Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 22:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 13:25:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Purge this page

Latest RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N
Steel1943 RfA Withdrawn 11 Jul 2016 19 12 1
BU Rob13 RfA Successful 9 Jul 2016 155 30 6
Xaosflux RfB Successful 9 Jul 2016 173 1 1
Jo-Jo Eumerus RfA Successful 5 Jul 2016 168 3 1
Checkingfax RfA WP:SNOW 1 Jul 2016 4 25 0
Anarchyte RfA Withdrawn 16 Jun 2016 81 53 18
FAMASFREENODE RfA WP:SNOW 31 May 2016 0 7 0

Striking !votes[edit]

Is there a guideline regarding when RFA !votes (or comments posted anywhere else where discussion is supposed to take place, e.g. talk pages) should be struck? I ask because I noticed the controversy regarding whether the only oppose at AustralianRupert's current RFA should be struck and the back-and-forth edits that changed it from being struck to unstruck and back again. Everymorning (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

WP RFAV Voting Oppose If you want your vote to be taken seriously by the rest of the community and counted by the closing Bureaucrat, you should qualify your reasons by including diffs of evidence you present. Don't take the candidate's previous actions or comments elsewhere out of context, and do be sure of your facts. If a vote does not make sense, all it will do is make the voter look silly. In some cases, entirely inappropriate votes or comments might be indented or even removed by other editors in good standing - they will certainly be discounted by the closer. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That is an essay. Kingsindian   17:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I would advise against it. It isn't going to matter to the outcome, individual statistics are irrelevant, and you only create a martyr.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, leaving this kind of "vote" on gives the impression that a) such behaviour is OK and b) that RfA is a free-for-all hellhole. Perceptions matter, after all.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
That's an abstraction. We already know that striking the vote causes sufficient drama today. If someone had simply responded to that oppose with something like "well, that seems irrelevant and childish" and we moved on, would someone else have said "Oppose per AustralianRupert"? If so, then I'd suggest the two or more should both be struck but leaving the one alone may, in retrospect, have been moved things along instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Expanding on this, leave it alone. I think the continuing AustralianRupert RFA drama is showing that doing anything just encourages more antics and creates an drain of commentary that isn't needed. It's bad enough people are opposed for what they do, now we're seeing oppose for what they don't do. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone Can we please just leave oppose !votes alone? When you see something on this project that you don't like, don't inflate the drama by arguing and striking it out. Just ignore it and move on. There is no reason anyone should be getting upset here. 'Crats aren't stupid. We do not need to react so aggressively with each perceived slight. I get that we want RfA to be a friendlier place to the candidates and our current mindset is that hollow oppose !votes contribute to the hostility there. But let me throw another idea out there: the reaction to oppose !votes also contributes to the hostility. When you see it, have your frustrated feelings but then do an Elsa and let it go.--v/r - TP 01:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:DENY is mightier than the strike. Leave it for bureaucrats to strike or ignore, or for uninvolved admins to block. Esquivalience t 01:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone They carry no weight. It is not a huge problem at RfA. We get one or two here and there. If leaving them encourages others and we get swamped with these, we should deal with that then. Silencing disagreeable viewpoints is a slippery slope and there should be a very important reason to do so. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone - Crats are smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. If they are trolling, you are just feeding them, and getting into a revert fest is more disruptive than just leaving them alone. If they are full of lies or intentionally misleading, you can always post at WP:BN and ask them to remove it. And telling someone they should explain more when they are obviously trolling is truly feeding the trolls. As an aside, it does make it look like you are badgering opposing votes when you fight over them, which isn't good and has been legitimately complained about before. Dennis Brown - 02:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone. I think the only !votes that need to be removed are those of IPs, of socks and those that are so obviously disruptive as to be immediately blockable. All the others are better left in place, even if they are completely boneheaded and WP:DICK-ish, as the original oppose by Engleham was. Such opposes carry no weight will be disregarded by the closing 'crats, and they do not generate follow-up opposes. As noted above, removing them only results in creating martyrs and can in fact produce the kind of drama where there will some RfA participants who take out their frustration on the candidate. That's basically what's happened in AustralianRupert's RfA with the opposes by Basement12 and Quixotic Potato. It is unlikely that these opposes would have ever materialized if the original oppose by Engleham was allowed to stand, but its discussion was moved to the RfA's talkpage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave Echoing many above - unless blatantly disruptive (which should also be redacted), or lacking suffrage (e.g. socks, anons) - there is little to be gained by this. Extended threaded discussions on if a vote is disruptive or a sock should be moved to the talk page as well. — xaosflux Talk 04:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone crats know enough, that's what they were elected for. Omni Flames let's talk about it 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone, per all the good comments here: 'crats will know what is a valid oppose and what isn't. No comments on the back-and-forth on this particular situation, but not too many of those involved are coming out of it well. AR was wise enough not to get dragged down into it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone and trout those that do the striking. If there is an urge to say something about the oppose, then have a threaded talk or take it to the talk page. Some of this was discussed at a reform AFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I will add that most of the votes that have been struck or redacted really are quite harmless. They are obviously silly, and reasoning weak. However because of their obviousness they can stay, other votors will not be swayed, and the crats can sort out the issue and lack of strength at closing. If there are really offensive or personal attack remarks, they should be redacted, not merely struck off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I disagree very strongly with most of the comments above and find them inconsistent with prior discussions on related issues. There are times when grossly inappropriate votes and comments should indeed be struck out of the tally. One example occurred last month (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Maile66#Georgie1995's oppose) in which a one-day-old account opposed an RfA that was passing by a wide margin on the ground of "Because I felt like being different...." I concluded that this was trollish on its face and struck it and no one expressed disagreement with me. Yesterday, an editor cast an oppose !vote whose rationale was so unreasonable and frivolous ("Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep Rupert on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it") that I joined with several other editors in striking it out as well. When asked for an explanation, the editor's subsequent comments were even less acceptable, as I've explained to him here. In this sort of extreme situation (and only then), I consider it appropriate and in fact imperative to disallow and discourage this sort of damaging, counterproductive participation in what is already sometimes a difficult and negative-laden process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad: The drama that unfolded as a result of striking this vote added 10x more toxicity to that discussion than the original oppose !vote. I'm not opposed to striking !votes 100% of the time, but I think when it's obvious that it's going to ignite more arguments, that we need to step away. Is not the whole point to remove the toxic element from RfA? Are we not working against ourselves by getting into an edit war over it? Sometimes it's better to just let things be.--v/r - TP 21:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    I would say reverting the striking was the source of the continuing drama. Trolls are reverted and ignored often, the drama comes when someone decides to feed them. HighInBC 21:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I have a very serious problem with the idea of leaving the sorts of comments at issue in this instance on an active RfA page. If people know that such comments won't be entertained, the goal is that they won't make them. And the people who fought so hard to keep the transparently insincere oppose vote in place contributed more to the problem than those who sought to keep the RfA page as a place where candidates are treated respectfully. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Then the topic of "But you didn't strike uncommented support votes" comes up. A non-commented vote is the least of our worries. We all know it will get thrown out. That is the very type of vote people need to just leave alone because it IS trolling, and striking or reverting striking, (rinse, repeat) is just feeding the trolls. There is nothing automatically disruptive in a blank vote except the reaction to it. There isn't anything of value in it either, but we have selected Crats to decide those issues. Going vigilante on blank voters is asking for drama when it is so easy to ignore. Blank votes just aren't a good hill to die on. Dennis Brown - 21:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    Blank !votes are a different issues from !votes with palpably absurd rationales. A strict parallelism between supports and opposes is also not apt (as a trivial example of this, for awhile I attempted to lighten the mood at RfA by casting all of my support !votes in rhyme, and people seem to have enjoyed it, but if I'd written opposes that way I would have been roundly criticized and rightly so). I am becoming very sad that people seem so willing to leave the RfA experiences of our future administrator colleagues sullied with the kinds of comments that have been struck out in the past but which some of you would be willing to see remain in the future. The two examples I've cited on this page are hardly the worst examples of such things, either, believe me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad: I'd appreciate it if you didn't paint those opposing your position as uncaring. That's a broad stroke of the brush you've just made and I feel like it is intended to silence the rest of us. Just because you hold a different idea of the solution doesn't mean that we don't all know what the problem is.

    In my opinion, there is more harm, stress, and toxicity added to the candidate's plate by the edit waring and the constant back and forth than there would be had the comments been ignored. You can put the blame for that wherever you want, but it doesn't change the outcome. In my opinion, those capable of taking the higher road should take the higher road.--v/r - TP 21:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Leaving !votes alone: is both good policy and would have resulted in 99% less drama. Assuming that the vote was indeed trolling, it makes no sense to strike it and thus feed the troll. If it was not trolling, then of course it should not have been stricken. Kingsindian   17:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Be bold but not reckless I agree with Newyorkbrad, sometimes it's useful and can be useful. Sometimes it's not and can be disruptive. Like everything, it can be abused or cause trouble. I don't really understand why this is becoming such a big deal. We shouldn't tie hands as if things are black and white all the time. We have enough experienced users watching these pages to make reasonable decisions most of the time this would be an issue (current circumstances not withstanding). Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Let uninvolved people decide Clearly I am in the minority on this. Frankly I think this whole thing is due to our past permissiveness of disruption here. This recent issue probably would have gone over better if the striking/reverting was not done by people involved in the debate. HighInBC 21:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I would prefer if such votes were kept throughout the RfA, but then discounted in the final tally by the closing crat(s) if they have absolutely no bearing on the candidate's suitability for adminship. I agree with TParis above, that the discussions over those votes caused far more drama than the votes themselves. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone - I to a point think they should be struck however as noted above the crats aren't stupid - They know what's legit & trolling etc so striking & edit warring is pointless, Anywho leave them alone. –Davey2010Talk 21:42, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment. I thought the original question posed by Everymorning was not what should have been done in the Rupert drama, but are there any guidelines generally. I think the answer to that is no, but I could be wrong as I don't participate in many of these discussions. I've always wondered, though, why the 'crats don't take a more active role in enforcing some semblance of order at RfAs. Instead, at the risk of giving offense, they seem to remain aloof and above it all as if to maintain their neutrality, the only thing they can do is decide the outcome.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Clerking This was widely discussed at WP:RFA2015. I don't believe the issue here is whether the crats are smart enough to know which !votes to weight. The issue here is that some !votes clearly need to be removed not for the purposes of the tally, but because they are disruptive and invite further drama. Mkdwtalk 23:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone. The drama that striking entails is more disruptive than the absurd oppose itself. It lengthens and complicates following the RfA unnecessarily; that is, increases noise over signal. People (and bureaucrats in particular) are able to spot ridiculous opposes and weigh them as such. This is why it's called a !vote: it's the strength of arguments that count. Having an open process means allowing a wide-range of opinions from the good to the bad. So unless the oppose is really really offensive and disruptive and breaks our behavioral guidelines, just leave it as is. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone as per the excellent comments of Dennis Brown. CassiantoTalk 08:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Unless you are a crat, vetted, in part, for the purpose of discounting some RFA votes, do not strike or hat; simply add your own comment to the thread if you must. I would not be against the early hatting of a vote if it is done by a crat; requests can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard if particularly egregious but leave the redacting to them.--John Cline (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm keen that the occasional personal attack votes are simply removed. But clearly that needs to be done with due discretion. ϢereSpielChequers 11:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    • "The occasional personal attack votes" are one issue but another, as reflected in the two examples I gave above, are ridiculous comments that are labeled as oppose !votes but that don't really express meaningful opposition to the candidate at all (e.g. "oppose because everyone else is supporting and I feel like being different, even though the candidate is actually great"). This sort of trolling is not a serious contribution to the RfA process and those comments do not belong in the "oppose !votes" section of an RfA because they are not actually oppose !votes. The bottom is line is that when I removed them both they stayed removed (the first instance with no controversy at all) and that was entirely the proper outcome. I am concerned that this thread is going to be cited as a precedent for allowing any and every sort of stray piece of idiocy to remain on the section of the RfA pages meant for sincere opposes to candidates' becoming administrators, and I am wondering if there is a place we can take this discussion for broader input because I do not believe that is an outcome we can live with. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Newyorkbrad, They stayed removed because you are an ex-Arb and people are less likely to revert you, don't fool yourself into thinking you are Mr. Ordinary in that respect; you aren't. Comparing your ability to make an action stick versus a non-admin or admin is foolish and misleading. If an experienced non-admin had done that, the likelihood of it turning into a revert-fest would have been much higher. This is why I have consistently said that Crats need to be the ones that remove votes. They have been granted by the community the power to be the sole determiners of what is and isn't "a vote" at RFA, outside of vandalism or some other clear policy violation that requires administrative interference. Dennis Brown - 15:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I haven't wanted to say it, because we're all volunteers and we all have busy lives and other things to do ... but the 'crats have been conspicuously not around this discussion, either on the RfA or here. Worth pinging BN and asking some to chime in? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
          • Sure. For a while, they were policing RFA, not sure why they stopped. In general, Crats are rather reclusive creatures, not prone to get involved unless they have to. Generally, this is a good thing, but the question remains "how involved should they be at RFA?". This was part of my point about authority, any removal must be done with enough authority that it will stick unless there is a very good reason it shouldn't. Most generic admin lack that authority at RFA, where it could be seen as "protecting our own". Dennis Brown - 16:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Restore. If another editor in good standing deems it appropriate for an oppose vote to count, it probably is a valid opinion. This is a discussion-vote, not an article. Edit-warring is pointless and simply enhances the legitimacy of the original concern. Deryck C. 11:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • More comment. I agree conceptually with Newyorkbrad, but, as I tried to state earlier, I have trouble with how a removal is decided. Should we have a policy on the issue? A guideline? How would it be enforced? What if editors disagree with the interpretation? This is why I think it should be the 'crats' responsibility to remove votes. I'm not talking about what weight to give the votes. I'm talking about removal. If a 'crat doesn't remove a vote, any editor can request it outside the RfA. Then, if the 'crats don't remove the vote, like it or not, it stays. This, of course, doesn't apply to sock votes or blatant vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone: echoing entirely Dennis Brown. Just let sleeping dogs lie. Sheesh. Fylbecatulous talk 15:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
    • So, as the actual most recent example, if someone posts an oppose !vote like the one we saw earlier this week—"Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep [the candidate] on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it", we should just leave it there for the next 100 visitors to the RfA page to have to encounter as they review the page? And as I said earlier, that's far from the worst such comment that I've seen quite properly removed from an RfA page. The outcome some are advocating here—that nothing called a !vote should ever be struck or removed—is not fair to the candidate, it's not fair to the other readers of the page, and it's not fair to the process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
      I agree with HighInBC's comment that "reverting the striking was the source of the continuing drama." Indeed I would credit that act with the 10 fold increase in drama too. Our only recourse when the post doesn't qualify for revision deletion or suppression is to IAR and remove it; Ive done it myself in the past. The problem is that when a colleague restores the removal, the comment is treated as sacrosanct and no recourse is in place to reinstate the removal. That's where we should be able to request a bureaucrat to reinstate the removal and I don't see why we couldn't do this right now. In my opinion, a huge contributing factor is that any visible comment present at an RFA's close will almost certainly remain visible all the way unto the archiving of the page; whether counted or not by the crat. I think the closing crat's need to take action before archiving an RFA, and actually redact certain comments given no weight, and or identify comments given reduced weight with rationale; so we not only know it can happen but also that we can see examples where it has. In my opinion the damage an aspersion can do when left to view for 7 days is much, much less than the damage that aspersion can do as a permanent part of the archive. I believe far too many comments that should have been discounted and removed remain visible in the archive and that really needs to stop happening; if nothing else improves, crats should see to fixing this; I believe. Aside this, I think you would be an excellent candidate for RfB and I'd love a chance to support you for such a position.--John Cline (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, such drivel and troll votes should be removed or struck and the author immediately topic banned from further participation in RfA. To allow such nonsense to stand makes a mockery of all the efforts that have been made over the years to get RfA finally cleaned up in an attempt to make the debate for adminship a more pleasant venue for the potential candidates of the right calibre who are not coming forward for that very reason. How many more times do I have to utter my worn out mantra 'fix the voters and RfA will fix itself' before the penny drops?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone per WP:AGF and WP:RFA which states, "Always be respectful towards others..." Andrew D. (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone per DennisBrown and Andrew Davidson above per WP:AGF and WP:RFA .Unless it violated WP:NPA or WP:OUTING it need be removed by anyone.But if there any other issue it can be raised to the Crats and feel only a Crat should remove if all one needs to be removed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • We've empowered the crats to clerk RfA, right? IMO this falls entirely under clerking, so it should be left to the crats; if none are around send a ping to WP:BN or the user talk pages of the more active ones maybe. That said, I agree firmly with Kudpung that these nonsense votes were unacceptable, they created ridiculous drama and generated other opposes based on that drama, even when it had nothing to do with the candidate. What does that say about the process? ansh666 18:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Bureaucrat note: (commenting per request) Seems to me that consensus is very clearly "Leave it alone". Sounds good to me. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Nihonjoe: I'd appreciate if you and other 'crats could address some of the specific points I've made above, because I think people are seriously underrating the disastrous situation that will ensue if "nothing on an RfA that begins with a numeral (signifying a !vote) can ever be touched" becomes policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • @Newyorkbrad: Please summarize your points down here. It will make it easier to address them. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, rather than repeat everything I've already said, maybe we should start by clarifying the consensus you think has emerged. Is it that "nothing calling itself an RfA !vote can ever be removed or stricken"? That can't be right, and if need be, tomorrow I can round up some examples of comments from real RfA's that I doubt anyone would actually want to have left in place. Or is it "removing or striking votes can create ill-feelings if done without good cause, so we have to be careful"? That would lead to potentially a much more sensible discussion of how we draw the line, and specifically, whether mock-oppose !votes that aren't really opposes (e.g., "oppose just because I feel like being different today", as in the two recent examples I've cited above) cross it, especially in the context of the efforts to make RfA a less negative and fraught process. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I lean toward the "removing or striking votes can create ill-feelings if done without good cause, so we have to be careful" interpretation. That seems to be my impression from reading the above. I also agree with Wizardman, in that we don't have a lot on our plates lately, so it may be better to leave a note on WP:BN and let us review it in cases where it's not blatant. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 02:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If a vote is clearly trolling and disruptive, then per the above, as a bureaucrat yes i'm going to strike it. If thre's a semblance of good faith, then this entire topic is moot anyway and not applicable as of course it would stay up. Keeping it intact is what feeds the trolls, not the other way around. What causes most of the drama isn't the striking act itself, it's people jumping in and adding fuel to the fire on both sides. The crats have virtually nothing on our plate, we can keep an eye on RFAs. Wizardman 02:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think any !vote should be struck/redacted, except
(1) per explicit overriding policy (Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons etc);
(2) by the editor who posted it
(3) By a bureaucrat qualified to close the RfA, however
bureaucrats should refrain from striking or placing other close-impacting annotation until the RfA is being closed.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • RfA is not a special place that is subject to special rules. Nor should it be. It operates subject to the usual Wikipedia norms. Comments made in bad faith should be struck/removed by any uninvolved admin. If someone objects to such an action, don't repeat your action - have a discussion and try to reach a consensus. If you can't, ask a crat to step in or leave it for one to sort it out when they close the discussion. Most of the issues being discussed here apply to any post anywhere on the project that you regard to be trolling - feel free to take action in obvious cases, but you may inadvertently throw fuel on the fire by doing so, so sometimes it pays to just ignore it and move on. WJBscribe (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree with much of what you said, especially as to the merits of leaving things alone, but when it comes to the status of RfA, I disagree. That might be the situation if the community had not had a Request for Comment on this topic, but it did, and it said crats are empowered to clerk RfAs. It did not empower anyone else to do so. As we lawyers say, expressio unius est exclusion alterius (the inclusion of one means the exclusion of the other), that is, the community, by choosing bureaucrats to clerk, decided that that non-bureaucrats should not clerk (excepting the overriding exceptions mentioned above). Thus, administrators and other editors should not strike or threaten to personally strike !votes, questions, answers, comments, and other matters, but should, if they it necessary, post at WP:BN as the proper course of action. But before that, a private email, especially when an established editor is involved, might be a lot smarter in defusing a situation before it starts, and avoiding lasting hard feelings. Just my two cents.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
That follows if you see striking/removing bad faith comments as "clerking". I don't. Striking/removing trolling is a response to a user conduct issue. Generally - although we can deal with user conduct because we are all admins - bureaucrats have no special role when it comes to user conduct. WJBscribe (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Removal of comments deemed disruptive seems well within the ambit of what people wanted clerks to do at the RFC. Might be the bulk of what they did actually, deal with comments that caused a fuss.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Take consensus on this page before striking out any non-vandal/sock/attack !vote on an active RfA I believe that if consensus is believed to be the prominent guiding force, then no RfA !vote (except of course, clear vandalism and similar cases), however silly, should be struck arbitrarily by any editor, leave alone an administrator or bureaucrat, unless there is consensus on this page to do so. I don't know if such a policy/guideline exists already. If it doesn't, there should perhaps be a best practice guideline where this point may be added if others agree. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • That proposed approach would maximize the disruption caused by trolling and the attention given to it, and with due respect, is certainly not tenable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
      • And on the other hand, it would allow editors to not take it unto their own hands to decide whether an oppose is trolling or not. I am not referring to you, as you are one of the most supportive editors around who at the very least ensures that editors applying for administration are protected. I am referring to editors who might cut out oppose votes simply because they don't like it. A restriction of taking consensus would ensure that only those editors who really feel strongly about an oppose would reach out to the community here to take consensus. Thanks. Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
        • Xender, in theory I understand the concern you are raising and it is a reasonable one. But in practice, I can't believe that the problem you are suggesting—people arbitrarily redacting or removing things from RfA pages without a legitimate reason—has ever actually occurred. Certainly I can't think of many, or any, examples, which is partly because when these situations arise, someone clueful steps in and addresses it. This week's situation was unusual and typically these things are handled without a lot of fuss; this may be one of those issues on which the last thing we need are more rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
          • I understand what you are saying. I've seen that this is an evolving project. Instances like this provide clarity on certain issues which can be quite disheartening to contributing editors who have spent considerable effort on bettering Wikipedia. I am new on the RFA page and my oppose was the first one based on my understanding of Rupert's contributions. I would believe that even if I had disagreed with AustralianRupert's answers, given the trend in this Rfa, someone might have struck out my oppose, claiming the answers are correct. I reiterate my opinion, which I feel seems to thankfully be the opinion of a majority of editors here, that one should leave them alone (the opposes) even if they are silly (except the attack and vandal opposes I mentioned) unless there is consensus here or on the Rfa talk page to do otherwise. At the same time, I do agree with all that you're saying because each case can be so different. Xender Lourdes (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
            • I will say again that we are not talking about opposition to the candidate based on any sort of stated, non-trollish reason relating to his or her Wikipedia editing or experience. In the case of the last two !votes I struck (and which I emphasize again stayed struck), the "opposes" candidly stated that there was no reason for opposing at all, in fact that the !voters weren't actually opposed to the candidate's gaining adminship, but were just playing games. If I spend a year or two or more editing Wikipedia and then volunteer for adminship, and to subject myself to the weeklong RfA process in which I am subject to all sorts of criticism (some fair and some unfair), I think the very least I would expect is that people not be listed as opposing my adminship who don't even actually oppose it. We are not talking about mere disagreement with a vote, we are talking about obvious trolling and game-playing. (In the case of your initial opposition to AustralianRupert, no one would treat your doubting the candidate's familiarity with policy as an illegitimate reason for opposing. Personally, I think it would be better practice to ask the candidate your question and then !vote based on the answer, rather than cast an oppose !vote "but I'll change to support if the answer is good", only because the way you did it clutters up the page. But that is just an individual suggestion and has nothing to do with deprecating votes.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • What about addressing the issue of trolls by semi-protecting RFAs? With regard to the issue of striking, I suspect that reverting inappropriate/pointy edits to RFAs is better than striking them out, as in that case the disruptive edit is no longer visible on the page. Everymorning (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
    • None of the recent RfA drama has been caused by anyone isn't autoconfirmed (or even extended-confirmed). ansh666 20:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • There would need to be high minimum requirements for RfA votes if we were to stop all trolls. A better solution would be to simply hand out blocks to editors who think that RfA is an unsupervised virtual playground. Trolling is vandalism and should be handled as such; it is peculiar that trolling and disruption by editors with one-page block logs is tolerated. Esquivalience t 01:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave it, with the intention that bureaucrats will do exactly what they were selected for and weigh votes appropriately. ~ RobTalk 01:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The issue is not the weighing of votes, or the outcome of an RfA. I can't remember an RfA that was actually closed the wrong way' due to the sort of trolling we are discussing, in the history of the project. The issue is whether blatantly trollish, or offensive, or bigoted, or just entirely inane and distracting comments must necessarily remain on the RfA page for the full week of the RfA, thereby damaging the candidate's experience and the RfA process. It is absurd for 200 people who come to an RfA page and scan the votes that have come before them to have to read through an oppose !vote reading, for example, "Oppose. Universal adulation always suggests there's bodies rotting somewhere, and with a vote count that Kim Jong-il might envy, I'll vote nay just to tip a cold bucket of reality over the bedazzled mob, and keep [the candidate] on his toes. I shan't believe the dingo did it"' (taken verbatim, including the bizarrely gratuitous link to an article about the violent death of a baby, from the vote I struck in a current RfA), or an oppose from a one-day-old account explained as "Because I felt like being different...pretty poor reason I know, but so be it..." (from a !vote I struck, with no disagreement, in another RfA three weeks ago). I realize that I am starting to repeat myself here but I do not recall having ever felt more strongly about anything (other than some BLP issues) in my ten years' tenure on this project. I am entirely convinced that if a rule develops that anything goes on the RfA page and nothing can be removed if it starts with a numeral and calls itself a vote, the results are going to be totally disastrous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • @Newyorkbrad: I'm convinced that this is not your finest hour. Give it a rest. No one is making a rule, precedent, or any sort of policy about this. What happened on AusRup's RfA was pure disruption on both sides. It was an attempt to amputate an arm because of a mosquito bite.--v/r - TP 03:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I largely agree with everything you're saying, but in this case, the cure is more painful than the original ill. What's more damaging to the reputation of RfA – a few inane opposes that are drowned out by supporters or a series of arguments over whether to strike an oppose, including edit-warring, a discussion on what the criteria for striking should be, a discussion on whether the oppose vote meets those criteria, etc.? Clearly the latter is more disruptive. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to allowing bureaucrats to take a more active clerking role and do ArbCom "clerk action"-esque strikes with zero discussion, but having the community do it is very obviously not a reasonable solution. It's akin to giving someone chemotherapy for the common cold. I mean, you've seen what it did to the ongoing RfA. ~ RobTalk 04:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave it, bureaucrats were elected for their judgement and they are able to disregard obviously disruptive votes, which they have done since RFA was created. There is no difference now, and I would expect bureaucrats to disregard any low-quality votes, positive or negative, without having said votes stricken by the community. Please let the bureaucrats do the job that they were elected to perform. This pre-striking is against any RFA procedure that I've seen on the project. Poor-quality contributions will be removed, as they have always been, when reviewed by the bcrats. Nakon 03:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Just a nit-picky semantic clarification: bureaucrats are not elected and they don't have a 'job' to do. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Redact unambiguously unhelpful !votes. HighInBC is absolutely correct that the recent drama would not have occurred had appropriate redaction not been reverted. Ambiguous cases should be left to the crats, but anyone should feel free to redact the sort of blatantly unconstructive nonsense NewYorkBrad has been quoting to stop it toxifying the atmosphere at RfA. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone. The reason why the standards at RfB are so high is because we expect bureaucrats to be wise and experienced enough to be able to separate the reasonable opposes from the ridiculous ones. Gizza (t)(c) 02:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad is RIGHT, showing some consideration for the people behind the editor ID is desirable, and removing / striking grossly objectionable is both reasonable and appropriate. It is not about whether bureaucrats will be swayed, the sense required to discount such things is pretty small and so being concerned about influencing bureaucrats is a red herring. It is about being respectful to RfA candidates by removing gratuitous material. It is about a community behaving collectively as a community and saying that RfA is not a free-for-all brawl. RfA has enough problems without sanctioning more ways to throw shit at people. EdChem (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for stating this so clearly, EdChem. I'm amazed so many commenters above still think this is about the vote tally. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 14:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
But there was no brawl until the vote was struck, unstruck, and on and on. We can say that not much sense is required to redact votes, but experience hasn't demonstrated that, where every struck vote results in a threaded argument about whether the strike was appropriate. It's very easy for an RfA candidate to mentally dismiss an oppose for silly reasons like "just to be different". If we really think an RfA candidate can't blow off something as minor as that, then that candidate should be opposed. The struck votes that spawned this argument were, collectively: (a) two blank votes, (b) two votes saying the candidate should have stepped in to stop the other votes from being struck. Any brawl here was the result of striking two blank votes. Wouldn't the problem at that RfA gone away if those two blank votes were left alone? In that alternative scenario, how is that an "all out brawl"? ~ RobTalk 14:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
BU Rob13, the !votes that have been mentioned as examples weren't originally blank; they were as I quoted them. And normally, removing such things has historically not produced controversy in most instances; this week's events were unusual. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for the correction. I dug through the diffs. NewYorkActuary was originally blank (and he later expanded on it). Engleham's was non-blank and absurd, but it was devoid of content. It was essentially "oppose to be different", and I would expect an RfA candidate to see that, shake his or her head a bit at the absurdity, and move on. Maybe even feel good about themselves that "to be different" was the only thing someone could find to oppose them based on. How does that contribute to a negative environment at RfA more than the clusterfuck that was striking? Even if this week's events were unusual (and I'm not a regular voter at RfA, so I'm not familiar), what is the net positive that justifies the sometimes-huge-sometimes-nonexistent negative? You've called these comments "damaging", but what is the damage a reasonably well-prepared RfA candidate would incur? ~ RobTalk 15:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. Actually, no one suggested striking NewYorkActuary's vote or comment, because as ill-reasoned as it was (IMHO), it did present a fact-based, rational reason for opposing the candidate. As for Engleham's vote and comments, if you think it's reasonable for the process to include faux-oppositions with references to Kim Jong-il and violent death, then we're going to disagree about that one. The disaster I referenced will occur if and when (as reflected in my question to Nihonjoe) the consensus in this discussion is interpreted not as "think carefully before removing or striking anything from an RfA" but as "nothing should be removed or struck ever" as the material in question this time or last time is far from the worst we've seen. There is a suggestion above that it won't be interpreted that way and I'm overreacting, but I've seen that sort of overreading of a discussion happen several times before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the aim should be to minimize disruption. As soon as it was clear that striking the vote did not have near-unanimous support (and thus someone would raise a fuss about it), it is best to not feed the trolls and let it be. Kingsindian   18:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly the goal. If the vote is calling them a nazi, of course you revert it out and take admin action if needed, just as you would in any other place on Wikipedia. RFA isn't an exception. But if the reason is blank, or mildly stupid, or if the count is obvious and they are simply mistaken (AGF), go to their talk page if you must, or ping them on the RFA talk page, but keep the threading to a minimum. The key is to minimize drama. That benefits the candidate more than a perfect vote count. Dennis Brown - 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Discuss first I think striking votes isn't necessarily bad, but in any case where the vote isn't a violation of policy (such as blatant personal attacks etc, which should be deleted), the vote should be responded to to give the voter a chance to justify their reasoning. If this is not satisfactory, the vote should be struck: not for the bureaucrat's sake, but for the sake of other reading the page so they can clearly see that a particular vote is not appropriate. —  crh 23  (Talk) 15:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Make a damn decision If it's just stupid, ignore it per WP:DNFTT. If it's blatant trolling, just remove it it (e.g. [1],[2]). Ya'll create more drama by visibly striking (or hatting) stuff, which attracts more attention to it than simply WP:AGFing the closing bureaucrat will know "stupid" when they see it without your help. Plus the subsequent bickering over striking it. NE Ent 11:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience. Whatever action avoids arguing with an idiot is the right thing to do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone Per Dennis Brown and others. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Leave them alone. I agree with the excellent comments of NE Ent, Anna Frodesiak, Jason Quinn that frivolous or unexplained rationales will be treated appropriately—that is, given little or no weight—by the bureaucrats, that therefore striking weakly explained/inappropriate/unhelpful votes is unnecessary at best, and causes pointless community consternation and drama at worst. Now, if the comment is a blatant personal attack in violation of the policy against personal attacks (as opposed to a merely a bad rationale), that is another matter altogether—such attacks can be struck. Neutralitytalk 23:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Result of RfC was that bureaucrats should do the clerking. And I don't see much above which persuades me otherwise. So, essentially: leave them alone. If there is a genuine concern or disruption, just drop a note at WP:BN (per 日本穣, et al). - jc37 10:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Attrition[edit]

43 desysoppings for inactivity during 1st half of 2016 for 6 successful candidacies so far this year. Still not yet critical but it looks as if WereSpielChequers' table is going to finish the year with the worst result ever, demonstrating a still alarming downward trend. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Inactivity desysoppings and new admins are just two datapoints, you also need to include other desysoppings and crucially resyoppings. There are also likely to be seasonal fluctuations. My preferred metric for the size of the admin cadre is the number of active admins now compared to a year ago. Not ideal, not least because you can be an "active admin" even if you never use the tools, but it is a stat that has been continually and consistently collected over a long period of time. Currently we are down 50, dropping from 590 t0 540 year on year. This is beyond critical for those like me who believe that all longstanding clueful active Wikipedians should be admins when and if they are ready, and should be worrying even to those who think that adminship should become a bigger and bigger deal. I suppose there may be some extreme inclusionists out there who see WP:Pure_wiki deletion_system as the logical response to admin shortages, but I'm not keen. ϢereSpielChequers 20:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I assume you mean "down to 590"?... As to both yours and Kudpung's points, I consider the resyopping numbers so far this year to be particularly abysmal. So it's not just that we're not getting new Admins – we're also not getting back experienced Admins "returning to the fold" like we used to. Suffice it to say, we can't continue going on like this, but I think it will take an actual "crisis" before it'll shake most out of their current stupor. --IJBall (contribstalk) 21:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
My view of "crisis" would be a pedia more difficult to use, or less reliable. Possibly I've spent too much time at concerts, but my question about such matters is "how does it look from front of house"?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall. No I meant down 50. But I've added ", dropping from 590 t0 540 year on year." ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

More data: looking at this, and with half a year of data in, it looks like desysoppings for inactivity will be up roughly about 10% this year over last, while standard Admin resignations are roughly on the same pace. (The only good news is that "desysoppings for cause" look to be way down this year – maybe all the old time-y "bad" admins have already been mostly worked through the system?...) On the other hand, while everyone knows that RfA's are on pace to be off about 40% from last year, resysoppings are off by 50%. That's not good... --IJBall (contribstalk) 04:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

6 new Admins (expected to be active) is more productive than a 100 non-productive admins desysopped (is that actually a word) for inactivity. The comparison is meaningless since - by definition - one side of the comparison are permanently inactive. Admin productivity should be measured on a demand and supply basis. How many actions are needed. Queues would be an obvious indication. Get over number of RfA approved people - if they do no work they are unproductive. Leaky Caldron 08:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Permanently? Are you sure? ;)
IJBall, where did you find 10 desysoppings last year? Wikipedia:Former_administrators/reason/for_cause makes it look like 6. And yeah, two of those might not have happened this year, but one could easily have happened a day later. And only one was an "old time-y" admin. Beware of statistics of small numbers ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Only 8 of those desysoppings "took" – 2 were quick desysops/resysops after 2 Admins' accounts passwords were hacked (but for the purposes of how I maintain my list, I have to include them in the count – still the two in question can be found via List of resysopped users). Six other desysoppings were "standard for cause(s)", and one more involved an actual Arbcom indef block. I'll admit, that means I'm missing the tenth (and am not sure about my listings for the desysoppings in Feb. & March 2015)... I'll look into this later this evening, and see if I can remember what is up with that. --IJBall (contribstalk) 02:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I forgot all about that! In any case, I meant to say that these are such small numbers that not much can be learned from year-on-year changes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
OK, it looks like the tenth was Wifone, who technically resigned, but who I'm pretty sure I counted as a "desysop" as it was resignation under a cloud. (That also explains the Feb. 2015 entry.) So I think I've got 2015 all figured out... --IJBall (contribstalk) 08:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall, Opabinia regalis, WereSpielChequers, Wehwalt, and Kudpung: Hi, I just found THIS, which is a great log of sysop numbers in the last 5 years. — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 22:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
But a lot of the work that admins do doesn't change the reader experience very much, done or undone. That is why I do not worry about numbers. The function of administration (including ArbCom, oversight, other functionary) is as an auxiliary to content production, the only thing we make that exits the factory. Administration that doesn't enable that shouldn't be. Thus, to me anyway, unless it is shown that that the number of administrators, of itself, has caused content production or quality to drop, I don't get very excited about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Re "content production, the only thing" - what about protection of existing content from vandals, POVvers, spammers etc? DexDor (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Protection of content from having it made worse is obviously a goal. No point in building what gets torn down. I said administration needs to be auxiliary to content, I did not say that "writing is the only important thing" which would not be true because writing is nothing without a place to put it where it can be cherished and protected. Plainly anti-vandalism is part of that. But such things as closing AfD, certain queues that are said to be backlogged, do not significantly affect the view from front of house, which I consider a major metric.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Wifione s indeff blocked and banned by Arbcom. I guess that technically counts as desysping 'for cause' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OLD RFAs[edit]

Now I am not opposing the Oppose votes who always complain that, "the candidate is not ready", "The candidate has only one year old account", "the candidate is not active in fighting vandalism", "the candidate has not done enough content creation", "the candidate has never voted in AFDs" . Actually I support these comments.

But if we look at the edit count of some of our Administrators as KaisaL which stands at 7,571 which is much lower than BuRob13, Anarchyte, Thine Antique Pen, Oshwah, MontanaBw, APerson.

A former administrator Pepsidrinka has only 5,844 edits. Just imagine how many edits he had when he passed RFA. Yes he was a sysop

These administrators had easy RFAs:

19 support votes Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Utcursch

See how easily they became administrator

182.66.9.177 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@182.66.9.177: that was Then. This is Now. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 07:02, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
It is a well known fact that there has been a constant inflation of adminship minimum requirements over the years. Is there a point you're trying to make besides that?--Atlan (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I think this demonstrates that selecting people without a huge amount of edits/time served is not going to cause the sky to fall. Many of our current admins got their bit with a lot less of a gauntlet and it turned out fine. I don't think we actually need 2 years and 40k+ edits to evaluate if a person has a good temperament and an understanding of policy. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I concur. There's no correlation that I'm aware of that shows a link between the number of edits or tenure someone has and their ability to be an administrator. Yet, standards keep rising, and people keep on layering in insane requirements that have no correlative basis in reality. We've had seven successful RfAs this year. The average edit count of six of those (removing Widr as an outlier; ~200k at time of RfA) candidates at the time of their RfA is right about 40k edits. The average tenure in the same set is seven years.
  • Running some rough numbers; assuming 10k edits as a bottom for a potential RfA candidate, there are 7,329 editors with at least 10k edits. Of those, approximately 58% are active, leaving 4,250 candidates. Of those, approximately 1,075 are already administrators, leaving 3,175 potential candidates. This number may include a significant number of former administrators. So, there's somewhere around 3,000 potential candidates. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no 'present day' standards. The small but influential core of regular voters have been using their same criteria for years. What you have is this transient set of hundreds of one-off voters, especially now that the community decided to advertise RfA very widely, who think it's cool to ask for ridiculous standards that they just apply willy-nilly without any clue of what RfA is all about, and newbies who ask racist and disingenuous questions, and editors who suffer from systemic bias trying to trip he candidate up over over LGBT, Gender Gap, or oher socio-political issues. Like I keep saying, fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. And just illustrate a point: this vote by a blatant troll.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Plus, RFA is also fair game to go yell and criticize people for voting against them in whatever thing they wanted to. A decade ago, tools didn't exist so it would be difficult to check interactions between yourself and the candidate. Now, people first check if they interacted with that person (fair point) and then if there was any chance of a disagreement, it's simple to oppose and cry about things that could go wrong. No one can see the lost opportunity cost of someone not becoming an admin at that time (a lot of the opposes now are "do it again later"). Even then, I doubt anyone could point to the worst of the worst admins having any long-term impact here that basically doesn't wash off over a year or so. Other than the people who rant about admin abuse because their COI get deleted or they are told to watch policies and get blocked, there's no single admin running around doing enough to cause that kind of damage people freak out about. It's not even like there's admin willy nilly being abusive with AFD closings which was the real concern at the start of the project, DRV is pretty thorough and any admin can restore it for a draft. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The one long-lasting effect an admin can have on Wikipedia is to make other productive editors lose interest in the project and then either edit less or retire completely. Apart from that, most damage is short-term. Gizza (t)(c) 04:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed but it's rarely the actual admin tools that cause that nowadays to me. Well, I admit blocks are obvious but you can see ANI right now and rarely does it actually involve admins or in particular admin tools, generally just editors who have been around for a while and know what to do, regardless of their technical status. The excessively murky set of "policies and guidelines" we've developed are intimidating to new editors. - Ricky81682 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
You'r partly right Ricky81682, but actually the real reason for 'rarely does it actually involve admins or in particular admin tools, generally just editors who have been around for a while and know what to do', is because admins are sick and tired of the threats and abuse they get from just doing their job there. Being a front-line admin is no picnic. It's a shame, because not all those non-admins know what they are doing, and there is often too much background noise from the peanut gallery; you can see this from the speed at which an ANI gets turned into a support/oppose poll for someone's (non-admit) proposal for a block. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and those kinds of Admins are rarely desysopped at Arbcom, or anywhere else. Quite the opposite in fact – it's pretty clear that there is no "upside" to complaining about that kind of abuse: nothing will happen to the Admin in question, and it's likely that the complainant will be driven off the project instead. --IJBall (contribstalk) 20:29, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
That's correct, and it is the underlying reason for the reluctance to elevate users and the general difficulties associated with the process. Coretheapple (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Moderator proposal[edit]

A Request for Comment on a proposal to create a new user group with an abbreviated set of administrator user-rights, as an option for editors to request instead of requesting the entire sysop user-right package. I welcome everyone's thoughts on this. - jc37 21:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

  • From PEREN: "There should be some kind of 'partial admin' that gets certain admin powers, but not all of them"
  • From your proposal: "(a) package ... designed primarily to allow editors the option to help with content-related admin tasks ... if they wish to not have the rest of the sysop package of user-rights"
  • I fail to see the difference. Both describe a subset of the entire administrator privileges package. Regardless, I'm not trying to paint anything here, even if there is a strong similarity. My point is that if your proposal is to pass (and right now it's badly failing), you need to address the concerns that have been repeatedly raised before when very similar proposals have been made. The arguments in opposition to the PEREN proposals track with the arguments being used to oppose your proposal. It would be a good idea to suspend the failing RfC, and focus on fixing your proposal to address those concerns. Several of the oppose votes are raising issues with your proposal that are issues noted at PEREN. I'm not trying to shoot you down here. Rather, you need to rethink this some. The RfC is a little over a day old and already it's at least 26 votes in the hole. There's reasons for that. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Jc, you say you're assuming that the Foundation's position on the subject hasn't changed in 4 years, without checking. That turns out to be wrong; this is their current position (a permalink to the current version of WP:VPR). - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

missing request needs to be deleted or closed[edit]

There is a request for adminship which has not made it onto the page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ZigZagoon99. I'm not sure if it's because it was malformed or if it just wasn't done properly. We should either delete is as vandalism or put it on the request page so we can snow close it. Meters (talk) 05:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears to already be deleted. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)