Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

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

Current time is 15:32, 15 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

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)

My read on what she subsequently said is that she got emotional in the moment and now understands that she should not have brought up past interactions in the RfA comment. Otherwise, I agree, having these kinds of pathos based (or not even pathos based but entirely irrelevant pathos based) arguments in an RfA seems to be an issue that still continues and I stand by the two points I raised in the AN. Fermiboson (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Peeps in this thread may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Gaming the system#Proposal for an additional point.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:36, 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)

We're working on a way forward with that - updates will be on Phab :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 16:49, 1 November 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)

At some point, we either trust our admins to do the right thing or we don't have admins. "Trust, but verify", to quote a Russian proverb. Levivich (talk) 16:21, 2 November 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)

That can't be right. Readers should be entitled to be able to find out if the Greenpeace article is written by Greenpeace, or the Tobacco Industry writes the Tobacco article, or contributed to it, if that is what has happened. It is just plain ethics. Alanscottwalker (talk) Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way to make that happen. We do not ID-verify our editors, many of whom are anonymous. What you're posting here and in your rant below are fanatasies about a utopian pipe-dream world. Not constructive in a discussion like this about what to actually do and get done.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course we make that happen, to the extent we can, it's one of the reasons why we ask for and expect disclosure. And no, ethics in publishing is no fantasy and neither is asking for it, not in the real world. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"Asking for and expecting disclosure" does not make us "able to find out if the Greenpeace article is written by Greenpeace, or the Tobacco Industry writes the Tobacco article, or contributed to it". I may ask for and expect my car to not be broken into, but this has no effect whatsoever on whether a criminal will do it. You are totally confusing the idea "I wish something was a particular way" and "We can make something be a particular way". They are not the same.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem totally confused about criminals, we are talking about publishing, not criminals. And you are totally confused about what writing Wikipedia policy is, "doing" in terms writing Wikipedia policy is almost entirely writing requests and guidance. And it is plain obvious that a COI disclosure on an article talk page which we ask to be done informs readers of the COI, so there is no doubt it informs the reader. You seem to be in a fantasy world that Wikipedia could be some kind of autocratic state, and only that's doing something, no it is not, on either count. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are or are going to pretend to be incapable of understanding analogy, and if your habitual response to a criticism is to flip it around in a childish "No I'm not! You are!" manner, and make up weird bullshit about autocracy, then I have no further reason to continue reading a thing you say or taking anything you propose seriously, nor does anyone else. >plonk<  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah well, I'm certain that's not true, nor even remotely fair. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:50, 1 November 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 analogy does not fail in the least. The private Wikipedia advisor is not advising about what's off Wikipedia, they are advising about what's on it, its content, its policies, it modes of behavior. Indeed, it's been billed by many and in some kind of triumphal manner as paid advice on how-to-act, write, participate on Wikipedia. That can be nothing but influencing Wikipedia. (Also, it was just this kind of parade of horribles argument you make that in part prevented PAID disclosure for so long, so your comment has an unintended irony in the way you talk about PAID) Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:43, 1 November 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, it 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". That, 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)

I see what you're getting at with the idea of posing a more open and less pointed question, but if someone asked me What sort of weight or status do you believe that the role of administrator carries outside of Wikipedia? I would have to ask them to restate the question, since it doesn't have clear/certain meaning. Strictly interpreted, I think the only proper answer is a bare "None.", but that is probably not the kind of answer someone asking such a question is looking for.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And I think that would be reflected in the !voting and/or commentary. Rarely for these types of open-ended questions will you see a candidate confine themselves to a one-word or one-sentence response, because they understand that their behavior and answers will be scrutinized thoroughly, or in particular, certain !voters will hinge their support or opposition based on the answers, or lack thereof, to their optional questions. It's their Big Day. They want to provide as much of an opportunity as possible to market (for lack of a better word) themselves to Wikipedians, so they will be as detailed as they have to be.

But yes, @SMcCandlish, I'd like to push us more in the direction of brainstorming open-ended questions that are searching or revealing. You could also make it a two-part question by asking them what sort of weight it carries both on and off Wikipedia, to get their overall take on adminship, and provide clues as to whether or not they may try to embellish or exploit it. If the concern is one of ethics and morals, which based on Alanscottwalker's statements such as because paying for what is free is a form of corruption I have reason to believe that it is, then the question needs to be revealing of the candidate's ethics and morals.

Now, this is probably going to be a highly cynical outlook, but frankly: a yes/no question about a specific troublesome scenario can so easily be gamed, because why on earth would any candidate who wants to become an administrator give an affirmative answer that could potentially garner opposition to a question which provides no room for nuance? Because that's exactly what will happen, there are people who have direct moral opposition to paid activities no matter who does it, based on the number of people who said they "lost respect for Cullen" during that RfC. And even if the candidate said no, how would we be able to determine if they were being sincere, without crossing the WP:OUTING threshold? _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've mentioned my being an administrator on Wikipedia a few times. People don't really understand what that is, but I shine slightly by the reflected glory of Wikipedia. That's not for me. So I don't mention it. Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Someone above termed this a moral panic, and I have to agree. I advise people about editing all the time (primarily with two goals: reducing the "doing it all wrong" issues for the community of a noob not knowing anything, and reducing the "I'm gonna quit in disgust" frustration of meeting revert-happy resistance when doing well-meaning things that don't quite comply with our rules yet). No one's paid me for any of it, and none of them have been corporate entities. But if someone tipped me $20 for having helped them out I wouldn't suddenly feel "evil". Every time someone writes an article on their blog or social media about how to edit WP properly, they are "advising" a whole bunch of random strangers on how to edit Wikipedia. Every time we write explanatory essay material here on-wiki, we're doing likewise. Every instructor in a classroom-based, WMF-endorsed project to have students improve Wikipedia articles as part of their coursework is a "WP-editing advisor" (and paid). Everyone organizing editathons and showing noobs the ropes is such an advisor (and sometimes might be paid, especially under various affiliate programs that internally arrange their own minor stipends). If someone gets a grant from WMF to go to a wiki-conference and give a presentation on some aspect of editing, that's paid advising about WP editing. This panic here seems to be that someone might get remuneration to advise some particular celebrity or corporation or some other potential or actual article subject on how to edit here, but there is no definitional bright line. One of the inviduals I advised is a board member of or otherwise involved in various organizations, and working at a for-profit publisher, and concerned about lack of coverage of some of their professional collegues in their field; their editing desires are across a fairly discrete topic area, but all of those entities fall within that area's scope, and they're all potential CoIs. But CoI editing is not forbidden, and if it's going to happen there are ways to go about it that don't break things (especially: proposing new content or specific changes, with a pile of sources for it, and convincing non-CoI editors to do the actual writing, excercising a lot of NPoV judgment along the way). I was not in any way wrong for advising this person on how to do this properly. There seems to be a "folk belief" around here that advising some entity with a vested interest in something automatically means you are advising them on how to violate our rules instead of how to comply with them, and this is of course a terriblizing legend, a superstition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I've turned down Wikipedia-related consulting job offers several times in the last few years because I thought that would make me a WP:PAID editor, and I'd like to know what the rules are around this because maybe I won't turn it down next time. No moral panic here, just want clarity. Levivich (talk) 05:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

These make-weight claims of moral panic and ABF are absurd, and merely extensions of seeking to shut down discussion. And that's when some of the ABF claims don't cross the line of personal attack and aspersions. There is nothing automatic, except the central value of transparency. Transparency in the how and the way of making Wikipedia is central to what Wikipedia is. If paying admins for private benefit is going into the making of the editorial decisions of Wikipedia (not publishing is as much an editorial decision as publishing), we should be up front about it as possible. If paying admins is going in to how editors and potential editors behave or act, we should be as up front as possible about it. If paying admins effects or influences policy choices (eg. if what's important is to protect the private profits they make off Wikipedia), we need to be upfront about it. (This too is how Wikipedia is made and unmade.) That the information they are paying for is otherwise free, all the more so, because paying for what is free is a form of corruption. And offering a public benefit to most, but a private benefit to the rich and lucky few is also a form of corruption. Moreover, ethical publications say who is paying who, and disclose other potential conflicts with their boards, executives, editors, and authors all the time. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

People pay for what they can also get for free all the time, most often when it provides them a convenience of some sort. That doesn't make it "corrupt", it's just how the world works. (And calling people who you disagree with, or what they are doing or thinking, "corrupt" is not exactly the AGF and civility you're intemperately accusing others of lacking.) Maybe admins being paid for consulting work that relates to Wikipedia should be something that is mandatorily disclosed like paid editing. But including "admins" instead of "editors" in that formulation doesn't really seem salient. I've been here 17 years, and deeply involved in shaping policy; if I were a bad-actor, I know way more than our "greener" admins and even many of our long-term ones about how someone could game the system in various ways to get things they want. Yet you want to impose something on 3-year editors running for RfA, but not on wikifossils like me. This seems like alarmist and misdirected worry aimed at a scapegoat, which are in fact characteristics of a moral panic or, on a more localized scale, a witch hunt. As for "And offering a public benefit to most, but a private benefit to the rich and lucky few is also a form of corruption" is certainly not something I agree with. If I offer "how to fix your credit rating" advice for free to the public on my Facebook page (I do), that in no way whatsoever obligates me to do hours or days of work advising someone in detail on what their credit woes' exact solutions are if they can't pay me well to do it. If I spend a year writing a book on how to mod the hell out of Skyrim (I didn't), I'm under no moral or other obligation to give that book away for free; the fact that someone who wants it might not be in a position to buy it isn't my problem, and the fact that they can do the work to get all that information for free themselves obviates that person's issue, to the full extent that I need to care about, and in no way makes me "corrupt". A WP user getting paid to advise on how to edit WP properly isn't "corruption", though advising people how to manipulate WP and get away with pushing a PoV or get coverage of something not really notable, or otherwise game the system, would be unethical. The quandary we have is how to reliably distinguish between these things, and we probably can't until after a line has already been provably crossed. Mandatory disclosure of paid WP-related consulting might be something we could write a rule about, but it wouldn't logically have anything to do with admins exclusively.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

First, there is no need for you to recite your experience to me, for goodness sakes. I'm not new here. Second, I am not wedded to admins alone, administration is the area where where the issue gained salience and prominence, and thus it is the place to start. Also that a system is corrupt (paying for what is free, charging for what is free, is an economic system -- and no its not economically rational, which means there is a corruption somewhere probably in the distribution system -- turning public benefit, into a private benefit is also an economic system) is a comment on that system, not a person. I of course think you are right to be open to disclosure (it is standard guardrails and if it's all to the good - as you guess - it especially should live in and embrace being in the open), even if I disagree with you about corrupt systems. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You spend way too much time accusing other editors of harboring bad faith assumptions when you leap to the BFA that I mentioned my experience level here as some kind of comparison to you, an argument to authority. It's stark plain obvious that the entire point of mentioning it was to contrast myself with relatively new admins whose alleged "corruption" you so fear, and there is no rational read of what I wrote that has it otherwise. FFS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:26, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not leap to anything, and I was not referring to a comparison to me, I spoke that I am knowledgeable of you, so there is no reason for you to recite your experience. And that your experience was irrelevant to begin with because I am not wedded to admins alone, it's just the obvious and rational place to start, no panic, moral or otherwise about it. (I have no fear, I just have analysis.) And I still disagree with you about critiquing corrupt systems, not persons, so much of your comment makes little sense. FFS? - I'm sorry if you're angry. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You can back-pedal and play CYA all you like, but we can all read your insulting insinuation that any provision of value on top of free sources must be free or is "corruption". "I just have analysis"? You are displaying great trouble (real or feigned) in parsing even the most basic reasoning in what is being said to you here, and then double-down on your incorrect interpretation even after the correct one has been explained to you in great detail. This is having a palpable degrading effect on the quality of the discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You've gone way off-topic with this post, so we'll just stop here. I of course disagree entirely. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

A key reason for people to pay for services that are being offered by others for free is because it brings contract law into force. For example, this allows the client to specify response time guarantees. Linux support is one example of many. isaacl (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, they seek a private benefit including exclusive access not available to the general public, and in particular not available to those who can't pay. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that goes for all purchases. It's not a corruption in the distribution system to charge for providing IT support, for instance. Both sides are exchanging something of value to them, and agreeing upon terms for that exchange. In the case of Linux, Linux consultancies help fund Linux development that returns value to the general public. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

We are not talking about a market for IT services, we are talking about a market for a free encyclopedia, that is meant to be freely transparent in its making. And no, when it comes to the exchange of money it by definition is not possible for those without it to participate in the exchange. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, there were some comments that appeared to question the idea of paying for any type of service that is also available freely through other sources, and I was addressing that. Regarding Wikipedia being freely transparent in its making: by design, Wikipedia isn't fully transparent as it supports anonymous editing (beyond just non-logged in editing), explicitly with the idea that it can help enable contributions that might be more difficult to obtain otherwise. For better or worse, this makes it difficult to evaluate edits in context of the editor. This can be good for eliminating potential biases against some editors, or avoiding potential harm they might encounter as a result, but is bad for understanding potential conflicts of interest. I have suggested that editors should be reminded of their ethical duty to place Wikipedia's interests ahead of any Wikipedia-related demands from other parties, much as some licensed professionals are required to place the interest of the public ahead of their employers when a conflict arises. This won't, of course, stop anyone from deliberately ignoring Wikipedia rules (no new rule would), but would give good-faith consultants something to point to when they tell their clients that they can't do something against the rules. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Which is why it's a distribution problem: paying to address issues of delivery (including exclusive and legal claim on the time of the servicer) a choice and a service not available to those who cannot pay. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As you said you are talking about Wikipedia and not commerce in general, could you perhaps describe your viewpoint of the distribution problem with respect to Wikipedia? For example, is the problem that Wikipedia volunteers are unable to provide help to everyone who requests it, with the legal responsibilities of a contractual agreement? (Exchange of consideration to bring contract law into force can be a miniscule token amount.) Sure, in an ideal world, there would be enough free help and it would all be high quality. I can't envision how to make this happen, though. isaacl (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is not lowering the barrier of entry to information for the non-payor, or indeed not providing the service for free and to everyone. As Wikipedia is free encyclopedia publishing, that first part is something we try to do, and indeed need to continually work on, and the second part is more likely when the advice market moves to all free, instead of the advice being bought up. If that's an ideal, that's our purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You've referred a few times to a distribution problem. If I understand correctly, it's not a problem with making it easier to providing help freely, nor is it a problem with having paid support. Can you help clarify what the distribution problem is for Wikipedia? isaacl (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

It's distribution of information, it how to edit and not edit Wikipedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the goal is to distribute information on editing Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and norms. Do you have a specific problem statement on what needs to be improved? isaacl (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid advising needs to be improved, that's that the distribution model, that has been brought to the fore. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, so the distribution problem to which you are referring is to publicize the ways editing information is provided to users, and for everyone to disclose from whom they received advice? isaacl (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The discloser is the party paid. And the distribution problem is as I said above at 19:20.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As long as the disclosure can be traced, does it matter who makes the disclosure? Since it only affects Wikipedia if the recipient causes an edit to be made on Wikipedia (directly or indirectly), it may be more suitable for the recipient to disclose the provenance of their knowledge. isaacl (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The disclosure request is to the advanced permission holder offering the service because the reason for the service is to effect Wikipedia, how it's viewed, how it's understood, etc. And as I mentioned somewhere above for example, deciding not to publish is a publishing decision, that effects our coverage. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

But as long as the relationship is reported by either side, then the end result is the same?

I'm not sure we really have a problem with advisors telling people not to add information that ought to be added. To me this feels a bit more out of scope; I don't know if it's helpful to know about all the situations where people decided not to add information to Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

People who are advisers better be telling their clients not to add to Wikipedia for the same reasons that are public, so yes it matters. And there is no reason to wait for anyone to disclose other than the advanced permission holder. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

To "give good-faith consultants something to point to when they tell their clients that they can't do something against the rules" is actually probably the most cogent argument for us to expand WP:PAID to cover WP-related consulting work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I would think that in an ethical consulting relationship, pointing to "the rules" would be ample and "the rules" exist. Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

For instance, if an editor who had providing consulting services later detected some edits that appeared to be paid for by a client, they would remain duty-bound to deal with it as they would with any similar situation. Making this clear ahead of time with their clients would clarify that their consultancy does not forestall their involvement in all matters related to their clients. (Because unpaid editors are volunteers, there's no rule to point to saying they must enforce all rules.) isaacl (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What duties, as in the sense of obligations, do you see that administrators have, leaving aside their own compliance as users with the Terms of Use? Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As I stated, all editors (not just admins) have an ethical duty to place Wikipedia's interests ahead of any Wikipedia-related demands from other parties. isaacl (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Where does that derive from? Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Good-faith collaboration on any project requires that the participants work towards the common interests of the project. Of course no volunteer is compelled to take any action, so if one doesn't want to, say, copy edit an article related to a controversial area, they don't have to. If they don't want to copy edit an article on a friend, they don't have to either. If they want to copy edit an article on a friend to remove bias, but don't at the behest of the friend, then they are prioritizing a personal relationship above the project's interests. I imagine many editors will understand this circumstance, but I think they would be less understanding of someone prioritzing a financial relationship above the project's interests. isaacl (talk) 21:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Unintentional short circuit

I hadn't seen this discussion before I may have unintentionally short circuited it by asking @JPxG: at his RfA whether he has done any paid Wikipedia advising. It seems appropriate as about half of the folks at the humungous WP:VPP discussion have indicated that they have serious questions about admins doing paid Wiki-advising. I do intend to ask the same type of question at future RfAs and do believe it will have the effect that any admin candidate will realize that they are not going to get 65% support to be an admin unless they answer the question. It's not a question that's asking them to admit to breaking any rules (just like the question about paid editing is just a declaration of whether they have done it - but in that case if they declare that they've done paid editing since June 2014 (without previously declaring it) it would presumably disqualify them). In short, the effect will be that all candidates will know ahead of time that paid Wiki-advising is a serious matter.

I'm not really saying anything about @Cullen328:, but do thank him and Barkeep for bringing the matter up. My main concern about paid Wiki-advising is that most paid-editing websites solicit customers based on the premise that they are not a paid-editing service breaking our rules, but simply a consulting/advising firm, despite never being identified by paid editors as their client-employer-affiliate for their supposed extensive history of involvement in paid editing. Check out almost any paid editing website - they are transparently lying to their customers about being paid editors by saying they are consultants. Take a look around and it will be clear that they are writing musch of the material that the paid editors insert here, that they'll help find a paid editor to do the actual insertion, and that they will monitor and "correct" any unfavorable edits to the article. I don't want those types of advisors anywhere near Wikipedia. And if an admin candidate is anywhere close to that, I would want them to declare it.

We can deal with the general issue of paid Wiki-advisor admins in due course - I don't think there are very many of them. But there's no reason to let admin candidates think that very many of our editors wouldn't oppose most paid-advisor admins. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

So we can close all these discussions and go on with the daily life of Wikipedia? Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Look at his answer and tell me how informative it actually is. I hope this draws some attention to the importance of asking revealing questions rather than ones more appropriate for a polygraph test. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Note that the question did not ask if he would submit a reconfirmation request if he changed his mind. That's a big difference, such a question allows you to hold someone to their word, especially if it's "hell yeah!" -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You're right about that. I think if one were to rate questions against each other, yours is certainly more informative in the sense that it does provide evidence for later on (although I still contend it assumes we anticipate that the candidate will lie, which is not WP:AGF-friendly). Smallbones, if you intend on going forward with a question like you have, please consider modeling it on the one I crafted above, as I think it will be more informative as far as whether they may be susceptible to accepting money for Wiki-stuff.

Until we have a decent amount of evidence that administrators (note administrators plural, not singular) are actively operating in the "bad actor" manner that you're describing - they [...] monitor and "correct" any unfavorable edits to the article - then I think we need to select the question that provides the most benefit to readers of the RfA. Assessing an administrator's judgment, ethical or otherwise, is pretty important. I think the whole case with Lourdes truly reinforces that. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

There needs to be better vetting of admins prior to RFA

So I just saw that whole recent case where a previously-blocked admin managed to get re-RFA'd. I don't know how to further crack down on this - maybe candidates should go through whatever the most extensive version of CheckUser is - but whatever it is should be done as there have been way too many cases where people who plainly shouldn't be admins either became admins or very nearly became admins. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

CheckUser isn't magic pixie dust that could find bad actors if used on every RfA candidate. The large-scale privacy violations wouldn't be justified given the very small chance of catching someone like that. Maxim (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

A similar proposal was discussed at VPP recently: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFA process reformation. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Any "vetting" would either be easily circumventable by anyone smart and dedicated enough (Lourdes was checked after and it was found that they would not have been detectable), or be so invasive that it would not be worth it for most editors. We want admins who will do the right thing without fear and intimidation. That can only happen when they can be completely anonymous. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Having made my earlier comment and thinking about how checkuserinq RfA, candidates is a perennial proposal, I thought it may be useful to explain how CheckUser works in the frame of such proposal. I don't think anything I'm going to share is a particular secret, but perhaps it hasn't been explained in a single comment, and I'm hoping it's something that can be referenced when such a proposal inevitably resurfaces.

CheckUser works broadly speaking, as a tool that shows IP addresses and user agents for a given account or accounts and user agents for a given IP addresses or range. A user agent is the operating system and browser details, and in the case of mobile devices, this generally gives the general brand, and most often, the specific brand, of a device. Information is stored when someone makes edits or certain logged actions. It is configured on WMF wikis such that data expires after 90 days (stales). This is the first pitfall of a systematic checkusering: ideally you need to have a second account or IP address/range that has been used within the past 90 days.

Say you have a particularly bad sockmaster. In that case, the results of previous CheckUser queries may have been manually saved, whether on the checkuser wiki, the arbcom wiki, or privately by an individual CheckUser. This is useful because when one checks an account suspected to be a given sockmaster, there is some reference information. Perhaps the behaviour is suspicious, but if there is a geographical connection, an ISP connection, or perhaps a distinctive mobile device known to be used in the past, that may well be enough for a block as it could be more likely than not that the new account is connected. Alternatively, because CheckUser actions are logged, it is possible to see when and why a given IP or account was previously checked, and that also may given some hints as to who a suspicious account belongs to. So, if one is going a fishing expedition, if one gets quite lucky, the IP address or range used by an account could have been checked previously. That said, please note the keyword "lucky".

Say there's been a fishing expedition—let's set the ethical problem aside fora second—and some IPs were found that have been used by a sockmaster. Does that mean that the new account belongs to the sockmaster? Maybe, maybe not. Users change ISPs and devices. IPs and ranges get reallocated. In some countries, that means someone can show up on multiple broad ranges in a single day. Unless there is temporal proximity, along with similarity in behaviour and user agents, the answer tends to fall under "maybe not", which is really, in a nutshell. why such fishing expeditions are not useful to find bad actors. But, in the context of RfA, let's consider the human factor too. If we have a sockmaster trying to get an admin account, then this person is already knowledgeable about how things work here. If said sockmaster used to edit off a PC, perhaps he tries a Mac. Depending on where the sockmaster lives then changing ISPs wouldn't be a bad idea at all. This means that someone searching for said theoretical sockmaster among a pool of RfA candidates with the checkuser tool will most likely find a candidate or two that lives in the same country as the sockmaster.

The moral of the story here is two-fold. First, circumventing CU is quite feasible and someone nefarious intent on passing RfA will absolutely be doing that. Second, even without trying to circumvent it, the chance of finding sockpuppetry by systematically checking all RfA candidates is low because of what information checkuser actually gives. My final comment is to loop back on the ethical and cultural aspect; we are leery of invading editors' privacy, and perhaps more significantly, the CheckUser culture on enwiki is to avoid checking established editors absent a very good reason. Maxim (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)