Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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

Current time: 23:46:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to be an admin....

go write some content. Or if you can't, go review some - peer review is always desperate for input. Or expand some stubs at the Stub Contest in a few weeks. Show onlookers you care about the First Pillar....cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I for one have done all of that. In fact the vast majority of the things I have done over the last couple years are admin related and I still will never be allowed access to the tools. I won't be allowed to help out at CCI, see deleted content, help delete trash bock vandals or protect articles and I'm tred of spending my time submitting these things to admins when I can't be trusted. Let them find it themselves if they don't trust me. Sadly I have a growing list of uncorrected vandalism, several of which from the same user and at least 30 templates that need to be fixed for various problems. Not to mention the long backlogs at multiple venues. So the oversimplified statement above is just kidding the reader. IF they want to be an admin they need to do some of those but stay away from ANI, AN and keep their heads down, don't question the admins and never try and stand up against them until after you get the tools. If you care more for the project than managing your wikicareer you will not get access to the toolset. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Err, so you say, I can't comment unless you log in as who you are and see what you're talking about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No not at all, you can comment all you want just as I can. I just don't agree that ultra simplified explanation you gave is nearly enough to help someone get the tools that's all. Maybe back on 2005-2008 time frame it worked. But now it doesn't. Although I agree it should. I would also add that I no longer care about getting access to the tools. I am investing my time elsewhere since it wasn't wanted here. I just comment occasionally now but this project and this community lost me as a contributor in the traditional sense. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're a new editor, I suggest you create an account. GiantSnowman 14:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, I was here for years and had a lot of edits across a wide range of areas but there is no need to login anymore. There is nothing (except vote) that I can't do as an IP if I need too. Even as far as credibility goes I don't care about that either. People can believe what I say or not, it makes little difference to me at this point. This isn't really about me though. Its about fixing the broken RFA process. If it really bothers you to know though my username is mentioned in the previous discussion. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that your "If you care more for the project than managing your wikicareer you will not get access to the toolset." shows understanding and wisdom, at least for folks who's caring about the project involves going near contentious articles and contentious situations. RFA questions should cause a CLOSE look and analysis of how the person handled themselves in tough situations, not just what the name-callers said or whether they avoided them. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

*cough* Kumioko *cough* Just a hunch.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol Ding ding ding. See, no need to login at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It is disrespectful and extremely unhelpful to editors unfamiliar with your prolix style to deliberately fail to identify yourself, use multiple IPs and then use your registered ID all on the same discussion page. Leaky Caldron 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, tough shit. I gave up caring about what people here think of me and its no more disrespectful or unhelpful than how I was treated as an editor. Same for many of the comments by others here who either miscategorize the problems or attempt to discredit them. It doesn't matter that I was an editor. Now I an IP and I don't intend to use my username again. So regardless of whether its bad form or not, it is what it is. That doesn't change the problems with RFA it doesn't change the problems with abusive admins and it certainly doesn't change the problems with too much work for too few admins. So if its ok with you and the other nitpickers here, why don't we get back on the topic of discussing problems with RFA and less about how that Asshole Kumioko keeps coming back and talking about fixing all the broken shit related to RFA that no one else seems to care about. Sure we have a lot of folks with comments about how they would like to fix it, but at the end of the day, that's all it is, talk. No action and no desire for action. For what its worth though, the reason you are seeing multiple IP's is because I have different computers (work and home) and the power went out here in my area which caused my router to reset. Not that any of that is relevant to this discussion. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I am meticulous in never knowingly responding to your tediously long polemics on RfA. The truth is you behave in this way because you failed to gain sufficient support to achieve the status you believe you deserve. You have done everything you can since your failed second attempt in August last year to repeat the same mantra in every venue possible. You might think it helps; I don't. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok fine and I'm sure you think the project is a lot better off now that I'm not editing. As I said before I don't really care what you or anyone else believe. So why don't we just move on and get back on topic. BTW that was my 4th attempt. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

August 2012 was your second RfA [1]. Leaky Caldron 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh that one. I apologize. I thought you were talking about August 2013. My 4th and final attempt. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, do let's get back on topic. The topic was the idea of admin hopefuls doing content work. Now how did we get distracted from that? Oh, yes ... --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And you wonder why I don't want to log in. Give me one good reason why I should even bother logging in. So I can vote? So I can get credit for my edits? So Leaky can ignore the discussions? There is no reason to log in to participate in a discussion that isn't going to result in anything anyway. Here we are, 2 weeks into November and we have only had 1 RFA that isn't going to pass and I am apparently the only one that sees that as a problem? Really? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No you are not the only one who sees the lack of new admins as a problem. I am aware of many who see this as a problem. We differ sharply in our proposed solutions, but I believe more accept it as a problem than not. Progress is indeed lamentably slow, but when I was first warning people about the drought there were many who thought it some sort of statistical fluctuation. The debate has moved on and no-one doubts that we have a declining number of admins, so we are making progress, just mind numbingly slowly. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My fear is that nothing will be done until the problem is irreversible or the WMF is forced to step in with some half cocked solution like Visual Editor that makes things worse. It may not happen in the next few months, but that day is steadily approaching as we lose several admins a month. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: I don't wonder why you don't log in, and I'm not here to claim you should for any reason. Sorry if I offended you, but I feel something needs to be said: I have RFA on my watchlist and very often take a look in here to see what's going on, but I quickly run away again when I see the same people saying the very same things in long walls of text for the umpteenth time. I can only speak for myself, but I do wonder whether other people may also be chased off from contributing here by this repetitiousness, as I am. Please look again at your opening reply to the post that started this thread. It was about you and how you had tried that but didn't get the bit anyway and how much we've all lost by that. The original post was about people getting content experience -- highly relevant to at least three of the RFAs that have floundered in the past few weeks. Why are we discussing your past RFAs and whether you should log in or not, instead of that? --Stfg (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I was using myself as an example that the modest goals Casliber points to are wildly optimistic in todays editing/RFA environment. They haven't been that basic since at leas 2008. The reason I keep bringing myself into it is because frankly I have done just about everything there is to do here at some point. I have more admin experience than at least half the admins and probably more. The reason I don't get the tools are 1) because I am hypercritical about abusive admins and the RFA process and 2) because some people (mostly abusive admins or wanna be admins) think I am a jerk. The truth is I am generally only a jerk to those who are jerks first or those who have a history of Jerkiness. I generally get along with most editors, I just admittedly no longer feel compelled to be overly nice to those who aren't nice themselves. As for adminship I no longer care about it cause I am through here, but the RFA process still needs to be changed before it implodes. So in the end its not about me anyway but the general failures of the site and the community to promote people who can actually use the tools over those who hide in the corner and don't get involved. We have too many of those already. People may not like how I do things but they don't get involved themselves so IMO they can either step up or step aside. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I do not know about the first three runs, but, at least, in my perspective, the last time you have not got the tools because you decided to run right after an incivility block. Having a recent incivility block is in my opinion not the best admin profile.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fair, but its also fair to say that quite a few admins have gotten a block for incivility too. Some multiple times. There are several admins that have been blocked more than 5 times. They didn't lose the tools, so why would we prevent a long term contributor from having access to them for the same reason. It should also be noted that I requested that block. Me and that user have a pretty long history and I got tired of dealing with their crap. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

"a growing list of uncorrected vandalism, several of which from the same user"; actually I don't agree that any of those mainspace edits of mine were vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 18/11

Looking from the outside in (as someone who has only !voted once in an RfA and never run before), here's my take on things:

@Casliber: There's more to that first pillar than content creation - curation and maintenance play a large role as well. Even more so for admins: aside from editing fully protected pages and possibly restoring deleted content, the tools contribute nothing to content creation. In fact, the majority of the tools are used to stop or even reverse the creation of potentially worthy content. Not to mention that there are 4 other pillars [yes, okay, sorry for that sentence fragment]. IIRC, the most important attribute of administrators should be civility (4th pillar) and dispute resolution, not the ability to write. Anybody who wants to can do that. Not everybody who does that can, or should, become an admin.

@WereSpielChequers: Yes, the declining number of admins (and the inactivity of a large portion of that number) is a problem. However, as we've seen from the graphs, it corresponds reasonably well to a general decrease in wiki activity, so it's not as much of a problem as we may think.

Personally, editcountitis, insistence on stringent criteria for content creation, and an ingenious idea for an April Fools' joke (heh oops, that cat's out of the bag now...) are holding me back from running at all. I have ~3000 edits, and I think around a third are in AfD and a fifth in article space, with a large majority of those gnoming, reverting, or tagging for deletion (that damn replication lag). I'd say I have a pretty good idea of the content policies here. However, putting myself out there at all before I reach 1k article space edits is out of the question, and who knows how long it'll take me to get there with all the work university has thrown at me (sad thing there is, I'm probably still more active than plenty of the admin corps). The biggest problem with this is that I think that I'm ready, but I know the larger community would not. Now, feel free to disagree, but if it weren't for the community's inanely high standards, there would be more applicants, if not more accepted. I don't care if people try to pick out my flaws (and trust me, you could probably find quite a few if you dug deep enough), but mudslinging isn't the way we should go about this - we have WP:AGF for a reason. The admin situation here isn't bringing the 'pedia down, but it sure is indicative of the way the entire place is headed. Ansh666 21:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC) [And yeah, this is probably the longest thing I've ever written on the entirety of WP, but it's born out of frustration at wanting to help clear backlogs and not being able to. At least AfD looks reasonably cleaned up for the time being.]

That's interesting. I disagree with those who oppose RFAs just on the basis of two few articles created, or zero GAs and FAs. But I do think that admins need to have a good, broad understanding of, and competence in, the things that make this an encyclopedia rather than, say, a social networking site or an MMPORG. And I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can really get those skills without engaging with the content to a great degree. How well can a candidate understand what a content dispute is really all about, or what constitutes unacceptably close paraphrasing, or what is involved in seeking sources and creating text that uses them without plagiarizing them, or etc, etc, unless one has spent some time tackling these things? Casliber began with "go write some content. Or if you can't, ...", so there are ways other than original authorship to get that know-how. But imo it needs to be got somehow. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hah, silly bot tagged me as unsigned, removed. Anyways, it's true that there are other ways. My personal experience in content policy comes from AfD discussions and CSD tagging. I've read through some RfAs, and I think that the general voter community there doesn't agree that work in deletion is enough to get the requisite experience. I'd disagree. Ansh666 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

AFD and CSD can make for a pretty good background for an admin, but there are some common pitfalls. Some new page patrollers get carried away and become sloppy in their tagging, they tend to get opposes from those of us who assume that sloppy work in tagging would lead to sloppy deletion. Some patrollers just tag stuff for others to fix and haven't yet mastered categorisation or even referencing. My own very crude rule of thumb is that when you've got to the stage where you are removing more tags than you add then you are probably ready to be an admin. A more clearcut precedent is that nowadays adminship is only for those who have made some contribution to building the pedia not just defending it. We've had people repeatedly declined because despite doing over 100,000 edits they couldn't point to any content contributions, and we've had RFAs pass first time where the candidate had referenced a chunk of the unreferenced content left over from the days when referencing was less usual. ϢereSpielChequers 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Which raises the question, why do they need tools to add references? Anyone can do that if they had the time, patience, and resources. (I know, of course, there had to be other reasons, or it'd be snowing...) Ansh666 06:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There may be some admins who blindly delete CSDs without checking further. Actually, the only reason I still patrol is to patrol the patrollers, and the number of messages to editors about poor patrolling is quite significant. Perhaps it's time to set some criteria for competency to patrol pages after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that having experience with AFD and CSD and the other related venues is a start but we should be careful not to put too much weight on the percentages or we give the impression that its better to vote on which way the article for X is going than to vote how you feel. Its easy to keep your stats high just by cruising through and finding some with a clear consensus result. Using my past edits as an example there are a lot of folks who don't think being a Medal of Honor recipient is inherently notable, I don't particularly care about having all the international football (soccer) players biographies or porn stars. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that piling on at the easy-to-read AFDs is a way to get percentages up, and that might have been an issue with some RFAs. Quality of a candidate's AFD nominations is probably a better measure of their judgement than accuracy of their !votes. CSD/AFD work is obviously very useful, but the reason I find it insufficient is that it's at the poorest end of the encyclopedia. Ways to work on better content include doing cleanup work, doing reviews, and servicing edit semi-protected requests, which is quite fun, brings some variety to the content one works on, and gets one considering various policy and guidline issues. --Stfg (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, many pile-on !voters (especially those who go through the trouble of citing others' legitimate reasons and explaining them) and !voters who tend to change their !votes are good at seeing consensus, as AfD isn't only about policy like CSD or PROD. When I used to browse the AfD logs (no time anymore, sadly), I'd pile-on-delete some of them because I was unable to close them even though there was a clear consensus for delete or speedy delete (though in the latter case, it's easier to just put up the speedy tag and let someone get it that way, then wait the full week and have it closed). Ansh666 22:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ansh True you don't need the tools to add references. But the tools include setting Autopatrolled rights, and it would be odd to give that right to someone who'd never added reliably sourced material. There is also an admin only role in DYK promotion, I'm not familiar with the area, but I've seen that used as an argument not to grant adminship to candidates who haven't done some content creation. I've also seen the argument that since admins can block content creators, and this site is ultimately about creating an encyclopaedia, all new admins should have done some content creation. From my own experience I'd add that it is a core skill that any longterm editor needs to pick up, and as an admin you may get all sorts of queries, some you can swerve by saying I'm aware of that area but I've never touched it. But you really can't do that with referencing. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

@IP Lots of RFA candidates have had blocks, providing they are 12 months stale you can usually reassure the community that you've learned that particular lesson (it's what q3 is for). If the community is sometimes prepared to block but not desysop an admin but not to appoint a new admin if they've had a recent block then I can see that as seeming anomalous. But think of it like taking a driving test, there are things like speeding that would fail you on a driving test but which an already qualified driver would not lose a license for. I wouldn't nominate a candidate who'd had a recent block, but unlike many RFA !voters I might Support if there was a good case made. Or you could just think of this as an area where the RFA crowd is harsher than Arbcom. In any event someone getting a once in a blue moon block is not a bar to adminship, but never being able to stay block free for a year is. PS if you hadn't realised that was the issue, why not login and just make sure you don't get blocked for a year? ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to change IP's on you, this is my work IP but its 108/Kumioko again. The fact is I just don't care that much amnymore about getting access to the tools or about what happens to the project and I frankly don't think most others really care about the project either. I used too, strongly, but the community has shown me that feeling was misplaced and unwanted. I think most folks, admins included just care about filling whatever topic area interests them and don't care about the bigger project or picture. Yes I am inferring they push POV. As for the block issue, I was so active on controversial topics I attract controversy, especially as adversarial as I am with some of the abusive admins that should have their tool access removed (and a couple higher than simple admin access), there is little chance of not getting blocked by one of them. Besides that, there is zero chance of me getting access to the tools at this point even if I went ten years block free. My point though is that if an admin isn't going to have their tools removed after multiple blocks, then to not give an editor the tools because of a block is hypocritical and isn't in the best interests of the project. If the event is enough for an editor to not get the tools, the admin should at least have the tools suspended for a period of time. I don't expect many to agree with this but that's how I feel. Expecially if its one of the admins who has a multitude of blocks, who I won't name here. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kumioko, I wouldn't describe it as hypocrisy, but I'd accept that the community can seem inconsistent even if the individuals usually aren't. Part of the problem is that RFA has become very difficult to pass, and part is that it seems to be human nature to expect people to be at their best when they submit to an exam. If some de facto requirements at RFA are too high for a large proportion of the existing admins to pass then some will consider that as evidence of RFA being broken, not of admins being hypocritical. However I'm struggling to think of a current admin who has had multiple recent blocks, maybe I've been avoiding the dramah boards too much, if I'm wrong I'd welcome an email naming any admin who has had more than one block this year. As for your chances of getting through RFA if you went ten years block free, I suspect you'd have made it through last time if you had been 12 months block free. If you log in, concentrate on writing the Encyclopaedia, and take some advice about the way you handle controversy, then I'd be surprised if after 18 months of productive block free activity there were many who fretted about anything as old as 2013 in a mid 2015 RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A big part of the problem, as I have mentioned repeatedly is that admins aren't held to the same standard. The standard is considerably lower once editors get the tools. If an editor does something against policy any admin can act on it or any editor can submit them to ANI. They are frequently punished severely. For an admin though it requires a long and detailed case with Arbcom and the end result is almost always with dismissal. In the rare cases of a desysopping its almost always due to being associated to a case that wasn't even directly about them. So few even bother and by the time they do, it just amounts to a waste of time. The other alternative is they voluntarily give them up, which is rare(not counting desysopping due to inactivity). If the process doesn't treat all editors and admins equally and fairly, it doesn't work, that's the bottom line.

Lets look at completely different problem. Another example with a problem in the system can be seen with some of the admin RFA's from last year as further example of a problem with the system. Many passed with 100% support, a few passed with as many as 30 opposes. This can be seen in every year all the way back. So are the 30 wrong or the 100 that supported? In virtually every case the work they do is great with no problems. So either the 30 opposers were wrong, or the process needs to be changed.

I have argued from the beginning that change needs to take 2 parts. The tools need to be easier to get and' they need to be easier to take away if abused. One doesn't work without the other. I also don't agree that I would pass. I am too critical of the system and have pissed too many people off. That ship has sailed. I'm also not going to volunteer large amounts more of my time to a project where the majority doesn't want me here and that I personally see failing in the next couple years due to the cultural problems. Personally I cared a lot about the project, but all I got was insulted and told I couldn't be trusted. No one is going to participate in a volunteer project with that. I would also add that if an editor needs to wait 6 months to 18 months to submit an RFA after a block to stand a chance at getting the tools then an admin that gets blocked should have the tools suspended for some amount of time. Of course that would ensure that admins don't get blocked at all, which only further illustrates my point that the system as it is does not work.

I will send you an email a little later with some names and examples. I need to go finish cooking Thanksgiving dinner. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly enjoy Thanksgiving. Secondly advice about 18 months was a cautious note from a seasoned nominator. My standards for supprting people are different to my estimate of what the community will accept. People have run with blocks as recent as 12 months or less, but they can make for fractious RFAs or ones that only barely pass. If there are admins out there who have kept the bit despite blocks then I really would be surprised if they are numerous. I'm not convinced that admins are judged to a lower standard than non-admins, I've certainly seen examples where I thought Arbcom or the community was being harsher because the person was an admin. But I accept that you may have seen things that looked differently to you - this is a big complex place. However I don't accept the argument that almost all Arbcom cases against admins get dismissed, I'd be surprised if it was even a majority, especially if you exclude the ones where people have so little confidence in their case that they try to go straight to Arbcom and skip the earlier steps. As for whether the opposers were wrong when an RFA passes, or indeed whether the supporters were wrong when one fails, proof of the pudding is when there is a desysop or a second RFA. I have seen people pass on a second attempt and go on to become successful admins, I like to think that justifies my support in their first unsuccessful RFA, I have also seen someone resign under a cloud or be desysopped when I was one of the handful who had opposed them. So to me what matters is not whether one !voted with consensus, but whether a year or more later one would with hindsight have !voted the same way. Also I think it important that we set a criteria for adminship but until we do there will be people disagreeing at RFA not just because they are unsure whether borderline candidates meet a criteria, but because they have different criteria as to what makes a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks you too. I'm not worried about me anymore. I've moved onto participating in Wikia projects where my help is wanted and appreciated. Several have made me an admin there because they need and want help from experienced editors. So I am going to help the projects where my help is wanted, not here where its obviously not. And I'm certainly not going to hide in the corner and play along ignoring obvious problems just because that's the only way to get the tools. If that's what it takes, then I don't need or want them. I'm barely editing anything outside an occasional discussion here anymore anyway and don't plan too. Even less so logged in. There's almost nothing I need or want to do I can't do as an IP. I just generally ignore the vandalism and other problems I see here now. Which are quite numerous BTW because it doesn't seem like there are enough people who are interested in these areas or know what to do. Again with the admins thing, most don't get blocked when they should because the bar is set lower for admins in general. Yes there are certainly a few exceptions and outliers but they are infrequent at best That's part of my point. They are allowed to do things that would get a normal editor blocked or banned and nothing is done. They are the exception I agree but its that small minority that's a contributing factor to the ruin of this project. What happens if you get an ounce of gas in a truckload of milk? The whole truckload gets thrown away. Same thing here. The fact is that the majority of active admins where made admins back in the 2006-2008 timeframe when it was easier to get. And their still here. That has a lot of meaning, but if it doesn't make sense then I cant explain it. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the wikigeneration gulf emerging, I wrote about it for the signpost over three years ago, and the gulf has widened dramatically since then. But different people learn different things from that gulf, to me and others it is a sign that RFA has broken, and it is only because the admins who were appointed in 2003/07 have continued in such numbers that we are still able to do the deletions, blocks and other admin tasks that this site requires. Others seem to think that RFA isn't broken and that the anomaly is that we still rely on admins from the era when admins were appointed in large numbers. I suspect such people also believe that today's RFAs with their focus on edit count and the Q&A section are better at sorting potential good admins from potential bad admins than the RFAs of a few years ago where the emphasis was more on checking the candidate's contributions. I don't agree with that, and I don't share the vision of us having a minimum possible number of admins, where admins are specialists who perforce do little but admin stuff. To me the fewer the admins we have the bigger a deal adminship becomes, and the larger the proportion of an admins wiki time they spend on admin tasks the more detached they risk becoming from the other editors. I would rather have hundreds of admins from the era before RFA was broken and have them spend a minority of their wiki time doing admin stuff, than have a small number of admins who may have started editing at the same time as the current community, but have drifted away from them because they do little but admin tasks. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with all of that. But even if we were to flood the tools out to a bunch of the long term editors we would still need to be able to remove some. Removing them is still too hard to do. I also think that there are multiple reasons why RFA is failing and why Wikipedia in turn is failing and addressing any one of them will help, but not fix the problem. Certainly creating the roles of File mover, rollback and template editor helped but it was only necessary because we don't trust our editors. There are lots of potential admins (Going Batty, Liz, Maile and a pile of others) most don't want to run because the RFA process is such a nightmare. They don't want to go through it and I don't blame them. The other problem is we do have hundreds of admin from the era before it was broken and they are leaving at the cyclic rate. Every month we desysop a halfdozen or more for inactivity. Most of the remainder only edit every few months, just enough to keep from falling into inactivity. That leaves only a few admins to do the majority of the tasks that is the problem now. Too few using the tools and the wrong ones are being promoted. If only the ultraconservative editors can pass, or will even try, then thats what we are going to get. And those are not the ones who are going to participate in CCI at ANI, at AE or in the numerous other areas where help is needed. Not everyone who gets promoted should be and should lose the tools, that's just a fact of life. We shouldn't have the attitude that its better not to promote anyone than to promote a few bad ones. That's why we need to make it easier to get the tools and easier to take them away. But no one wants to hear what I have to say anymore so I'm just going to drop it. If whispered it, I've yelled it and I've typed it. No one cares and no one is willing to take the time or stake their reputations on it to fix the problem. The only way this is going to get fixed is if the RFA process fails to promote for a few months. Otherwise some are going to argue the process works and no effort will be done to fix it. Even then I am dubious that this community can pass any meaningful change. The only point of solidarity in recent history is when we told the WMF that Visual Editor was a mess and needed to be unenabled, even then we had to take matters into our own hands. The community doesn't care about the RFA process and neither does the WMF. Neither of those is likely to change anytime soon. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Closing irrelevant tangential discussion

I have to be blunt here. Conflating your own failure to gain sufficient community support in 4 RfA with the behaviour of one or more Admins and suggesting that what isn't gander for them should therefore mean goose for you is about as cock-eyed as it is possible to get without questioning whether one's head is up one's backside. Your constant inability to question your own poor judgement (and evident pride taken in such) and the attitude you display in coming back yet again with the same tired rhetoric simply reinforces my view that RfA is the best way we have of establishing the credentials of genuine, well-fitted candidates as opposed to those with a tendency for bauble collecting, the clueless or the inept. This page is supposed to be about RfA reform. Your particular case study is of no help and repeating it at every opportunity is verging on the disruptive. Leaky Caldron 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC) As I said above I don't expect people to agree and I don't care if they do. I already know you and a number of others don't care for me and I honestly don't care about that either. But the fact is that a system where we allow one editor to keep a restricted access tool when they screw up (get blocked) and then prevent another editor from getting that tool for the exact same and often less of an infraction, is just plain stupid and shows the system doesn't work. The continued justifications by you and others that abusive admins should be allowed to keep a tool after they failed to show good judgement shows me that you don't know what you are talking about and your just trying to discredit what I am saying. The only poor judgement I showed was trying to resurrect a dead multitude of dead wikiprojects and brought upon myself an onslough of POV pushers and editors and admins with article ownership issues. I would also note that RFA frequently does not promote the right candidate, it promotes the conservative candidate who doesn't get involved. The back end gnome. Which in part is ok, because we need those too, but when the system all but requires that the user be ultra conservative to get access to the tools, then the project is heading for failure. Now I for one am getting tired of your constant ditractions so I recommend either contributing to the discussion or move on but quite distracting it with your bad faith assertions. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I do not and never have justified anything about abusive Admins, any more than I support inadequate RfAs. I just don't confuse the two. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Well that is exactly what you are doing above by refuting my comments that the same standard should be applied to admins who get blocked as non admin editors who have a block and attempt an RFA. If the infraction is sufficient to prevent one from getting the tools then it is sufficient for the tools to be revoked, even if only temporarily. If the decision is that people cannot or should not resubmit for RFA within 6 months or one year from a block, then that duration should also apply to admins. By your gander and goose comments above you infer that is exactly what you prefer so excuse me if I misunderstood your intentions. I have my problems and I admit that but for the community to say they don't trust me after hundreds of thousands of edits and countless time spent trying to build up this cesspool when they allow abusive admins to run amok is just hypocritical. Now I am going to get in trouble for this but my wiki career is over anyway. When you have editors like Sandstein who run AE like a one man judge, jury and executioner; Rschen who is one of has one of the biggest article ownership issues related to USRoads articles around and Fram who is aboutthe most manipulative admin around and has done more damage to the project by eliminating editors he doesn't like; Then you have CBM who thinks he is always right but he doesn't edit much anymore except when he wants to hound editors he doesn't like....I can go on all day. There are many more. I found one admin who has been blocked 11 times and he still has the tools. My point is, that this place is chock full of admins who abuse the system and their tools and people let them get away with it but then tell others they can't have the tools because they are blunt and tell them how it is. Now, I have gotten to the point where I no longer care if Iget blocked , banned or if the servers shut down and Wikipedia falls into the history books. This site is dying because of gross mismanagement and its only a matter of time till it ends.138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm going to support Leaky caldron's point here. Kumioko, if you're leaving, please leave. You've made your point multiple times, it's clear. Let some water flow under the bridge, please. In a year, you may think differently about wanting to be involved on Wikipedia, and others may think differently about you, but right now it is indeed a confrontation between how you see your wiki-career and motivations and how they appear to others. You are in other words demonstrating that Leaky caldron's right: one of the things about RfA that do work is that people who don't have the confidence of the community don't get the tools, and that prevents problems later (it is indeed hard to remove an admin, providing they keep editing); the way that works is that stuff that admins get away with is an impediment to getting made an admin. That's how an approvals process works. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC) Ok for the last time, you 2 clowns have had your fun now lets get back on topic. Its obvious to me that no one else is going to step in here and end this uneeded tangent which only illustrates my point that we need more admins who are going to take action and less that are going to ignore obvious trolling. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC) The topic is over. You have just clearly demonstrated by this reply that whatever you experience is, you are just not suitable to become administrator. RfA worked very well by letting you fail. Period.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC) I was prepared to walk away from this but now I feel like I need to reply. You and Leaky completely derailed that entire conversation by pointing fingers at me. All I was trying to do was to get back to the discussion but you 2 just insisted that you wanted to keep insulting me. The only thing my reply shows is that over the years my tolerance for allowing editors like the 2 of you to insult me without saying something has been eroded. If you do not want me to respond with how I feel, then stop instigating the discussion with unnecessarily provocative comments that you and I both know are intentionally trying to provoke a response from me. As I said above I don't really give a shit if you agree or disgaree with me or think I should or should not be an admin. I DO NOT CARE. But your provocative comment tells me that you have absolutely no business having access to the tools either. Now if you don't have anything better to do I would suggest checking out peer review, they are always looking for help or maybe CCI, their about 2 years behind. And BTW I am much more likely to continue to comment if you continue to insult me. If you want me to leave, stop responding with insults. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Another break seems needed

• I didn't speak up on this issue because I'm an outlier who got the tools almost entirely for content work, but I think that was a good piece of advice; lack of substantive content work has been a big issue in several recent RfAs that I've seen. (And the result has in large part hinged on how good a case the candidate has made in response to it.) Adding references to an article is indeed a good way to establish content-creation cred if a person doesn't feel comfortable creating new articles - I do a lot of attempted saving of AfD'd articles, and we could use others who do that, especially since the references usually bring additional information with them. Harder but an excellent demonstration of admin suitability in my mind is to summarize the information when an article has had copyright-violating material added; that way we get to keep the information. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In which case a slight tweak to Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_to_see is all that is needed. (we must assume that this, and other RfA guides, are as a minimum, read by all candidates. Although looking at some of the RfA that is evidently not the case). Leaky Caldron 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Slightly tweaked, I had thought it was obvious, but in hindsight it wasn't obvious to those who don't add referenced material. Though I agree that not every candidate reads it, but I hope it persuades some to delay until they are likely to pass. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ansh666

You said:

... general voter community there doesn't agree that work in deletion is enough to get the requisite experience. I'd disagree

I'll offer a small, but important distinction. This member of the community doesn't disagree it is possible to gain sufficient experience and adequate knowledge of policy in 3k edits emphasizing deletion work. You think it is possible you have the right skill set. You might be right. But that's not the test. It isn't enough for you to convince yourself that you are ready, you have to demonstrate it to me (or enough editors like). And I am unable to determine that you have an adequate grasp of the policies and an appropriate demeanor in contentious situations if there is so little evidence. But I don't see that as a problem worth solving. It doesn't take long to do some content work (which has the minor side benefit of, well, creating content) so it will take an extraordinary situation (which has happened) for me to support a candidate with little content experience.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone would like to do a tweak to 'content' on Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates (it's the third item on the list), please do so, but I think it OK as it stands. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the advice on content is on point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes. I doubt that a candidate without a GA could get 100% support, but as long as RFA still promotes admins who haven't written a GA or FA we shouldn't advise candidates that they are compulsory. A candidate who does many minor additions that are well referenced can still pass RFA, the content test that makes the difference between passing and failing is whether they understand reliable sourcing. ϢereSpielChequers 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ansh. I've seen candidates pass who specialise in New Page patrol or in AFD work. These are great venues to demonstrate skills in content creation, knowing which articles are worth rescuing and how to do so is useful. When candidates who work in those areas fail it is usually because they have not yet reached an acceptable level of accuracy to be trusted with the deletion button. Either that or they haven't yet moved on from tagging problems for more experienced editors to fix to actually fixing problems. ϢereSpielChequers 04:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• If anybody wants to hear my two cents to this, I feel RfA has gotten overly picky. The reason why it was successful in the past is because it was a simple concept on a then, simple encyclopedia, were everyone said adminship is no big deal. As the encyclopedia got bigger, so did the expectations, and that is the problem. Logically, as something gets bigger, more people are needed to maintain it, but the concepts are still the same. Adminship has hardly gone through any changes over the years, so why should expectations? In reality, the tool comes down to trust and general familiarity with the site and it's policies. Will the user abuse the tools? Will he learn from his mistakes? Does he know policy well enough not to make major ones? Everything on this site is reversible, meaning damage can be easily fixed. That's why I'm one to easily support a candidate. Naturally though, that would never happen here. I do have ideas on mind that could possibly accommodate this large encyclopedia but I never felt like proposing it since all the other ideas get shot down in 0.0 seconds. If anybody wants to hear them, I'll be happy to file an RfC for input on them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I wish it were true that "Everything on this site is reversible, meaning damage can be easily fixed." Unfortunately, there are some things that happen that are not reversible: the harm to an editor from a misconceived block, an excessively bossy or patronising remark from an admin, a user dragged into defending their new articles from dodgy PRODs and AFDs made without prior discussion. Harm to the encyclopedia can be reversed; harrm to editors, especially new ones, less so. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

By everything, I meant physically on Wikipedia. Bad blocks, WP:BITEy behavior, is per my above statement what should be assessed. Does the candidate know what damage these tools can cause if misused? Does s/he learn from his/her mistake? Is s/he civil? Has s/he demonstrated a trustworthy attitude? Everything else shouldn't be assessed. I see people assessing based on their username, how many articles were written, how many FA's the helped create, the slightest fart about a candidate that was minor being blown out of proportion in a long-winded oppose that makes it sound convincing to others cause "me too" and "per this guy" opposes, causing the RfA to potentially fail. I've seen it happen repeatedly and I feel bad for those candidates. It's a reason why I stopped participating in RfAs, and now likely won't be an admin myself. I have a somewhat controversial history myself, especially with the recent Cyberbot II issue, where my judgement was impaired due to my RL stress. That can easily be blown out of proportion and likely give my a 0% support in an RfA, completely ignoring the fact that I went on a break to destress and come back refreshed. I would like to at some point submit an RfC that I am somewhat hopeful of getting support for, but I won't do it know since RfA since to have turned up more admins recently.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 12:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that RfA voters have become more picky, and I would like to see some stats to prove this claim. The one thing that stands out is that most of the voters are highly transient and the pool of regular voters is small. That said, stats will prove that there has been an increase in voter participation over the years, and that 100+ supports are no longer anything getting excited about. With that increase in voters, there is also an increase in the ones who do little or no research, are fans or detractors, or are so new they don't even understand what it's all about. At the end of the day, the bar gets set anew for each RfA depending entirely on who turns out to vote.

Let's not ignore that there are very basically two camps: those who want the bar lowered, and it is safe to assume that among them are possibly some admin hopefuls, and those who would like the highest standards applied in order to prevent the the wrong people from being promoted who may cause the very issues people complain about. Talk of introducing easier methods of desysoping are all well and good, but prevention is probably better than cure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...Those are very good points. I used to think the bar should be lowered, but I no longer think that's an acceptable solution, as it may cause many other issues. I do have in idea in mind, that may work. It could potentially "fix" RfA a little to help turn out more results and more productivity. Sorry for repeating myself here. It also should address your prevention instead cure statement you made as well. I think I'm going to throw that RfC together now and start it when the time is right.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

than cure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Although I have tried to stay out of the conversation the last couple days I disagree voters aren't more picky. That's almost without debate. I don' care what any stats claim voters have absolutely become more picky eventhough we are seeing more people voting they are definately much more reliant on their personal voting standards (must have x edits, must have x FA's, must not have ever been blocked or whateever) most of which are completly meaningless. I do agree there are multiple camps on the admin issue and that I count myself in the former. That isn't due to my desire to be an admin but from the fact that it worked for so long and the fact that the vast majority of the admins we have now were in fact promoted under that old system. So to say now that the old system of trusting our editors didn't work, would be to say that a lot of the current admins don't cut the mustard. Adding to that the fact that most passing RFA's had some opposes and the vast majority of those opposes turned out to be wrong leads me to believe that there is little reason to not trust our long term editors. I do also think though that there are several admins who shouldn't be and we need to make it easier to remove the tools from users, not just make it easier to get the tools. The 2 really need to happen hand in hand. Now back to your reguarly scheduled programming. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the first to agree that the there are some admins whose use of tools and/or behaviour would not stand up to scrutintiny at our current stabndards for adminship, and that perhaps there is not enough done to bring them to account. I think every admin is capable of making an occasional error of judgement but this needs to be considered in perspective. However, as we all know, such isssues when brought to book are treated mainly on one current problem only, and the community - and Arbcom - is loath to recognise or even discuss long-terms patterns. That's what we need to ,get resolved. I've seen the writing on the wall for at least three admins over the last couple of years, and lo and behold, they finally lost their tools, but in some cases, it took far too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

And I agree. Even as harsh as I am about admin abuses and the RFA process I completely agree that its a minority of a minority that is the problem. The problem is, as you so ably describe, is a lack of action on that minority. This is what causes the general admin corps to be looked upon in disdain and cause people, including me, to badmouth the admins in general. I would also like to think the new Arbcom will be better than the last but I don't see much to make me think that and in fact some of the candidates make me think it will be more of the same or worse if they get elected. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, it is absurd for you to claim, as you did above in reference to RfAs, "that there are very basically two camps: those who want the bar lowered... and those who would like the highest standards...". There is perhaps a group of admins wanabees who fall into your first camp, but they are there for self-serving purposes. Likewise, there may be a group of admins who fall into your second camp, because that way they feel they can further secure their positions as admins. But to focus in this way on the RfA process is merely a cosmetic distraction, designed wittingly or unwittingly to deflect attention from the real issues. The real issues involve the purpose of the RfA, not the process. It is deeply disrespectful, Kudpung, for you to so resolutely ignore those of us who are concerned about the real issues, about the dysfunctional structure of the admin system itself. No amount of useless tinkering with the RfA process, such as is going on in this thread, will make the slightest difference to healing the growing divide that now exists between those who build the encyclopedia and those (the admins) whose role should be to facilitate the building of the encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I've been able to collaborate quite nicely with admins and non-admins alike on my latest project. Now it happens that on this, even though I'm the main writer I've had to use my admin tools to scrub a few things which really needed to be hidden from public view (years-old junk floating around in archives and such, even if there wasn't a formal policy on respecting privacy I think basic human decency would kick in), but otherwise it's had has had no bearing whatsoever on how the article has developed. I'm normally as involved in contentious issues as anyone, but I had no difficulty separating editor from admin; a few admins have trouble doing that, but they're the exceptions. Treating them as the norm makes it that much more difficult to address the real issue those people present. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Epipelagic, Over the years, thousands of editors have commented on this talk page. Discounting the ones who have not posted here in the past 12 months, that makes you the #20 most prolific contributor to this talk page. Instead of resorting to PA and basically repeating the same complaints about admis/adminship over and over again, if you feel so strongly about it (which I belive you do, though I don't see what personal axe you have to grind), why don't you do something about it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Gosh, are 19 editors currently more active on this page. What can that mean? Should I contribute more? If I have a "personal axe" it is fundamentally that I would like to see content builders treated decently. The better and harder working admins also get a raw deal, having to deal with flak that doesn't really originate with them. If the system worked rationally, users like Ansh above who seems competent and really wants to do deletions, would be allowed to do them instead of being brushed aside and left frustrated. Simple procedures would be in place to monitor his performance and remove his right if he performs badly. There is nothing complicated about this. The admin system is much too much under the control of legacy admins and admin wannabes. The wider community which build Wikipedia no longer has a say. As you must know Kudpung, there is very little content editors can do about this. The system has assigned so much power to itself that it now has Wikipedia in an iron grip and content editors have no power. "Being an admin is no big deal" is a sick joke, and the system is indulging the wrong people. I am merely pointing to the obvious. The one remaining shard of light is that the right to critique the system has yet to be completely extinguished. An editor can still attempt to articulate the real issues from to time on pages like this one, albeit with difficulty. It is critical this is done, not for the benefit of admins and admin wannabes, but for the benefit of other content editors. Occasionally one of these innocents stumbles on these pages. Unless some less innocent content editors who arrived here earlier can manage to secure small refuges of sanity and clarity on these pages, new innocents will be drowned by admin phantasmagoria about the magnificence of admin splendiferousness and the ghastliness of naughty content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The detractors, trolls, and those who finally provoked WP:RFA2011 into submission, were simply shooting the messengers. They missed the vital point that the exercise was all about finding ways to attract more users to adminship of the calibre that you would be happy to work with. Instead of constantly soapboxing, why don't you lead all your downtrodden content builder into battle? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Battle? Good grief, there's too much dichotomising of admins and content creators as it is, without calling for a battle. Which is it - are the admins doing too much, including conspiring to oppress content creators, or too little (particularly vandal blocking/page protection/editing protected templates)? And which side would I be on? Less of the martial language, please. I really think seeing content creation and adminship as separate poles of activity is a large part of the problem and such metaphors make it worse. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC) ... Oh and trolls? <looks around; looks under the sofa for RfA2011 file> Where trolls? --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Restricted mandate

Apologies if this idea has been aired before -- and if it has, will someone please close this thread (and trout me if you like). But just in case it hasn't:

I absolutely hate opposing RFAs unless it's an obvious case (perhaps even then), but feel forced to do so sometimes when there are areas that I wouldn't be comfortable for someone to work, even though in all other aspects I find them competent, polite and trustworthy. I used to believe the solution was unbundling, but I've read the arguments against that and have become convinced that it isn't practical (and that getting consensus for it is a hopeless cause anyway).

The real trouble is that adminship is currently an access-all-areas, perform-all-functions pass (almost), and I don't always feel quite that much trust. But in several RFAs I've opposed for that reason, I would have trusted the candidate to honour an undertaking not to do certain things. So I'd have been happy to support giving the whole toolkit if they would undertake to only use part of it, or to use all of it but not in specified topic areas. This is the notion of a restricted mandate.

A restricted mandate could take a few different forms. For example, an editor might be allowed to use the tools to perform RMs, deletions, etc, but not to carry out user supervision (blocks, unblocks, except perhaps for VOAs). Another editor might be allowed to use all the tools, but not in certain subject areas in which they had strong involvement.

A restricted mandate could be established in various ways. A candidate could propose it himself, for example in the answer to Q1; or a question-for-the-candidate could propose it and the candidate accept in their reply. There are probably other ways, although all of them would have to involve the candidate agreeing to the exact form. A support then simply implies trust that the candidate will keep his word. That isn't always so difficult.

One objection to this idea might be that trust is binary: if we give the toolkit then we trust it to be used acceptably. But I don't think trust is binary, and in fact we already have one form of self-imposed restricted mandate: we don't check an editor's competence with advanced template features before giving a mop: we trust admins who don't have those skills to know themselves and not get out of their depth. This suggestion just extends that idea to other areas, and makes it more explicit. And right off the cuff I can think of at least three RFAs that I've opposed but would have supported under a more restricted mandate. Does anyone else feel the same way? --Stfg (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

IMO, Restricted mandate is just another name for unbundling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand unbundling to mean technical unbundling, enabling some tools to be given without others. I am trying to put it on a trust basis rather than a technical one. --Stfg (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

For me, this is obviously the right thing to do – a breach of trust in such circumstances would be obvious grounds for summary removal of tools which were granted on that basis.

What would however be important is that candidates entered into such arrangements voluntarily and before discussion of their candidacy. The sort of people who see the tide turning in a discussion and decide to throw a late "how about if I agree not to do this?" are precisely the sort of people I do not want to see as admins. On the other hand, people who want to help in additional ways and simply have no interest in helping out in other ways should not be deterred from doing so because people will – quite rightly under the current system – judge them on their ability to do all the things that adminship allows them to do. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 18:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

In the past there have been several RfA from users who have requested adminship for a single or limited purpose. Most, if not all, of these RfA have not been successful because the general consensus of the voters appears to be that they require the candidate to demonstrate sufficient maturity, competency, and knowledge to use all the tools that are put at admins' disposal. Once elected, there are also other tasks and judgements that are generally expected to be carried out by admins which although they do not require the use of physical tools, they require the community's trust. Trust, which is not physically definable, is a major part of the electoral process.

There was a time (generally assumed to be pre-2007) when adminship appeared to be somewhat easier to obtain. The Wikipedia has grown considerably since, voter turnout at RfA has increased, and thus consensus to pass or fail a candidate is stronger. In spite of today's requirements being apparently higher, some post-2007 admins do get desysoped which may prove that either the RfA system is still flawed or that there are insufficient mechanisms available for desysoping in cases of abuse of the tools or patterns of poor judgement.

While some RfC for changes to the electoral system and other elements of adminship have failed, some ideas which may have gained consensus from the community have not yet been proposed. A change was enacted this year to allow the creation of an 'unbundled' right for certain users to edit fully protected templates but such changes are rare.

Over the past 2 months I have seen more objective discussion on this talk page for changes than I have seen over the past 3 years. Perhaps it is time now to be bold and propose some of those ideas to the community in the form of official RfCs. RfC are usually proposed by an editor or editors who favour the desired outcome, but this does not have to be the case - the main objective is to provide the broader community with an opportunity to discuss proposals, express their opinions, and reach a consensus for or against. WP:DESYSOP and WP:DES may provide some useful background on the possible implications of allowing a Restricted Mandate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion first step needs to be finding some kind of consensus what is the actual main problem currently with RFA. Like in my opinion adminship is simply "too big deal" due various factors (for life, desysop requires arbcom, includes blocking and deleting tool). Some others probably think that issue is directly in current RFA procedure itself or something else. After you have identified main source of problem you can start thinking what are best options to fix it.--Staberinde (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The flaws in the electoral system were pretty well identified, supported by stats, and heavily discussed at WP:RFA2011. It may be that the process has become somewhat less intimidating over the past few months, but RfAs have become too few and far between to really demonstrate such a change. There are always going to be some who say "This and that candidate should have passed", (what we don't hear often is "This or that candidate should have failed"). At the end of the day however, except in the case of rare close calls, it's the community who decides, whether or not the voters were truly objective, so apart from the discretionary area, it's still based very much on a vote count. As I've stated several times already, there have been some ideas suggested over the past two months or so - all it needs is for someone to go ahead and propose them to the community through an RfC and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, you have ignored what Staberinde said just before your comment and focused yet again merely on the mechanics of the RfA process. The wider issues concern the way the RfA process is used to distribute power and privilege on Wikipedia. The discussion at WP:RFA2011 was heavily censored. The more important issues, those not confined merely to the mechanics of the RfA process, were rigorously removed from the conversation. You also appear to be repeating the myth that the results of the RfA process represent some sort of community will, rather than an outcome ultimately controlled by a coalition of legacy admins and admin wannabes. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring your inaccurate and disparaging claims about the enormous effort that went into RFA2011 (and the efforts to keep the trolling and personal attacks under control - which I presume you are referring to as 'censorship'), as I've stated several times already, there have been some ideas suggested over the past two months or so - all it needs is for someone to go ahead and propose them to the community through an RfC and see what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I claimed only that the issues discussed in the RFA2011 were confined to "the mechanics of the RfA process". You say that claim is "inaccurate and disparaging". How? And are you really referring to the attempts in the RFA2011 to give voice to real issues as "trolling and personal attacks"? It is a very unpleasant experience to be sidelined and muzzled in that manner. I agree I got irritated and flippant in response, but I did not realize back then how severely entrenched the admin issues are. The ideas you refer to have been around for some years, not months. We don't have to see what would happen in another RfC. We already know. Nothing will happen unless it further entrenches admin powers. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It's "unbundling" of thee type that is actually needed (by types of functions performed) but not by the common meaning of the term (splitting the technical tools). We need to actually do this. It should be recognized that current admins have a COI when discussing such a split. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So why not go ahead and start an RfC to propose something? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, see next section. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The only way to get an RFC to actually go somewhere & effect change

We need to have a group of people work out a really good proposal, and all agree that they are going to actively support the result of their work, even if it is not exactly what they wantedThe the RFC needs to be strctured so that the status quo is presented as one of the two choices. North8000 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be a mistake to restrict this to two choices, but worse is the "all agree that they are going to actively support the result of their work, even if it is not exactly what they wanted". Collective responsibility is not a good system and has dire implications here. Like Politicians the people coming out of this would not necessarily be supporting something they agreed with, but supporting something because they'd agreed to support the majority in their working party. You then risk having a policy implemnented despite majority opposition, with the majority split between those who opposed in the working party and those who opposed afterwards. This is not a good way to get a good decision. ϢereSpielChequers 18:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm the most cautious of anybody regarding new policies. There could be lots of choices if it's handled right ( = everybody weigh in on every choice). But homework needs to get done before going to an RFC. A large RFC never creates anything, the best it can do is decide. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

North's proposal (merely an outline) Analysis & solution to fixing the RFA and admin cadre issues

With the RFA process broken down, right now the main criteria for who is in the admin cadre is "got in back when it was easy". And the second criteria for new ones is "kept their head low" / having avoided contentious situations. Impacts have already been felt and will get worse. The other problem is a complete blending of:

• Type #1"no big deal" tool belt functions with
• Type #2 other "big deal" "judge" type immense powers given to these folks (such as being able to sanction established individual editors, close complex and contentious discussions). This is conferred also by policies and practices, not just by software definitions of the tool belt.

Solution: 30,000' view

Many of the problems stem from "bundling" these two things together. On the cadre side, folks meeting the low "no big deal" bar back then have been given immense powers with really no basis. Some that are not suitable for this task have done significant harm to editors. Conversely, the "immense powers" has supported the RFA process being immensely restrictive, albeit in a way that misses the mark. A thorough analysis makes the solution (at least in general terms) clear:

• Split the role. But the needed split is NOT by software defined tools, it is between Type #1 and Type #2 above.
• Type #1 needs a lower threshold to get in. Type #2 needs a high but more "on target" threshold to get in.

Solution: 20,000' view including implementation

Phase 1

• Define the qualities needed for Type #2 (beyond the Type #1 qualities which are also required) Define the situations that will require a person with these individual qualities. These may include things like wisdom, kindness, fairness, thoroughness (when needed), a decision-making process which includes first learning and confirming everything that is relevant and then a very sound decision making process, self control in that they never do anything really bad, extensive knowledge of policies and key guidelines, and of how how they are applied in practice, Design a framework for the RFA Type 2 process that will guide the discussions and voting to be more around the desired qualities (including history etc. to build the case that they have those qualities. Compared to the current process, these will remain just as tough but more on-target.
• Decide on details to lower the threshold for Type #1, and make it more targeted on the qualities needed. The two main qualities are competency and trust that they will not use the technical capabilities of the toolbelt to do harm. Design a framework for the RFA Type 1 process that will guide the discussions and voting to be more around the desired qualities.
• Write policies and guidelines covering the above, to take effect after a 1 year delay.
• Give better names to Type 1 & 2. Example: Type #1 = administrator, Type #2 = Yoda.

Phase 2

Announce that exactly 1 year from then, all current admin positions (that have not been transitioned to type #2) will become type #1. For the one year period, Type#1 RFA continues with the current process, possibly with stopgap refinements to be more "on target". The Type #2 RFA process starts rolling, and non-admins who pass this receive the Type #2 status plus receive the tool belt (if they don't have it already)

Phase 3

At the one year point, implement the remainder of the above, including the looser standards for Type #1, and requirement that only Type #2 folks can do type #2 jobs.

COI note

It should be noted that since current admins would lose and need to "re-apply" for a few powers that they already have, they have an inherent high risk of COI regarding this new idea and such should be declared and taken into account in any discussions.

Pre RfA Feedback Page

This conversation is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pre RfA Feedback Page. I have included my proposal bellow. Do not reply here. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 14:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As we are all aware, there is a problem with the current RfA system. Two major issues I've noticed are:

1. People are scared of rejection and don't apply.
2. People apply to soon(WP:NOTNOW), get rejected and this puts them off applying again.

One way I feel this could be combated is by creating a pre-RfA page. Editors could almost run a 'mock RfA' where users can give them feedback without consequence. If an editor were to 'pass', they could then run for a real RfA and if they 'failed' they would know what to improve on before running for adminship.

While many hold a failed RfA in the past against a future RfA, this pre-RfA would not have the same affect as it is simply users looking for feedback. Also, if a user could pass this, it may remove the stigma of a self nomination as users can show that they already have support from other editors.

Of course, not all editors would want to do this and it should not be a pre-requisite for RfA. The traditional root would still be available but this would serve to help encourage editors who may not otherwise think of entering an RfA.

Good to see the process still works

It looks like we have our 1 promotion for the month and at least one for December. Glad to see the process still works and all the banter on this page is for nothing. One promotion a month should be more than enough to do all the admin tasks and replace the 5-10 leaving a month so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. Its not like we really have that much do here anymore right? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually the current RfA suggests that if we can find really good candidates and persuade them to run, the results are likely to be good. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 16:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that if you look at the admin actions taken by the 5-10 admins lost in a month it is fewer than those done by a new admin. However, I don't suggest this means there aren't issues to address. I just mean it isn't the impending calamity the cited numbers might suggest. I have noticed, anecdotally, what seems like more AN notices about backlogs, but I haven't done a formal study to see if this is a trend.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It should also be noted (and no offense intended here BTW) that both of the editors who are passing are ultra conservative. They don't get involved. They stay in their corner and don't try and change anything. Do we really want all of our admins to sit in their corner? That's what causes the backlogs, that's why we have some admins who are allowed to be abusive and that's why we have problems in a variety of other areas. They get the tools and they just sit there unused. I also notice that most RFA's that pass are landslides which suggests the only ones running are those that are so overqualified they can't be argued. Again, not a great trend IMO. We are seeing a lot more months with only one candidate. Its only a matter of time before that trend becomes multiple months with no candidates. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"They get the tools and they just sit there unused. " - which tools are you referring to? As far as I can make out, some people complain that admins make overuse of some of them. Loath as I am to keep producing stats (because nobody takes any notice of them anyway), these are claims that need supporting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes we complain when they are used abusively and nothing is done about it. We complain when admins are allowed to do virtually whatever they want after they get the tools but if an editor does it before they get the tools their marked for life. There are tons and tons of things that need to be done that require the admin tools, the problems are that either too few of the admins are using the tools, its the wrong admins with the wrong temperment or with their own agendas or their aren't enough people with the tools to accomplish the tasks. Take your pick, these are just a few of the problems we/I have been complaining about. But just as you are frustrated that people don't agree with your interpretation of the stats, not all of us agree that admin should be for life that it should be impossible to remove the tools fro abusive admins or that only admins should be able to help out around here. Why was it even necessary to split out file mover, rollbacker and template editor? Its because no one trusts our editors here anymore. That's the bottom line. As long as that continues, Wikipedia will continue to decline. Its not because of some perception that we aren't keeping up with technology, its because people don't want to be told they aren't wanted or can't be trusted after dedicating months or years to the project. Using the current RFA as an example. The editor is a shoe in for admin, they are an Arbcom clerk and help out in other areas...but what have they done to make the project better? Nothing they stay in their swim lane and keep trudging along. Half of the stuff they do isn't even to articles, its offline and behind the scenes. Very important, don't get me wrong, but not someone who is going to try and improve the project. Just go along and get along. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin levels

Has there even been a talk about making different levels for adminship? This would allow our admins to learn a few tools at a time before being overwhelmed. Would also perhaps make the process a bit easier as there would not be as much scrutiny because they are not given every tool of the bat. Each level of adminship people would have to apply for to gain more tools. Yes may sound complicated but I think would encourage more participants. I personally have no interest in dealing with blocks or scokpuppets but would love to help out with portal images and page moves. For instance level one admins could take care of page moves, image updates for portals.. Level 2 would have more tools and level 3 even more tools. Have a break down would also allow the community to evaluate admins as they wish to progress with more tools. Any thoughts? -- Moxy (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Moxy with your dubious history, you are the very last person to be trusted with any tools.  Giano  19:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think Moxy would be second to last. I would be last..;-) Kumioko 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no wish to communicate with Giano and wish he would take the advice of others and try to behave in a mature manner and disengage his odd behavior towards me. To Giano - I understand your still holding a grudge because I embarrassed you a few times - but I and everyone need you to conduct yourself in a mature manner please. To the matter at hand.... any thoughts? -- Moxy (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about me, I'm unembarrassable. But funnily enough, I do have a thought. Quite a big though in fact: I'm wondering what 'past mistakes' you could possibly be apologising for on your first day at Wikipedia [2]  Giano  21:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is for RfA-related discussion. Please don't make things unnecessarily personal. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 22:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK; I won't.  Giano  22:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This just sounds like an overly complicated WP:PERM. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 23:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct like WP:PERM where there is not as much drama or walls of text as there is here. Very simple apply and wait for outcome...over having your life examined and pick apart over a few weeks by people who have no clue who you are. Leave it to admins - the ones we have already intrusted to make theses kinds of decision over disgruntled editors that dont have the communities interest at heart. -- Moxy (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The tools are very much connected in my experience (25k log actions here, 150k on Commons). If a page is being vandalized, you may have to block vandals and protect the page. If a spammer is putting up promo pages, you may have to delete the pages and block the spammer. Sockmasters often put up garbage pages, and vandalize pages, leading to blocks, deletions, and protections. You wouldn't want to be able to delete pages, but not stop them from being created, or protect a page and have to ask someone else to block a vandal, etc. INeverCry 00:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

A key tool, that should never have been distributed in the widespread and cavalier manner it has, is the ability to block able long term content builders. The discipline of able content builders is a serious move which should be handled with some skill by a panel of their peers. Instead, they are treated at the same level as vandals, and can be blocked at whim by a single loose cannon admin. There are huge numbers of these admins, many ill-equipped to make such judgements and many who have contributed far less to Wikipedia than the editors they are jerking about. That is just crazy, and the inevitable consequence is the rancour and resentment of admins we see today. This right should be withdrawn from all admins, and a panel elected by content builders should be appointed to function as a disciplinary board. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen some shitty blocks, but I can't imagine the formation or implementation of such a "diciplinary board" going at all smoothly. Perhaps we should end the prohibition of wheel-warring instead, and let good admins fight it out with the assholes. INeverCry 03:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

What we need to do is hold those admins doing the shitty blocks to task. If they show a pattern of poor decision making skills then the tools should be removed. This culture of continuing to allow bad admins to keep the tools and coming up with excuses why they shouldn't lose the tools needs to stop. It shouldn't take months or years of abuse and a multi-month arbitration determination to take the tools way from some asshole with a big head. If the conduct or action of the admin would result in a)an editor getting blocked or b)an editor not being able to get the tools because of it, then the tools should be removed. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• "There are huge numbers of these admins, many ill-equipped to make such judgements and many who have contributed far less to Wikipedia than the editors they are jerking about." - another totally sweeping statement. If you can't post objectively instead of repeating or paraphrasing you perennial mantras, why bother posting here at all? (Would you like some diffs concerning who and how the WP:RFA2011 project - which was all done for the benefit of complainers like you - was finally torpedoed?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

  Or may be just create Wikipedia:Admins against content builders and explain all these ideas there.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes of course there are "huge numbers of these admins, many ill-equipped to make such judgements and many who have contributed far less to Wikipedia than the editors they are jerking about." That is one of the main problems. It is an objective statement which refers to many admins, not a "sweeping" statement which refers to all admins. Is there some part of it are you objecting to? If I am "repeating or paraphrasing ... perennial mantras" it is because they refer to things that need to be said here, and they need to be repeated and paraphrased until they have been properly heard and addressed. If RFA2011 was torpedoed it was because the core issues upsetting to content editors were systematically suppressed. The project seemed to be designed to further secure the position of admins. There is nothing to be gained by trawling over this out of date project. You are attacking me a lot lately Kudpung. I don't understand why we have to be at odds. You never say specifically what is upsetting you. Why not put that energy into addressing these issues and working towards resolving them with a more functional system? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, Epi, haven't you worked out yet that Kudpung's angle here is to make it easier to become an admin? Sure. He *says* he's for "reform", but every single time someone raises an issue that would make it harder to become an admin, or easier to remove admin rights, we get one of a) objections, b) obfuscation, or c) filibuster. Given the chance, every conversation gets turned to his favourite topic. Once you know that, his responses become a lot easier to understand.101.118.28.147 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Kudpung really wants to make it easier to become an admin, though you could ask him. I think he wants to achieve enhanced security and dignity for admins. There's nothing wrong with that, but it has to be earned and balanced by also allowing some security and dignity for the able long term content builders who are the real powerhouse here. These people are not lesser people than admins, though at present they are certainly treated as though they are. It is this combination of admins and the WMF attempting to trash these users that is putting Wikipedia in peril. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You are fully aware that the project was designed specifically to find ways of getting the kind of admins on board that content editors would be happy to accept. The rest of what you say is a priori. You've repeated yourself often enough that people have taken notice and I'm aware that there are others who share your views. It's not up to me however, to do anything, I've done my bit (which you now admit was deliberately scuppered, and I can provide the diffs of the unprovoked attacks and PA from various 'participants'). As I've said above a couple of times, if you feel so strongly about the state of adminship, please consider doing something about it yourself such as initiating new projects that properly hear and address your concerns. If you have some ideas even if, for example, you were to feel that Wikipedia could get along without admins at all, then put them up for RfC - von nix kommt nix. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, I think you have done excellent and courageous work from heartfelt motives attempting to get good quality admins elected via the current AfD system. I completely congratulate you for that. Up to a point I think you have succeeded (though we do seem to be appointing the most boring and unadventurous users on the block). But I also think you have been trying to prop up the wrong part of the admin structure. The current admin system is fatuous and failed, and no matter how much you tinker with and refine the process of electing admins, the grim fact remains that they are being elected as functionaries to a fatuous and failed system. All credit to you Kudpung for the valiant effort you have contributed up to this point. But please now redirect your energy in a direction that looks instead at the overall structure, and sets out to listen to dissent, to heal divisions, and to re-energise content building – ex nihilo creata est. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"... to get good quality admins elected via the current AfD system". Wikipedia:Administrators for Deletion? Hmm --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Royroydeb RfA closing

I have SNOW closed the Royroydeb RfA, however I am not sure as to what, if anything, else I need to do for this to be properly processed. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It might show consideration if you placed a message on their talk page explaining your decision. Leaky Caldron 19:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I sent the user an email right after I closed it. I figure, consider all of the pile on opposes (12 hours ago it was clear that this wasn't going to pass), I figured that the last thing that the candidate needed was another public forum for people to pile on at. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving to go meet people for an early Thanksgiving dinner. If there is anything further that needs doing on the close, please do it for me and then let me know what it I that I needed to do. I'll check back this evening. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I removed it from the RfA page and updated the Recent RfAs thingy. Happy thanksgiving :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I formatted the close using {{subst:Finaltally}} (I think it's alright now for this situation). I also added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/R, while AutomaticStrikeout added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2013. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures. Graham87 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential partial solution

First off, please tell me if this has been put forward before. The main problem of RFA is that potential candidates are put to too high a standard by some editors, and as a result don't meet the ~80% support mark to become admin. How about lowering the standard from ~80% to ~70% ? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2#Lower the bar for previous discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, actually the bar is not 80%, but 70%. Of course, users that get 70-72% of support would likely end up in a crat chat, but from 74% upwards you should be fine. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The larger problem in RFA standards is editcountitis

Edit count (and distribution) is our standard rule of thumb for evaluating RFA. The problem is, I think, a focus on quantity and not quality. If a user makes on the order of 1000 edits over the course of a year but they are almost entirely major content edits and thoughtful discussion or policy, that should suffice to show cluefulness and admin temperament. Meanwhile, an editor with 20,000 edits but mostly automated or wikignome changes, perhaps hasn't demonstrated. As the encyclopedia has grown our standards for behavior have become more stringent and well-elucidated. Today we evaluate potential admins with a very critical eye that searches for personality and interaction flaws. Therefore we can now relax our numerical edit count cutoffs - they were only a stand-in for admin quality and not a very good one. If someone smart with a real life job can only spend a day every week working, we should still evaluate this potential admin in light of their availiabity, because having 100 great admins that can only work 1 hour a week is better than one so-so admin working for 100 hours a week. The feasibility of implementing this would be in finding a community consensus to relax or underweight opposes based primarily on numerical editcount. Similarly, if I specialize in content creation and don't express interest in doing AFD, no need to participate in AFD. Andrevan@ 04:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel sure that you are alluding to this and I can understand your disappointment at its failure to gain consensus for promotion. As you say yourself: "Today we evaluate potential admins with a very critical eye that searches for personality and interaction flaws." Voters' comments, especially from those who do some real research before voting, can be very revealing and in this particular RfA even discounting the votes that were based purely and only on activity level, it still probably would not have made the threshold for a pass. As you know, most of those above 80% pass while most of those below 70% fail, but arriving at those numbers is determined not only by the voters who turn out to vote (and they are mostly a transient pool of editors), but also upon the actual criteria practiced by each individual participant. Thus the real 'bar' can be very different for each RfA. Active and/or well known editors are likely to attract a high turnout which in many ways is a plus for the process, but still does not exclude the eventually that an RfA can be somewhat of an un/popularity contest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Show me an error-free list of precisely 100 great admins, and I'll commit to doing 100 hours per week. Some may see that as a cheeky dig at admins as a whole, but my underlying point is that different people have different opinions on what makes a great admin.

The problem is that some people's mindset is that if you're weak in anything you're a risky pick at everything, while the other main point of view is that if you're good at anything you'll probably be a net positive and may as well have all the tools. For most people those views can't be reconciled, and for as long as we sit on the fence, RfA will remain roughly as it is. If you go with the former view, then the bundle needs to be easier than it currently is to get, and easier than it currently is to remove. If you hold the latter view, then unbundling is the answer (EDIT: or vice versa. Never edit this sort of discussion when you're tired!). The middle ground is to do nothing, and while that does reflect the balance of views, it's not in my opinion as good a way forward as either of those routes. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no evidence that the OP's premise; "Edit count (and distribution) is our standard rule of thumb for evaluating RFA." is true. To be a standard rule of thumb it would imply that nothing else matters. There are dozens of other factors. Leaky Caldron 09:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

As an editor with well over 20,000 gnoming and vandalism cleanup edits, I'm really tired of being told that "I don't contribute" and that "my edits aren't real edits". For one thing that implies that my edits are themselves worthless or trivially easy to carry out (if you're doing it right, it takes effort to tell which button to press in Twinkle before you do so) and secondly that I make no other edits beside, even if you don't notice them behind the tens of thousands of supposed non-edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• The more I think about it, the more I believe that the issue is not as much the standards as the dearth of candidates. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)