of the day, it isn't about what an admin can do with content. And non-admins are closing more and more discussions every day.

It's the fear of "you might block me".

An admin can try to delete the main page, misuse protect, and any number of other things. The vast majority of admin actions that most editors see every day, are easily reversible.

But, the idea that an admin can prevent you from your wiki-editing-fix. That brings out the fear in people. It can be emotional - it can be visceral.

Yes, blocking's reversble. And yes we say it's preventative and not punitive. And yes we say it's not personal.

But the person on the other side of the block who has to now rely on the goodwill of others, may not be comfortable about all of that.

And RfA is, and will remain what it is because of block.

And let's go a step further - someone more in touch with such things than I, can look up the stats - but I believe the majority of desysop situations by arbcom of late involved blocking (or unblocking) in some way.

It's just contentious.

So if we want to solve something, let's solve this.

I've tried many iterations of this after listening to lots of discussions on this very page.

Do we create a non-blocking user group? Do we remove block from admin? Do we make admin a two part package? etc. Oppose because I want it grouped with this or with that, or I'm afraid of a two-tier admin system, or but it's always been like this, or I don't see a reason to change, or or or.

So if anyone has ideas to cut the gordian knot, that would be great.

Otherwise, in my not so humble opinion: we-are-all-just-spinning-our-wheels-on-this-page.

Feel free to tell me how mistaken I am. That's fine. I'm merely just one of many who've been reading and participating in discussions on this page for years.

But I am hoping that maybe, just maybe, we can come up with something. Because continually fine-tuning RFA into more and more of a controlled bureacracy isn't working. People avoid it like the plague.

Anyway, obviously thoughts would be most welcome. - jc37 01:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points here, jc37. I don't know how practical much of it could be in the long run though. How many users would be willing to become part of this "blocking" group? What processes can be implemented to check for the involved politics of these users when dealing with contentious topics? What checks and balances would there be to avoid abuse? If this would end up being some RfC/ANI-type pile-on system, forget about it. But if it incorporated experienced, uninvolved users – emphasis on uninvolved – carefully examining evidence without bias and off-site links to other users, then yes, this separated, "two-tiered" system may indeed work. Leave "admins" to do that work; create a new group of "blockers" to do that work. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The easiest implementation, as far as I can tell, would be to put block (and a few other related tools) in a separate user-right and then assign that to all current admins. Then at least we have options for where we as a community want to go from there. - jc37 01:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Every time we have unbundled a tool from the admin toolset it has resulted in RfA becoming harder to pass, not easier. Apart from other philosophical or practical issues people may have with this proposal, it will not accomplish what you suggest. – bradv 01:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

So maybe a completely separate system similar to ArbCom? BlockCom, maybe? Dedicated users volunteering their time specifically for this purpose, voted on by the community in advance with a similar voting system, fully vetted and approved by the community? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Bradv - Are we sure about that? I think RFA continues to get worse simply because it continues to get worse - a bad rep becomes a worse rep... I don't think that splitting out rollback or IP-exempt has had anything at all to do with RFA. What tools are you thinking of? - jc37 01:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely. We have always expected nominees to be able to provide a reason why they need the tools. We used to have people pass RfA just so they could revert vandalism; subsequently we had people pass RfA so they could help out with moving pages, responding to edit requests, or edit templates. But that trend has rightly stopped short of breaking up the trifecta of block, protect, and delete. Also, what do you mean by "worse"? I would say the admin corps is as strong as it's ever been, it might be the smallest (at least relatively) it's ever been, but does that necessarily mean "worse"? – bradv 01:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

My "bad and worse" rep comments were towards the RfA process, not admins. I don't know if it still is, but for quite awhile there, the known bad rep of RfA was setting an expectation among people that it was ok to act like it (I think empowering the bureaucrats to help moderate has helped some with that nonsense)

As for split-outs. So it sounds like you think that if rollback was still part of the admin tools RFA would be easier to pass? I'm sorry, I just do not see that.

As Wikipedia has aged, more events amongst editors have happened, and over time people have learned how admins can affect them. I highly doubt that Rollback is a concern. If anything, it's gone from merely being just another way to convenuently undo one or more consecutive edits, to completely falling under the WP:UNINVOLVED admin policy. In other words, rigidly controlled.

So I don't think that someone could merely say they want to be a patroller to get them adminship, even if rollback and all the rest were still part of the admin tool kit.

And I have concrete proof of that assertion. We had a recent RfA where someone was going for adminship. Had a clear need for certain tools, but not all - and said so - but still was fiercely opposed.

So I don't think the wannabe "only a patroller" of the past, would fly in the current climate, even if all the tools were back solely in the admin package. - jc37 02:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Bradv. If the only way to get rollback was to pass RfA we'd have far more people running for RfA and would be a lot less picky about it. We need rollbackers. We so needed rollbackers we decided you didn't need ot pass RfA to get it. And from there each unbundling made it easier for people to do just the work they want (no need to go through the pain of RfA) and made it easier for the electorate to get pickier and pickier. I don't think we can "go back" but I do think we can stop the problem from getting worse by unbundling any further. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Rollback is merely a convenient undo. There's no "need" for it at all. And I suppose it's worth noting that Rollback wasn't always part of the admin package. We had admins before Rollback existed. - jc37 02:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I've only used rollback once - to remove deletion stuff as part of moving something across wikis - and have the button hidden via css. So like I personally do fine without it. But I think it's a serious misreading of the history to suggest its use is mere convienance or its unbundling had no impact at RfA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

It did have an impact, but the general decline (and lack of resurgence) of the "vandal fighter" admin candidate profile probably also has to do with our other changes to anti-vandalism: widespread permanent semiprotection, anti-vandal bots and edit filters. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's kind of chicken-or-the-egg. When only admins had rollback, we needed more admins because we needed more people who could (and wanted to) more efficiently undo. With rollback given out freely (and removed easily) we don't need as many admins whose primary need for the mop is that one tool.

That overlooks the fact that many admins move into areas that weren't even on their radar screens when they RfAd, so a good portion of people with rollback might have, if rollback weren't unbundled, requested the mop and then discovered they actually enjoyed answering requests for protection or whatever. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I consider the block button to be one of the tools at the core of the administrative toolset—see my essay at WP:COREADMIN—and I am always highly skeptical of any proposal that tries to separate it out. RFA has certain procedural issues that make it unpleasant, especially when it allows editors to make accusations about candidates without evidence. Separating out the block button is not a well-thought-out solution to these problems—whatever new user group we create will simply inherit the problems. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a feature not a bug. The goal is to get more people helping out with the things that admins do. And the compaints in the threads above is that we have fewer and fewer admins. So, remove block. And if, per you, we may have fewer and fewer blockers, we would still gain more and more non-blocking admins. - jc37 02:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I am strongly against separating "block", "protect", and "delete" because of how closely related they are. Any other aspect of the administrative toolset, I think I could be convinced that we could give them to other editors. It is just these three things that should stick together. If you are blocking a disruptive editor, you often have to look at their deleted revisions, as well as delete any inappropriate pages they may have created. If you have access to protect but not block, you'll be biased to protect an article where a simple block would have sufficed. If you are deleting a page, you often need to consider whether to salt the title or block the creator, depending on the severity of the deleted content. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

While I have been swayed in the past by the arguments about the interdependence of the utility of Block and Protect. I just don't buy including Delete in that. Even just the example you give. It's a poster child of why we have certain CSD templates. Yes, I know we're all used to them all being grouped together, but they really don't need to be. And if you were deleting a page and thought it needed to be salted, we already have a process for that at requests for page protection.

We've repeatedly seen that it is uncommon to find editors who are both good with behaviour assessment and good with content assessment. So why are we not addressing that in our processes?

We're a volunteer site. We should look to expanding our options. Not closing them off due to unrealistic exspectations.

And by the way, the ones who still can do both, could gain all of the above. So it's not like that option would be gone. It's just about providing for more options. - jc37 02:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Block and delete are the two really contentious rights. One group of editors worries that RFA might grant adminship to "civility police" who would boss around our fragile content creators without understanding the effort and strain of creating content, once a contributor has started getting blocks it is hard to keep them in the community. Another group worries that we might get another admin who is too heavy handed with the delete button, remembering that content thus lost means contributors and content that we are unlikely to recover. I think there is a sweet spot, a vandalfighter role where experienced vandalfighters can block IPs and newbies. But their block button doesn't work on the extended confirmed. However past suggestions along those lines have tended to fail on grounds that you can't stop such "vandalfighters" from getting involved in resolving disputes among editors but with a block button that works on one side but not the other. I think we could usefully create such a userright for people whose only remit is to use that tool to block vandals and spammers, but we then hit the arguments that "we need to be nicer to newbies" and more convincingly to a man with a hammer every problem looks like a nail. ϢereSpielChequers 10:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

A group of editors were considering opening a trial on a new role allowing for a 1 hour block on IPs and new accounts. The implementation was here and it has responses to some possible objections. The Night Watch (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This has been floating around since 2020 and hasn't (wisely in my view) moved forward yet though it has had regular bursts of activity so it's certainly continuing to be developed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If our voters are really as bad as you say, perhaps we need to go for adminship granted by a committee. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Which has been proposed and rejected on the basis that RfA is a discussion and not a vote, and in theory it's a consensus-based process which a committee would contravene. Every time we come up with some idea to change RfA for the better, we end up back at square one again each time. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is any process on Wikipedia where the "consensus" model developed for article space disputes is less helpful than at RfA. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The WMF has made it clear that admins have to gain "the trust of the community" for legal reasons in order to view deleted content. This can be done one of three ways: an RfA-style process, secret elections, or a committee entrusted by the community (well, unless we want the WMF to step in personally, which I don't think anyone remotely wants). I think the first option is the only one acceptable for transparency and wiki-ethics, so I have to agree whole-heartedly with Walt's point. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer a fully accountable and transparent process, but I do think we need more administrators, and our current process isn't delivering. The "RfA-style process" bit is something that I don't quite understand: are old RfAs like this one acceptable? If yes, then "RfA-style" can mean a wide range of things, including "without unnecessary scrutiny". —Kusma (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I know it's a common trope that "we need more admins", and we indeed could do with more, but we have plenty enough as it is, we have a steady influx of new admins, and if we were truly dire and on the edge the WMF would probably step in. All that said, I would find any ArbCom-style cabaling in the RfA process greatly distasteful. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The WMF is going to be incredibly reluctant to step in. Incredibly reluctant. So we're going to start feeling the impact of too few admins with no one to bail ourselves out for some long period of time. I agree we're not yet at the crisis point but I also think by the time we get there it will be hard to correct. So I'd rather find ways to increase the number of admins now when we can do a small correction rather than waiting for circumstnaces that would require large corrections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I never said it would be pleasant, but the WMF is not so stupid as to let its !cash cow die out, especially when it has stepped in for much worse reasons. All told, I think RfA reform is the ultimate perennial proposal, but I still do not oppose anything reasonable to correct our course unlike this and the above. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the basic premise of this discussion ("It's the fear of 'you might block me'."), rather the reality (often denied) that admin opinions carry more weight in discussions (eg ANI), and there can be 'abuse of power' in that way, even when there aren't blocks. Not to lessen the scars that one carries 'for life' when the block tool is misused (ahem), but there are still bigger concerns about admins who don't fully engage content, but can influence those who do via discussions eg at ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Sandy has a point about the soft power that comes with being an admin. I think this shows in other ways, too. We can probably all name an admin who plays fast and loose with policies and criteria but we have almost no redress unless it crosses the line from misuse into outright abuse short of the huge amount of time and effort (not to mention emotion) that goes into an arbitration case like RHaworth. I can understand why that makes people nervous. I don't know what the solution is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this; separating autopatrolled didn't absolve candidates of responsibility for content, and I don't think separating unblock will absolve candidates of responsibility for being trusted with the block tool. Indeed, I myself have had to castigate potential adminabili who have been too block-happy; at the end of the day, Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not preventing others from building an encyclopedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you perhaps underestimate how many blocks are necessary and are made on a daily basis because most are so routine that they go unnoticed. WP:AIV is the most-edited page on the wiki and WP:ADMINSTATS might give you an idea of how many routine admin actions are made in the background. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

If separation of block was desired, it should be the ability to block extended confirmed editors that is stripped out. IPs, VOAs, disruptive newbies, socks are all blocked many times an hour, every hour. Blocks of extended confirmed editors are fairly rare and even more rarely urgent. Courcelles (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Mario has entered the chat... — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux, I coined that term way back when. Yeah, it’s definitely a Mario issue, but we simply block a LOT of vandals, not many EC accounts. Courcelles (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - I think much of what you are describing also applies to any experienced editors (including the so-called "unblockables"). And I think that that falls more under the: "I don't want to trust them unles they've had the experiences I've had". Which is a different topic, and honestly will not go away as long as RFA is a voting process.

That said, I think those concerns are exacerbated because an admin has the tools to affect outcomes. Deletion isn't irrelevant, but it kinda is, if only because DRV is a well-accepted process. Compare that to blocking: you either are someone who knows Wikipedia norms on civility and what needs to be said to even get an unblock template request considered, or - usually after a block expires, you have to go to AN or AN/I. Which doesn't remove the block from the log. A page doesn't have to worry about its editing reputation. But editors sometimes do. And from then on, whenever they want to request anything, they will be questioned about that block log, as a sort of scarlet letter.

So while I accept that your concerns may be concerns, blocking the account of another human being rates higher, I think. Because even if you feel "outvoted" in a discussion, due to the perceived influence of an admin or experienced editor. You still are able to contribute. A blocked editor cannot.

So yes, when comparing some or none, I think "none" is likely the bigger concern. - jc37 01:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons noted above, RfA and RfA reform will never work. I've commented before that adminship is dying. There won't be a cliff we drive off that shows us we have too few admins. But, the time will come when we do. Some have argued that it's already happened. It's certainly already happened at Commons. Commons has several thousand deletion requests that are more than two months past due. Some since April. Commons is dying because of it. The WMF doesn't care. We're quite clearly on our own to solve the problem, and we can't. So, Wikipedia dies a slow death. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And maybe Wikipedia, like many societies, will fall like Rome.

But I'd like to think that we, as a community, can look beyond our localised concerns in the Wiki, and find a broader path forward.

I'll agree that the current form of adminship doesn't appear sustainable - it seems to be an ever-closing circle. So let'stry to end that cycle and broaden the circle.

I said above, I'm hoping that we can find a way forward to cut the Gordian knot.

And I think we're progressing. So far in this discussion we are hearing the concerns and fears people have - that's a positive thing. So looking for how we can address those and move forward may be a challenge, but I think it's an attainable one. - jc37 01:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it just me or are there a few steps missing between "backlog of deletion requests" and "dead project". – Joe (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It definitely is that case that Commons is flowers growing in the sewers at best, with copyvios/uncategorized/useless/out-of-scope uploads piling up faster than they can be handled. And that's not just due to the deletion request backlog. Whether that makes the project "dead" of course, is up to interpretation. And I closed a deletion discussion that had been open since April a few weeks ago, so it's not as if things are 100% better here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that link was a (mostly) enjoyable ramble down memory lane, but I didn't see anything about Commons. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

While that discussion is talking about Wikipedia not Commons, my point is that in truth Commons is closer to the same fate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to address 2 additional things - First, among other reasons, Rollback was able to be split, because, as I recall (the diffs are out there), Twinkle existed, so the argument went, so there was no reason to not split out Rollback. So the idea of "vandal fighter" being split from admins pre-dated the rollback split, if only due to twinkle and other tools. So I don't think suggesting that rights splits is what's causing RFA issues.

Second, we can talk about further splitting Block in various ways, but before we can get there, just making the first step of having it in a separate user-right group (which is still assigned to admins) is a technical first step that we need to get to before we can get to anything else.

The user-group would likely include: block, blockemail, ipblock-exempt, and protect.

And for now - unless/until the community decides further - it would simply be assigned to all existing and new admins.

Once that's in place, it allows for discussion of other things, other ideas for moving forward. - jc37 01:52, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Unbundling makes more sense if the concern is that people can be trusted to do X and not the rest of the toolset, not use the rest of the toolset but not X. I guess we could reverse unbundle A-La interface admin, but that feels wrong, especially since people can just do what I did and disclaim use of the block button in their answer to standard question 1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's more comparable to (part of) why checkuser is not in the admin package. We can assign people with some things, but not necessarily others. - jc37 04:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be quite good to have a junior-block right that admins can hand out through req.for permission to trusted users purely for blocking IP vandals and non-ec confirmed users and purely for vandalism post 4 warnings (and not for edit-warring or disruption), apart from their being able to block straightforward promotional/spammy usernames that are spamming weblinks and/or material containing their company/promotional name. These are very simplistic issues and I feel the project would have more hands on deck for these straightforward cases. Lourdes 07:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately that user right would also allow people to block IP addresses that simply disagree with them and could be easily abused to get the upper hand in content disputes. Many IP edits are also questionable but not vandalism. Just look at WP:AIV for a week to see how many times "trusted, experienced" users report non-vandals. —Kusma (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

While it's an interesting idea that's been proposed before, I think having block being admin assignable probably would make it a hundred times harder to gain community trust to be an admin. Because we'd be asking the community to not just trust you in blocking, but to also trust you in your discernment to give out the block tool to others as well. And I don't know that the community would be willing to cede that decision-making authority (control) at this time. - jc37 10:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've literally seen someone edit warring and claiming 'vandalism' in the past day. But I feel like in order to grant the perm we could make sure people understand they're clear on it, and people who had it would be motivated to be pretty careful about blocking if it were an easier perm to lose than to get. Valereee (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Responder role. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I just would like to see the block package split out. First, and really foremost, it would allow an admin to make the choice to not carry those tools.

I've watched admins for years drop the entire tool kit at BN, because they "want to feel what it's like to be a 'regular' editor again". That has to do withh having expectations foist upon you for having the block tool. No, we're not "required" to use it. But the moment that someone you interact with finds out that you're an admin, the tone often suddenly changes.

And as we have found out in past discussions, there are editors who simply will not ask to become admins because of block, for ethical or philosophical reasons. The Amish have been brought up several times as an example.

As a volunteer site, we shouldn't be putting limitations upon our options for creating admins in this way.

Imagine if someone could choose to go for adminship, and could ask for the block tool removed.

Now, we didn't have this ability in the past. Which is part of why the admin package was a "catch-all". But I've talked with various people on the technical side. Now it can be done easily - creating a sub-package of user-rights is now a very simple matter.

I've been working on this for over a decade. Trying to allow for block to not be forced upon prospective admins.

I really would like to hear ideas on how we can move forward, beyond the fears of the past, and try to make things better.

As I said above, this would be simple. The user-group would likely include: block, blockemail, ipblock-exempt, and protect. It would be assigned to all current admins. And then any admins could then have the option to ask to have just those tools removed if they so choose.

We give them the tools because we trust them. Do we not trust them to say "I'd like to drop just these please" ? - jc37 11:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I started writing a lengthy response amounting to "we also trust admins not to use the tools when they aren't confident enough to use them", but then I realized I actually see your point But the moment that someone you interact with finds out that you're an admin, the tone often suddenly changes. - I occasionally issue user warnings that threaten a block, and while I personally know that I will just report the person to AIV instead of using my own admin tools the person I'm talking to probably doesn't and that implied threat is admittedly unideal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'd suggest starting with a survey. Both of admins, and of non admin regulars. No point spending IT time on writing this unless there is actual rather than theoretical demand. ϢereSpielChequers 16:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No "IT time" needs to be spent on this. It already exists.

As I mentioned above I've been in several discussions about this. And I have been told by WMF people - including in the most recent discussion - that the tools to implement this already exist. It would merely take a few seconds.

I presume they were talking about mw:Manual:User_rights#Creating a new group and assigning permissions to it

So this isn't theory. It already exists and is, so I'm told, easy to do.

And I'm happy to start an RFC on this. But we're here at the moment, talking about whatever concerns people have ahead of time. - jc37 17:30, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

if an admin doesn't want a block button, they can disable it via user script. —Kusma (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Or we can allow for it using Wiki-code. If one is allowed, why not the other? - jc37 17:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe this is possible in wikicode. If you want a software change, I oppose making a change to the software without first finding consensus that your new user group would find nontrivial use. I don't want there to be people who can block without protect or delete without block, and your proposal could make it easier to introduce something I am opposed to. —Kusma (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It already is possible in Wiki-code, as I mentioned above. As for the rest, that's part of what we're talking out right now. - jc37 18:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikicode is the markup language we use while using the source editor. I do not believe it supports configuration changes of the type you are proposing. —Kusma (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Here's the link again, in case you missed it: mw:Manual:User_rights#Creating a new group and assigning permissions to it.

And I've been informed by WMF staff that this is trivial to do. - jc37 18:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is an easy software configuration change that should not be made. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you feel that it's ok to use scripting to do it, why do you feel this should not be done? - jc37 18:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Because your suggested change makes it technically possible to assign block without protect and delete. I don't want such a user group to exist. Sysops who want this for themselves can use scripting, just like they can choose not to use the tools. But there should be no limit to how other people use sysop tools, and no possibility of a forced separation of block/protect/delete. —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it would include protect as well.

But that aside, you opposition is because "there should be no limit..." - I'm not proposing there be a limit. I'm proposing to allow an admin to decide for themselves whether to carry those tools or not.

We have this with other tools. For example, non-admins can ask to have specific tools removed. So they could still have patroller but not rollback, for example. Why should we prevent an admin from the same options? - jc37 19:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the technical implementation of such separate user rights would lead to people promising/demanding limited adminship in RfAs. I see zero benefit in your proposal but significant risks for RfA to become even worse in the future. —Kusma (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But they already do that now. We recently had a contentious RfA, where the candidate pledged to not use certain user-rights, in response to demands at RfA. - jc37 19:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That user is free to change their mind at any time. I do not adhere to all promises I made in my RfA 17 years ago either (I made these promises in good faith, but my views on various things have changed, as has Wikipedia). —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll sidestep commenting on that.

But I will say that in what I am proposing, the admin could at any time go to the BN and ask for the tools to be re-added. So your concern that "think may change", is already built in to this due to current policy/practice. - jc37 20:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If any admin can ask to have the permissions added/taken away at any time, why bother the bureaucrats with it? In that case, you could just let admins self-assign these permissions like with the edit filter manager flag. What is the advantage of your proposal over a user script hiding the relevant buttons? —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

You're balacing your ethics vs those of the admin in question. As I've noted on this page, there are ethical and philosophical concerns about carrying the tools. Hiding links isn't the same. Why should your ethics of whether an admin should be fine with this, outweigh an admin's feeling that they are not. Why should we force someone to take these tools "all or nothing"? As a volunteer site, that seems self-defeating. - jc37 21:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: I think I'm just not on board with your fundamental premise, which is that the block tool is the main thing that makes sysops intimidating and which makes it feel like a big deal to make someone a sysop. I think the real answer is the social capital that sysop confers (see this thread at Pppery's RfA). I don't think that social capital comes from the block tool, really. It's more of a statement about the social structures that have built up around what being a sysop means on Wikipedia. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Your comment in that discussion: "you wield the tools wherever you go, even when you're not using the toolset." - is one of the things I've been talking about here.

And so, let's talk about those "social structures that have built up around what being a sysop means on Wikipedia".

I think we may find that a large part of that is the ability of an admin to block anyone in a discussion.

And this isn't theory. I've been present where admins - jedi-like - were acting as ad-hoc mentors, arbitrators, facilitaors, etc. Because everyone involved knew they needed to stay on their best behaviour because "an admin is present". - jc37 18:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The community needs to resolve the cultural issue, say by developing better content dispute resolution processes, or else having an elite set of admins with block privileges won't change this problem. It will just create a smaller set of admins that the community will impose more heavily upon to intervene. isaacl (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not proposing creating a new blocking user-group to be handed out. I am proposing splitting some of the admin tools into a separate package to allow an admin to request to remove those specific tools. In no way am I suggesting that this admin sub-group which has block in it, be handed out to non-admins. - jc37 18:58, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes; that would create a subset of admins who have retained block privileges. It wouldn't change the dynamic of dispute resolution when that subset participates in a discussion. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That will always exist as long as the block tool (or anything like it) exists.

What I am suggesting is to allow an admin to not be part of that, but yet to have other admin tools with which to help out.

Let's accept people where they are and in the ways they would like to volunteer to help contribute, and not force them to carry that "social weight", if they do not wish to. - jc37 19:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I was just responding to your statement on how admins participating in a discussion can affect others. I think we should strive to separate social capital in content disputes (which I agree will always exist) from administrative privileges. The community can choose to give greater weight to other groups of experienced editors, rather than those who can carry out certain admin tasks. Plus if content dispute resolution worked more effectively, there would be less need for blocking, since poor behaviour wouldn't be to anyone's advantage, and there'd be less concern about who has block privileges. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As long as we're the encyclopedia that anyone can freely edit, we're going to have disruptive editing. It's a simple freedom vs security dichotomy there. Even if we had the most perfect DR processes, people will vandalise and be disruptive, if merely because they can. - jc37 21:26, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there will always be disruptive edits by editors who are just doing it on a lark. Blocking those editors is not an issue, though, and no one worries about who is making the determination for those cases. Where this is a concern is for situations where editors who are genuinely trying to contribute to Wikipedia are behaving poorly, and admins have to weigh the different considerations to judge if a block is warranted. Editors have incentive to behave poorly to drive away other contributors, because it's one way to build consensus for one side. A more effective decision-making process would diminish this incentive. isaacl (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we're headed off into a separate topic (which I'm happy to discuss with you), in that, well-meaning editors behaving badly isn't so much about dispute resolution, as needing to have the community united in that. And all one needs do is, for example, go participate in discussions about "Civility and blocking" and how contentious that can be, to see that the community isn't entirely united there. - jc37 21:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree there's a wide diversity of views regarding the limits of poor behaviour. Eliminating incentive for poor behaviour, though, will make that aspect considerably less important. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If you can find a way to de-incentivise the Veruca Salt-like "I want it", and "I want to do it" by disruptive editors, I would be very impressed. I see no end in sight to that nonsense. - jc37 22:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

As we've discussed elsewhere, it can be done, but would mean moving away from some of English Wikipedia's current consensus-based and mostly unmoderated decision-making traditions. Sticking with these traditions has a price. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah, ok, you were talking about more than just updating DR processes, but in changing the consensus model.

Which brings us back to what I was saying about this being the encyclopedia that anyone can freely edit.

Anyway, we've gone a bit afield of this discussion : ) - jc37 22:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Freely edit isn't synonymous with English Wikipedia's current decision-making traditions. Anyone is eligible to edit Wikipedia, but when there's a disagreement, the community dispute resolution processes have to be followed.

Regarding whether or not splitting off blocking would garner more admin candidates who were willing to take on tasks where blocks don't play a role, as WereSpielChequers alluded to, nominators can ask them beforehand. Let them step forward making that pledge, and then we'll be able to better determine if a MediaWiki configuration change is warranted. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

In what is already a contentious process, you want a candidate to take what may be their one chance (that year at least) to be a guinea pig for some proposed process? That's rather not fair to the candidate. - jc37 07:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a process change. If there are potential candidates out there who would be interested in only performing tasks where blocks aren't a consideration, let's find them to gain more info on whether or not this configuration change would be helpful. isaacl (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion was a survey of potential candidates. I've nominated quite a few candidates in my time, and I certainly wouldn't suggest any candidate guinea pig the idea instead of doing a survey. This isn't just that making yourself such a guinea pig can result in people opposing your RFA because they disagree with that change, there's also the issue that if only one potential RFA candidate were interested in this there wouldn't be much point in making the change. As for commitments that candidates won't use certain parts of the toolset, the track record at RFA is not great. Voters can baulk at that. ϢereSpielChequers 14:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed with this suggestion, so we can have some data on whether or not this proposal would have an effect. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem with doing that, is that we would be asking people about their ethical beliefs on a public forum. This goes right to the core of questions about free will, and freedom of belief, and privacy. ("Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the communist party"). No one should ever have to answer such questions in public. And I'm fairly confident that none of us want to call people out like that in a public forum.

And yes, in past discussions some people did bravely come forward and say so, but I'm not going to call them out by name (or linking), here.

The thing is, the ability to drop some, but not all, of the tools should be something that should be able to be done, without someone needing to explain why. Especially since implementation of this literally would take seconds. This would not adversely afffect anything. So why oppose it? - jc37 21:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not necessary to ask them in public. There are a number of people who look for good potential candidates and talk to them privately. They can collect information on the potential effect. (On a side note, I don't think being interested or uninterested in a category of administrative tasks is an ethical belief. The community understands that administrators can take on the tasks they prefer.) isaacl (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What's privately? Off-wiki? And even if we go that route, we're not going to get the info that you seem to be seeking.

I started to use an example above, but I decided that it needed more explanation so I rverted myself. But anyway to explain: What you are asking, is for a candidate to tell someone this to who is thinking about supporting "empowering" the user with more tools. Now the editor can just keep their mouth shut, which improves their chances, or they can say something which can reduce their chances. What do you think is more likely to happen?

I was comparing this to how proslavery individuals would suggest that they go ask slaves whether they were happy and treated well. All the while kowing that the slaves would be unlikely to step forward out of concern/fear. Similar situation when asking POWs about treatment at POW camps.

There's really no solid way to ask people in a way that's going to get the kinds of results you seem to be wanting.

And besides, as I said - why do we need to? Why shouldn't we just do this to the benefit of our volunteer admins, both current and prospective. - jc37 21:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

As to your added parenthetical, it very much is. One example that's been repeatedly brought up is the Amish. But that aside, I'm not sure that it matters whether you or I say something is an ethical concern, if it actually is an ethical concern. - jc37 22:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the reasons why someone may not want to take on tasks where blocking is an issue may involve ethical considerations. It's not necessary, though, to collect data on the reasons. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, nominators already talk to potential candidates off-wiki. From this, we know, for example, that many of them continue to demur from putting forward a request because they feel the process is unduly confrontational, even if recent history shows that qualified candidates sail through. If they say they aren't interested, I don't see an issue with the nominator asking if they might change their mind if they didn't hold the blocking right, and thus wouldn't have to do any tasks where blocking is a consideration. I appreciate you don't feel this data is necessary; I've expressed my view that I think it would be helpful in deciding on an approach with which to proceed. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember making a fairly poor keep argument in a random AfD, and the next thing was that the nominator withdrew because an admin had voted keep. I was rather annoyed by that. I really hate that becoming an admin is no longer something that happens to most serious Wikipedians: when most people could become admins, it carried less undeserved prestige. —Kusma (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't think that blocks are the most "tricky" admin tool, nor do I think it's a matter of social capital (that's mostly a matter of being familiar with policy and how Wikipedia works.) The most dangerous thing isn't directly a tool at all - it's WP:AE. AE judgments often involve a lot of subjectivity (eg. in terms of when WP:ROPE is called for vs. when to bring the hammer down; what activity crosses the line into WP:NOTHERE, etc.) If you look at AE discussions for controversial topic areas and picture a different set of non-admin comments moved to the admin comment section, the outcome would often shift drastically. It's not uncommon to see one admin who goes "nah I don't think we should go as far as a block here" or "no, a warning isn't enough" totally changing an outcome; and AE is by design easy to invoke yet hard to reverse. Hopefully at least some of the people most active in the relevant controversial topic areas would recluse in those topic areas as admins, but you can't be sure, can you? And there isn't an easy solution because WP:AE is also the area that most urgently needs more admins working on it; in fact, the real solution to the problem is to have more admins there (watering down the impact of any one voice). --Aquillion (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but if you don't have the block tools, you won't be acting there, per the "if you don't have the tools to enact the change"... - jc37 21:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Status bar broken?

The status bar is currently showing 51 supports, when it should be 95. I guess something in @Tamzin's vote confused the bot that generates this. RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Legoktm fixed it in this edit. I don't think the template likes lines that don't begin with #. The bot is a stickler for WP:LISTGAP ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. I fixed it. What's up with that module? Is it just counting \n#? Counting <li>...</li> within an <ol>...</ol> would fix this recurring issue, I'd think? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Banning replies at RfA and otherwise moving RfA reform forward

I was busy when the "record low Admins" thread went up at AN and so I missed @Ritchie333's proposal to ban replies at RfA. I am surprised it got so much support as it seems to identify the largest issue at RfA is that opposers are badgered too much. Some how people getting pushback for opposing candidates is really unappealing for candidates and letting unchallenged ridiculousness happen will make RfA more appealing for people to run? This doesn't track for me. Related ideas that do seem interesting:

• Have a straight vote section (oppose or support only) and all discussion goes in its own area. This feels like a half-way point to just doing an election.
• So maybe just do a secret ballot election. This keeps getting trapped in the "we shouldn't propose it until it's technically feasible" "it won't be technically feasible until there's a reason for it to be" dilemma and just deciding that there is consensus for a secret ballot election feels like a huge step forward.

But in the end this will only happen if someone actually is willing to put in the time to shepherd it forward. I am skeptical that any idea on its own will find consensus without an accompanying consensus that RfA needs to change, but that process while successful in 2015 was ultimately a failure in 2021, which was also my attempt to do that work. So I could be wrong. But I'm definitely not wrong that people just talking about it aren't going to change anything and we are already seeing the impacts of a too small admin core in places that de facto require Adminship like ArbCom and CUOS appointment. Fixing this problem before it gets even worse feels of real value to the project and those who love it (like I do). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't we also have record-low active editors in general? I think this is simply a symptom of the organizational lifecycle. The exciting novelty of the wild-'n'-wooly founding days is long over, and what there is now is mostly rather tedious work, all the "sexy" articles already having been written years ago. If the editorial pool in general is shrinking, then the number of admin hopefuls within in it would also shrink. Has anyone done any analysis on the proportion of active admins to active non-admin registered users over time? I would think that would be more indicative of whether we actually have an admin shortage than doing a straight head-count of admins as if the editorial population wasn't changing. Anyway, as for the above, "banning replies" would probably do nothing but give a whole lot of new weight to opposes (few supports are ever challenged, while most opposes are, either directly or by questioning the original opposes that others are copycats of). So, this would just worsen the [alleged] admin shortage by resulting in fewer nominees passing RfA. Maybe that would be mitgated somewhat by permitting such challenges but in only a discussion section, but then again that would kind of defeat the "reform" purpose of the notion; if people say hurtful things, it doesn't matter whether they did so at line 75 or line 358 on the page, nor whether there's a "==Discussion==" line above the comment. As for a traditional secret-ballot vote, I think that is more practical, and the ArbCom elections already prove that it works fine for an analogous process here. (Though it is marred by a "double-voting" problem, where you get to vote against who you don't like not just vote for who you do like, with the result that average, productive, temperate editors vote for who they like and aren't apt to vote against anyone unless they have a really serious concern about that individual, while axe-grinders and PoV-pushers looking to manipulate the system calculatedly play their anti-votes and for-votes together to push something of a "party" platform in favor of their axe. It effectively gives more voting power to those with an agenda. I proposed changing this several years ago but do not seem to have at that time been able to clearly enough explain the issue or something, since the reform idea gained no traction at all. Not a problem for an RfA voting system, since it would not be a competitive race between multiple candidates, just an aye/nay vote.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:48, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: FYI: active editors (5+ edits per month) have been flat for almost 10 years now, with a minor uptake during the height of the pandemic. If you look at user edits, there has been a rise since 2014, but I can imagine that's because of semi-automated editing rather than increased activity.

I'm not sure I understand the double voting. Does this relate to the concept of cascading bias by people following each others votes, rather than voting "independently"? I've been thinking about this through the lens of Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, which argues convincingly for deferred decision-making. First discuss and get all the information on the table. This ensures people don't get stuck in their knee-jerk reaction. Only after discussion would one want to let people make decisions, independent of each other in that phase. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

No, and I'm not sure why I seem to have such a hard time explaining this; it's some kind of failure on my part despite a lot of experience doing things like writing documentation. Our ArbCom voting system permits you to simultaneously cast a vote in favor of one or more parties you actively support, and cast a vote actively against one or more parties you strongly disfavor. On average, an editor isn't steaming mad at any particular candidates, nor is looking to politically engineer ArbCom in a way that favors the biases of that voter. So the typical editor just votes for who they support, without casting any "hate" votes. A PoV pusher, on the other hand, has a vested interest in statistically skewing the power of their vote by voting for only the one or two candidates who support whatever bone-to-pick the editor has, and voting against every single other candidate even when they have no substantive issue with that candidate. In effect, it is casting two votes for the candidate[s] they support by recording a down-vote for every other candidate. The solution is to elminate the against-votes entirely, so that everyone just votes for who they support. As in, well, every other voting system in the entire world. But getting into any further detail about that on this page is probably pointless, since it's off topic. The problem doesn't arise for any sort of direct-voting for admins system, because the admin candidates are not running against each other but are each just a simple support/oppose.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Does it have to be the biggest problem for us to try and solve it? Opposers at RfAs shouldn't be badgered because nobody should be badgered, regardless of whether it changes RfA outcomes. – Joe (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As long as the community views RfA as a discussion, at least in part, I think it's not actually badgering to expect discussion. I think as with many discussions there are helpful and unhelpful versions of this and we should try to limit the unhelpful versions. But that applies just as much to personal attacks masquerading as opposes. As for Does it have to be the biggest problem for us to try and solve it? I think even if you accept we have a problem to solve that it sends a bad message to potential candidates that this is the one worth doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember the last time I saw productive threaded discussion at RfA beyond perhaps a first reply. I suppose that's why I liked Ritchie's proposal. – Joe (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if we need to ban replies, but @Lourdes isn't helping things with the current one: GiantSnowman, my friend, for all the support in the past, do please reconsider. Lourdes 05:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC) and other similar. People have valid reasons to oppose, they don't need to change because you've supported them in the past. That's just straight badgering. (Uninvolved in that RfA) Star Mississippi 15:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 why is this acceptable? Imagine if I placed a note saying "if you respect all the good work I've done in the past, please oppose" under every support !vote in the current RfA's. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There are two instances of this in the Oppose section, and three in the Neutral section on the part of the mentioned user. It doesn't seem very appropriate, and might even be considered arm twisting. It's one thing to question a vote, but quite another to go about trying to persuade someone to change their vote in this way (at least in my view). Intothatdarkness 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, especially as it's not based on merit in the slightest. I hope @Lourdes will join this discussion or clarify their pOV. Star Mississippi 17:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Just what RFA needed: a whip. Levivich (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi all: as you’ll notice on your TPs I started an AN thread about the matter which you can see here. It was quickly archived by myself after a quick discussion on request from Lourdes. Given that she has admitted to wrongdoing and GS themselves considers an AN thread unnecessary, I think there may not be much point in further discussion unless the pattern of behaviour is repeated (by the same person, or otherwise). I’d still be glad to hear your thoughts on the points I raised in the post, if anyone has anything further to say. Fermiboson (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

While the AN closed on the early side, I think it's fair game to continue discussing it here since it's part of a pattern of issues at RFA, although not necessarily a pattern on her end that I have noticed. I'm more worried that she doesn't seem to understand why it was an issue, per my read of her "apology". Star Mississippi 01:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Replies to opposes are often some of the most helpful posts at RfA, right after the opposes themselves. One way I often decide how to opine at RfA is to skim the nomination, questions, and support section — enough to convince myself of the candidate's general competence, experience, and good faith — and then spend most of my time in the oppose section. I think responses to opposes in this sense are quite helpful because they define the conversation and the issues I should be spending time on. I think I'd be unhappy about scrapping them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That's about my view of it too. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

One idea I've been toying with proposing is, specifically, banning replies-to-replies-to-replies-to-opposes. Because this is a common enough, and pretty useful pattern:

Oppose, no GAs.

@Opposer, FYI candidate has a GA, just not listed on their userpage.

That's still a bit less content creation than I'd like to see, but on balance enough for me to switch neutral.

but if the opposer instead argues with the reply, you can bet that things are only going downhill from there. Continuing discussion will strongly tend to bring more heat than light.

But I haven't proposed that, for a few reasons, primarily that I don't think the community actually cares. The community has had ample opportunity to fix RfA and at every turn failed to do so. And I guess it's kind of been proven right in that? New adminships have slowed to a crawl and yet nothing bad has really come of that. (The only backlog that's massively worsened is WP:CCI, but most admins care about that as little as everyone else.) The community enjoys its bloodsport, and no policy proposal is going to change that. I think we all just need to accept that, if a successful RfA reform proposal ever comes, it's not going to come from anyone who watchlists WT:RFA. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:34, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the time to fix a capacity problem is before backlogs are everywhere and I will keep trying to do that both on s micro level (nominating people) and macro (trying to find consensus). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, that's the rational time to do it. But pragmatically, the community does not want RfA reform, and that isn't going to change until there's a problem to fix that affects the average community member (rather than just affecting candidates and the occasional nom or voter). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 15:45, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say the community does not want RfA reform? I think there is a difference between nobody making time to try and get the community on board with a proposal, and there being no appetite to engage in that discussion. The Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review had quite strong consensus for statements in the vein of "RfA is broken", and a few solutions came close to consensus. They might reach consensus if we can workshop smart amendments to these proposals, possibly after securepoll is available locally. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There are backlogs everywhere. Not all of them quantified and categorised, and not all of them admin-related. I've been worried recently about the number of revert-on-sight edits I've been finding 6 days down in my watchlist, where I would have expected 5 years ago to have been beaten to the punch if I'd reverted it at the 10 minute mark. More mops helps all anti-vandalism backlogs as it allows experienced editors to save time elsewhere in their workflow (you don't have to ask someone else to push a button and then come back to check they've pushed it and continue the next steps). I can only hope my small piece of the puzzle is unrepresentative. — Bilorv (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin I personally think the backlog at CCI, even if it the largest it's ever been, is in one of the better state's it's been in; in the mid 2010s, it became neglected after several admins stopped editing in the area and several long term cases and editors with several warnings continued unabated. Now and days, at least people are aware about it and care about it and running on a copyright platform is a legitimate one. Hopefully things can change in the area and the backlog can shrink with an RfC that I've been working with on and off. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I've been in favour for a long time of aggregating discussion in one place, in order to make the discussion more efficient (no need to track discussions on the same underlying issue across multiple threads). As discussed earlier this year, though, I appreciate that so far, amongst those who like to weigh in on these proposals, more people prefer reading inline threads, in spite of the redundancy.

To provide context for those who did not participate in a related thread in August, the WMF is working on enabling SecurePoll votes to be administered locally, which is the primary bottleneck in having such votes run more often. However the WMF first plans to update SecurePoll to no longer rely on an older version of GPG, to facilitate deployment on the local wiki installations. I agree that establishing the community's intent to run local SecurePoll votes once possible would help the developers decide on when to schedule its work. isaacl (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The RFA SecurePoll thing is pretty stuck. The last 72 supporting, 39 opposing RFC on it was closed as no consensus. And the phab ticket hasn't had a post in 5 months. If we feel confident that secret RFA voting is the future, the next step would probably be a new RFC. Not sure how I feel about it nowadays though. The current system is tough but transparent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agreed that establishing the community's intent to use SecurePoll would help in driving progress. As I mentioned in the August thread, the Phabricator ticket is blocked on phab:T209892, though that one too has not been updated since May. isaacl (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@JSutherland (WMF): not sure who's ultimately responsible for this phab ticket, but are you perhaps able to give us an update or point to the correct person? Is there work planned on this or would we need to ask at the Community Wishlist or show consensus for need at an RFC? Thanks :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• As with BK49 above, I don't see how giving opposers more free rein is in any way going to make RFA more friendly to candidates; if anything, it will have the opposite effect. If the goal is to encourage good candidates who are wary of RFA, we need to be able to call out the not-infrequent oppose votes that are unmoored from reality. I recognize that a large part of the community finds the cycle of "oppose, no FAs" "but the candidate has 2 GAs" "please stop badgering me" "I'm not badgering, I'm providing necessary context" etc. very annoying, and I welcome attempts to pre-empty this repetitive conversation, but we ought to recognize that it's quite separate from the broader issue of making RFA less hostile to candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's reasonable for commenters to discuss their viewpoints on a candidate's characteristics. It would be more efficient, though, to have that conversation once, rather than in multiple threads in response to multiple people. I also think it's less draining on the candidate to have consolidated threads, instead of seeing the same conversation play out in several locations. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  Efficient only if we entirely segregate votes from discussion; that is, disallow vote rationales as well (which, to be clear, I don't support). Otherwise, we're splitting statements and replies; I don't see how that's more efficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  It's not necessary to disallow vote rationales or to separate them. Aggregated conversation about a concern raised by multiple participants can take place separately. Today, someone trying to catch up on a request for administrative privileges must revisit all of the viewpoint statements to look for updates (either through a diff view or on the page itself), in addition to the discussion section, and the conversation will often be repetitive. By separating discussion, they would only have to read the latest viewpoint statements, then see the updates to the discussion section.

  It's not unusual for those making decisions to identify considerations, and then explore each consideration, one at a time. This helps provide an overview of relevant factors, followed up by a more through examination of each. In the context of RfAs, extended discussion is analogous to the followup exploration of relevant factors. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

  If anything's unmoored from reality, it's the assumption that the average oppose vote is frivolous and the voter deserves to be harangued for it (to the candidate's benefit, somehow?) Let's just look at 0xDEADBEEF's ongoing RfA (which for the record I haven't voted in). Over a third of the oppose votes have been replied to, compared to 5 of the 166 supports – and several of those five are indirectly mocking opposers. The size of the threaded discussion (2,497 words, 14,823 characters) exceeds that of the all the oppose votes (2,164 words, 12,831 characters). One thread has been moved to the talk page. There is an admin begging multiple oppose voters to change their votes as a personal favour and another admin accusing an oppose voter of making a personal attack. And all this despite the fact that the RfA is comfortably in the automatic pass range!

  This is not productive discussion. It's circling the wagons, punishing people for wrongthink and turning the invitation at the top of the page, voice your opinion on this candidate, into a trap. We do not need more "calling out" around here, not at RfA, not anywhere. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  I tend to agree with all of that, Joe Roe. While L235, further above, has a good point with "Replies to opposes are often some of the most helpful posts at RfA, right after the opposes themselves", I feel this has been less and less true of late, with too many of the replies to opposes being rather "content-free" and just emotive browbeating.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  As are some oppose rationales. It is unfortunate that we ask for those; people who oppose because they don't like the candidate or the candidate's nominator should just vote and not tell us their personal reason, which is unlikely to contribute to a discussion about the candidate's merits. —Kusma (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Where do I make that assumption, Joe? I said it was frequent, and it is. Plenty of oppose votes, including hundreds I've disagreed with, are helpful contributions to a discussion of the candidate's skills and judgement. Plenty of others are violations of WP:ASPERSIONS that we permit only at RFA: I've seen comments made there that we'd consider sanctionable conduct in a CT area. And it is this harshness is one of two major reasons why dozens of candidates I've approached decline to run at RFA, the other being disinterest in admin work. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Anonymous votes

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T301180

I propose that we should have an anonymous voting system and replace our RFAs board with a discussion page, similar to WMF's board elections. This would eliminate a lot of existing problems with RfA: toxic behaviors that induce signficant stress to candidates (see User:Tamzin/340/112/16:_An_RfA_debrief for a personal recount by an editor about this), pile-on opposes, burgeoning, etc. Our current RfA system will need to be completely rewamped if we want to vote this way though and I don't know whether that is going to be worth it or not. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Using an anonymous vote is currently being discussed in the preceding section, "Banning replies at RfA and otherwise moving RfA reform forward". isaacl (talk) 05:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, people will discuss other issues about RfA to death and nothing will get done like it has always been a thousand times. I think that me proposing a solution and other people critiquing the solution is a much more productive use of our time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: are you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals#Closed: 8B Admin elections? A way forward is for somebody, preferably somebody with experience in these type of large difficult discussions, to workshop amendments to that proposal and put it to an RfC. This won't be changed by a discussion on this talk page. I've been tempted to volunteer when health allows (which might be another year.. ), but hope somebody else will volunteer before me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I slightly disagree with this @Femke. I think the way forward is for someone experienced in these type of large difficult discussions to (privately) workshop changes and to put it up to an RfC. I think large scale group writing of it will cause it to never move forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

When you say privately, do you mean a single person, or two/three editors? I was thinking the latter, even though I fully know that these small groups risk becoming quite large groups. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

This has the content of something that sounds like sarcasm, but the tone that suggests it isn't... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended here :). What makes you say so? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Review the indentation, the comment was not in response to you but to CactiStaccingCrane. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not sarcasm that I say so. We love to discuss about reforming RFA but never actually reforming it. For example, at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate I have to remove insanely BITEY and obnoxious formatting for self-nominator instructions. Now I know why people do not want to become an admin.... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane I just saw what that page used to look like. Egads. And some of the names of the contributors involved in building that make me very much surprised. Unfortunately, that's pretty much what RfA has become nowadays, so it reflected common consensus if nothing else. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

"I think that me proposing a solution and other people critiquing the solution is a much more productive use of our time." what do you think has been happening for the last decade, CactiStaccingCrane? Do you really think you're the only person who's ever thought of a solution? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what's happening in the other thread: a way to proceed was raised and it's being discussed. Your proposal has fewer details than the previous one and is ambivalent about whether or not it should proceed. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Then why don't we make a proper RfC for this? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

For a similar reason that your initial post wasn't an RfC: editors are discussing the idea and trying to figure out the best way to craft a proposal that can attain consensus support. The result from the 2021 review was indicative of strong support from the editors who like to weigh in on these matters, so it's likely that a new proposal will be made at some point. There should be more editors now who have familiarized themselves with the SecurePoll extension, which should help make a future RfC discussion more fruitful. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note, as we've said before this isn't currently technically feasible unless we want to lump a bunch of rfa's together and only do them once or twice a year -- if someone wants to dedicate the likely enormous amount of time needed to implement phab:T301180, go for it. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  "isn't currently technically feasible" doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. We can't have encrypted local securepoll votes because something something GPG. But why can't we have elections on votewiki, the way zhwiki does? Whatever the advantages and disadvantages of doing that may be, it is currently technically feasible, is it not?

  Also, can we have non-encrypted local elections? I see that discussed at phab:T342774 for zhwiki. I'm not sure what the effects of non-encrypted elections means exactly... that everyone would be able to see how everyone else voted? So, the way RFA is now? I'm probably not understanding the technicalities of it all, but reading the phab tasks, it seems one particular technical implementation is not currently possible (encrypted local securepolls), but that other implementations may still be possible (votewiki securepolls, or unencrypted local securepolls). Am I right or wrong? Levivich (talk) 20:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  zhwiki doesn't just do this on votewiki when they want, they had BATCH election (all rfas are bundled, and done in bulk twice a year); which is what I suggested above is a possibility (and why I supported it in the last RFA omnibus RFC, as an option for candidates). Currently everything on votewiki requires WMF staff to be involved.

  If we wanted non-secret ballot elections, we could do that lots of ways locally (think of some of the public votes on things like picture of the year, steward elections, etc - they are script aided but underneath they are just page edits). A benefit of that is that the current examination voters stays in the existing processes.

  There are many considerations about using securepoll, including that currently if you want to be able to examine for socking it means you basically automatically checkuser every voter (in our arbcom election viewing of this is limited to the scrutineers).

  All that being said, I'm in favor of enabling local securepoll capability - but the support for that is certainly lacking (if "page editing" is broken, we know there is lots of support, if some local adhoc securepoll malfunctions - good luck getting it repaired in a timely manner -- that is unless you and a large enough collection of other volunteers are ready to become developers and commit to supporting it). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

  Votes are encrypted so no one with access to the underlying database (either directly or I suppose via a MediaWiki vulnerability) will be able to determine how people voted. I'm not very confident in the SecurePoll documentation (for example, wikitech:SecurePoll#Encryption starts with "This section has not been updated for the new situation after 2013"), but since encryption is said to be optional, I think it's a reasonable requirement for the extension to be installable in an environment without the required encryption library. Perhaps someone who's installed it before can say if that's already possible? Reaching a consensus on what the community wants will help determine what work items need to be done, and how to schedule them. isaacl (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Paid advising question

I believe we should have an RfC on the following question:

Should the following question be asked at RfA?

Do you have the intention of starting a paid consulting business after your RfA advertising yourself as an administrator? Assuming you do not now have such intentions, are you willing to have a confirmation RfA explicitly mentioning your intentions if you decide to do so later?

I do not wish to add to anyone's stress by asking it of the three individuals currently running. However, given the precedent recently set, and the fact that the admin has not agreed to a confirmation RfA... perhaps it would be wise to ask from now on? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

That is so overly-specific as to be basically useless and is firmly in the realm of closing the barn door after the horse has bilted. If you want to disallow that sort of behavior, change the policies around adminship, don't shoehorn it in with (non-binding) questions at RfA. GeneralNotability (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the response. My fear, of course, is that bringing new horses into the stable after the trick to open the barndoor was shown wouldn't be wise. Thankfully, admin candidates are not horses, they are sophisticated language users who can agree to reconfirm before starting a business. But yes, I suppose it would be more straightforward to try to modify WP:ADMIN to say that an admin cannot advertise their adminship to attract customers for paid consulting unless they disclosed their intention to do so at their RfA. Does this wording seem fair? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a ridiculously long RfC on this subject at VPP which currently has more opposition than support. Please don't relitigate it here. At some point, we either trust our admins to do the right thing or we don't have admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

The RfC at the Village Pump asks a totally different question about disclosing clients, it did not ask about transparently disclosing one's intentions to advertise at RfA . -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I am the administrator that the SashiRolls alludes to. As for the admin has not agreed to a confirmation RfA, I have repeatedly said that I will fully comply with any new policy, so I consider a "confirmation RFA" to be a red herring. Cullen328 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I was going to say moral panic. And forum shopping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, I did not begin doing any Wikipedia related consulting work until more than five years after my RfA. I was working full time doing strenuous construction work back then. I am now semi-retired and do only a few hours of office work these days. Unless the policy changes, I have the right to engage in off-Wikpedia consulting work that violates no policy. As a sign of good faith, I stopped accepting new clients when the discussion at WP:VPP began six weeks ago and I have no active clients. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should really close that as no-consensus, it's been open forever. It's not fair to you. That said, a more straightforward RfC should be opened concerning disclosure. This isn't about you, but about what you pointed out. Not everyone admin candidate is Cullen328 (or Eostrix). ps: no need for a definite article before my username, of course. You can just call me Sashi. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a typo, Sashi. Cullen328 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I echo the thoughts of GeneralNotability above about this being an unnecessarily granular question. That in itself would be forgivable if the question were neutral. Frankly, if one is predisposed to think that paid-anything behavior is undesirable in an administrator, then a simpler version of the above question would be: "Do you promise to renounce your adminship if you take money for any reason?" _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell. The proposal was brought at VPP, after considerable discussion, it has (to my eyes anyway) failed. Bringing it here does not respect that result. Sometimes you have to respect you've received no for an answer and resist the temptation to find another forum to shop.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You admins are absolutely kidding yourselves if you think Barkeep's RfC is going to be the one and only time we talk about this. It's not forum shopping for another editor to propose something else after a no consensus result. Levivich (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, in this case, unless I've missed something, you're not even waiting for the no-consensus close to occur. I guess forum shopping is just one of those things, to quote Potter Stewart, where "I know it when I see it". Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Walt, stop it. Levivich (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Pardon? I didn't say anything. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume I am the person meant. Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Wehwalt's point is valid, and I would have thought that Levivich would have learned by now that this tiresome "[Username], stop it" posturing doesn't work. Pretending one has been unfairly maligned and that someone else is doing a wrong by being critical, when one has actually been entirely fairly and reasonbly criticized, fools no one at all. Ordering other users to stop raising concerns is never going to do anything but backfire.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Ordering users to stop raising concerns is what's happening here, with multiple admins calling the raising of concerns "forum shopping."

Let's get real, folks. The RFC, which AFAIK had no RFCBEFORE discussion, asked a question about disclosing clients of paid admin consultants. That's a pretty narrow question and has led to a split decision, almost evenly split, with a number of editors saying it goes too far, or not far enough, that it shouldn't be about disclosure but about the paid advising, or that it should apply to everyone and not just admins. Lots of opinions from lots of different angles.

Obviously, there will be continued discussion of this issue. It is not forum shopping for someone to suggest something somewhere. It is bad for admins to suggest that editors continuing this discussion are forum shopping. That's trying to stop people from talking about it, and that's bad.

So stop it, walts and non-walts alike. :-P Levivich (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. In no sense is it "forum shopping." And it is poor conduct by administrators to try to shut the conversation down, since they are so obviously compromised by the act of selling adminship on the open market, without disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Which admins in this discussion are compromised "by the act of selling adminship on the open market, without disclosure?" Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You. And the others. The effect of your opposition and attempt to shut down this discussion is to preserve for admins the "right"! its been called above to advertise their advanced permissions in sales pitches, without disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion towards crystallising consensus and finding a better question to ask, but the question originally asked here was an end run around the RfC, even if it wasn't meant to be. I still think we're missing the point; problematic edits should be dealt with as such, renumerated or otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not an end run around the RFC, or even close to it. The RFC asked about disclosing clients. Sashi's question asks about engaging in paid consulting at all -- it does not ask about disclosing clients. When I say "you're kidding yourselves," and "let's get real," I'm talking specifically about this: if you think an RFC about disclosing clients is going to be the end of this discussion -- and we're not going to talk about whether anyone can do this paid advising at all, and if so, under what restrictions/disclosure requirements/whatever, whether admin or non-admin -- you're totally being unrealistic. Of course we're going to talk about that. We're going to talk about how WP:PAID has a loophole where if you don't actually make the edits, you aren't technically covered by it. We're going to talk about whether that's a loophole at all -- an unintentional gap -- or whether we intend to allow paid advising. We're going to talk about whether the rules should be different for permissions holders vs. everyone else. We probably won't talk about disclosing clients, but the rest of it? Still very much an open question, I am sure I'm not the only editor who wants to see it resolved. This controversy isn't about disclosing clients, it's about the activity itself. Levivich (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Which rather begs the question, if it's not disclosed, how will we ever know it took place? A cynic would suggest there isn't a problem (speaking as an admin who has blocked literally thousands of spammers and promotional editors, disclosed or undisclosed). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

How do we know what takes place on the internet, takes place? That should be obvious. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell, (I hope I'm not misunderstanding you), but that's true of any paid editing. The difference is that in the case of paid editing, it's often obvious. In the case of paid advising, not so much. And paid advising by a highly experienced editor, maybe even less so. We need to have disclosure so we know which articles to keep an eye on. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course it's true of any paid editing. The whole concept of UPE was another moral panic whipped up by a handful of editors. All it's led to is an unhealthy focus on editors' motives and identities. I was blocking spammers years before disclosure was required and I still block spammers now; I don't care why they're spamming, whether they're paid to do it, or whether they've disclosed that fact. Requiring disclosure has done absolutely nothing for Wikipedia except create another bureaucratic burden. This proposal will do the same but only increase suspicion and encourage people to dig into admins' off-wiki activities. I'd like to see more Cullens and fewer Orangemoodys but these proposals will have the opposite effect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess while I'm here I should address the OP question. Personally, I think it's a bit premature to propose any specific solution to the perceived problem, including the potential solution of an RFA question or RFA disclosure requirement. After reading the responses in the client-disclosure RFC, I'm not sure that this is an "admin issue" as opposed to a general editor issue, and hence I'm not sure that RFA questions are the place to make tweaks as opposed to elsewhere.

What I think would be helpful as a next step is a true "request for comments" -- not a support/oppose vote, but just asking people to give their opinions, on some discrete questions (which should be workshopped in an RFCBEFORE, after the current RFC is closed or archived without closure), such as whether paid advising should be allowed at all; whether paid advisors should have to disclose anything and if so, what; whether paid advisors should be under any restrictions and if so, what; whether the rules should be different for perm holders, and if so which perm holders (there are all the functionary hats to consider, some of whom signed NDAs, and does that matter?), and if so, different how. Only after getting the community's feedback on these basic questions can we start to think about whether we need to make any changes to policies (WP:PAID, WP:COI) or procedures (RFA questions). I have more questions than answers on these issues right now, and I think it's too soon to talk about solutions, since we don't yet know what we all think is, or is not, a problem.

I say after this RFC is closed because if someone uninvolved volunteers to write a good closing statement that summarizes the various arguments/counterarguments made in the current RFC (I hope someone does!), that may help narrow and clarify the issues, and thus inform an RFCBEFORE for another RFC, or whatever the next step may be. Levivich (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Every editor in good standing is permitted to ask questions at RfA; any editor who thinks that this would be a useful question to ask can always ask it even if we do not institute it as a standard question. I would be very surprised if it turns out to be a useful question: even if someone does answer no/yes and then begins a business advertising themselves as a Wikipedia admin, what recourse would the community even have? Would the precedent that administrators are not bound by their WP:RECALL pledges apply here? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Part of the purpose of asking questions is to get an idea how someone thinks and how well they express their rationale -- should they change their mind, the community can do what it always does initially, ask more questions, and operate with open information. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It also provides a vector for opposition if a candidate does not give the "ideal" answer of saying "No. I have no intention of starting a business", and perhaps it's just me, but personally I tend to shy away from any added steps or measures that would make RfA more difficult than it currently is. Giving the indication that Wikipedians will want to pry into someone's livelihood, private or not, before they will hand someone the "no big deal" mop is just going to make our admin recruitment problem worse. One might argue that this is a Good Thing, because it would deter unscrupulous admin candidates, but note also that there are people who are greatly concerned about their privacy on the Internet in this day and age, whether or not they have a side gig. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

A central purpose of RfA is to ask questions. It seems bizarre to criticize questions and answers because they inform the ivoters. What we want to know is what they will do with their admin-ship that they are asking us to give them, if they have a livelihood plan for it, or would consider one, they should tell us. And any potential candidate who does not already know they will get all kinds of scrutiny, welcome and not, and it is and will be ongoing, should stay away because they are neither well informed nor prepared (just as in arbcom candidates and members) . Also, it often seems that some who link 'no big deal' don't know that the purpose of that section is to inform that standards, expectations, scrutiny have increased overtime. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of that. In fact, my linking it is because of the fact that standards have increased exponentially, and in some ways the increase has been beneficial, but I think now it is truly becoming a detriment. Why are we continuing to add more hoops to jump through when we're already dealing with a retention issue? It seems to me that assessing the candidate's judgment specifically for their on-Wiki activities is the most important thing, and not what they do in their outside life.

I would also add that I have no problem with the question itself, but making it mandatory is unnecessary. The "are you open to recall" question isn't mandatory but it's essentially guaranteed and automatic anytime an RfA is opened. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Informing others, and willingness to inform others, is an on wiki activity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

And I guess one other thing I would add is this thread opened with the OP stating: I do not wish to add to anyone's stress by asking it of the three individuals currently running. It seems like an implicit recognition that the environment at RfA is about as stressful as going through an Arbcom case as the sole named party, and this does nothing to help that. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my views on the matter align with Levivich in that I'm open to any neutrally-worded RfC that addresses the larger question in the context of editing on Wikipedia as a whole, rather than just having a mop-and-globe icon on one's Talk Page. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I think that yes/no questions tend to be a pretty ineffective way of getting a good idea how somebody thinks but as I say anyone who thinks it valuable can always ask Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems obvious from the discussions that it is an admin issue, and that is true even if it is an 'other editor's too, issue', admins are the one's who are very visibly seeking and holding permissions from us. But personally I would not so much focus the questions on reconfirmation, I would focus on willingness to be up-front with us, now and in the future and probe disclosure and its extent. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be closed as no consensus simply on numbers. Many of the opposes are arguing that because it doesn't include non-admins, it doesn't go far enough. Valereee (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Really? Which ones other than Oppose #14 (Cryptic) state that they are opposing only because the proposal was to apply to admins only and would support if the requirement was applied to all editors? The raw vote at present appears to be 42 in favor and 49 opposed, and I see only one oppose along the line you suggest. Perhaps I've read in haste. Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure which opposes and discussion made me comment here about multiple such, it was five weeks ago and I don't recall. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I do recall @Roy Smith addressing it somewhere, but can't remember the exact. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Roy is supporter #38. I do see a few opposers saying that any such restriction should not apply just to admins, but only Cryptic so far do I see saying they would support if it applied across the board. If we counted them as a supporter at heart, that would make it 43–48. Wehwalt (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna bet you didn't see Cryptic saying he would support otherwise. —Cryptic 20:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But wouldn't anyone saying that a restriction shouldn't only apply to admins are basically saying it should be applied to both? Valereee (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

If they are otherwise supporters (Cryptic) but not if they oppose also for other reasons. Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh. Maybe? Valereee (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. I seem to remember somewhere in the volumes of discussion someone making a point similar to yours but I'm not sure it's supported. Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

But I'm supporting it so beautifully. :D Valereee (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I can't argue with that! Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Might as well just ask, Do you have the intention of becoming an evil administrator after your RfA? Assuming you do not now have such intentions, are you willing to have a confirmation RfA if you decide to turn evil later?, if we're going to add very specific scenarios to the default questions or otherwise assume the worst of every candidate. Acalamari 06:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Acalamari, I kind of feel like that's not fair. There is significant difference of opinion on whether or not paid-but-not-fully-disclosed advising is okay. Clearly Cullen, a highly-respected editor and admin, sees this as okay, not evil. So he wouldn't have answered, "Yes, I intend to become evil". And it seems like you don't see this as evil, either, or even problematic. So why would you think asking about it would mean asking if one intends to become evil?

To be clear, I don't think this is evil. I think it's problematic for an admin to be marketing their services, as an admin, to advise without disclosing the articles in question corporations/people who would like to exert control over the articles about them, because it doesn't let other editors know which articles someone should maybe keep an eye on. Which is why I supported the RfC. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This comparison is unfair. Advice is not evil.

A fair comparison would be "Who are all of your past and present employers (and, if applicable, customers)? After all, you have a financial COI with them, so we have to make sure just in case you someday decide to edit their articles." —Cryptic 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

• These kinds of invasive questions based not on anything related to policy but on assumptions of bad faith (or sometimes just plain pet peeves), are IMO among the chief problems with RfA -- not badgering opposes, not pleading with opposes, not opposing because of something done on-wiki, not differing opinions about what on-wiki activity makes for a good admin, but the paranoid questions about real-life identities, real-life activities, etc. I won't repeat all my arguments from the disclosure RfC, but when such a question is posed here, it throws a "nothing to hide" wrench into the RfA works -- either you have to make commitments that you shouldn't have to commit or you leave people to assume the worst. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure it's any more assuming bad faith to require paid advising be fully disclosed than to require paid editing be fully disclosed. Valereee (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  The analogy fails because paid editing is an on-wiki activity -- one for which we have a policy founded in a very strong consensus. It's asking an on-wiki admin about whether their on-wiki editing is influenced by money. It isn't asking them about off-wiki activities that do not affect their on-wiki editing. It can only conceivably influence their on-wiki activity if you assume bad faith, and if it doesn't influence their on-wiki activity it's as equally none of your business as asking who their employer, spouse, or friends are. But now I'm just rehashing the RfC, so this is my only response. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The questions I proposed for RfA and the proposed modification to WP:ADMIN are agnostic with regard to whether paid advising should be permitted or not. What I want is for the community to be able to vote knowing the intended use of the honorary title, and to know that the person involved is aware they need to ask at RfA before advertising the title. That's all. If the community supports a particular admin doing paid advising that's fine, that's consensus. Concerning the two caricatures of my question—Do you promise to renounce your adminship if you take money for any reason? and Do you have the intention of becoming an evil administrator after your RfA?—people can draw their own conclusions as to why the caricaturists have chosen to reframe Do you promise to ask us before you advertise your admin status?. Are the cartoonists revealing truths about RfA voters? assuming bad faith about them? Surely not. Again, assuming some business competence, none of this requires any disclosure whatsoever about identity. Finally, and parenthetically, as for this distinction between the "real world" and a "make-believe world", hmm... I know it's cherished wiki-wonkery not to think so, but en.wp exists in the RW :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is you who is assuming bad faith, but of the entire admin corps? We elect admins because we trust them to act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. If an admin loses that trust, they shouldn't be an admin. Absent evidence that they have abused that trust, we should assume that they will continue to act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. These are people who have invested thousands of hours into Wikipedia; they're not going to throw that away for a quick buck. People will continue to solicit the kind of advice Cullen has been giving, regardless of our policies, which just leaves the question of whether we want them to get it from genuine good-faith editors like Cullen or the likes of Orangemoody (who, by the way, will continue to pass themselves off as admins, because the public don't know the difference). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Are there rules against accusing people of assuming bad faith of the entire admin corps without any evidence? I think there are. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What I want is for the community to be able to vote knowing the intended use of the honorary title, and to know that the person involved is aware they need to ask at RfA before advertising the title. If that's the intent of your question, then the question should be so appropriate. Something such as: What sort of weight or status do you believe that the role of administrator carries outside of Wikipedia? is useful because, like a job interview, it's not intended as a "gotcha" question. Instead informs as to the administrator's ethics, morals, and general behaviors, which to me is more important than whether or not they answer "I have no intention of starting a paid business" which, while being the Most Desirable Answer, tells you nothing in the moment as to whether the admin candidate in question will be honest or trustworthy. It's only really usable as evidence to beat someone down after the fact if they do get caught lying.

Beyond that, the caricature exists because of the fact the question has... well, if not loaded language, then more some of the concepts being exercised. Such as a confirmation/reconfirmation RfA for example - has this ever really been considered on Wikipedia as a mechanism that can be exercised to reassess an admin's good standing? Generally, any reconfirmation process that exists is usually the result of an admin being de-sysopped by Arbcom and notified they can only regain adminship through RfA, so there is an inherently negative connotation there. It's hard not to view the question as anything other than adversarial. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 02:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)