Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 206

Archive 200

←

Archive 204

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

Archive 208

→

Archive 210

RfA candidate questions

To clear up the ambiguous (yet correct) title, should real life situations that actually happened be used as questions for candidates? Would the parties involved (in real life) be offended? Guoguo12--Talk--  00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

By "real life" do you mean things that really happened on Wikipedia, or things that happened in the physical world? Either way actually the answer is they should be dressed up as hypothetical questions even if they are based on actual events, to avoid the appearance of personal attacks or harassment. A lot of users do this already. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I meant on Wikipedia. What do you mean "they should be dressed up as hypothetical questions"? If quotes (i.e., "hypothetical quotes") are included, wouldn't a search yield the original source? Guoguo12--Talk--  02:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess if you are asking them about something they were actually involved with, go ahead and ask. If you are asking how they would act in a situation they were not involved with, it's better to describe the situation hypothetically without naming names. This is just my opinion of course, but I think we all have an interest in reducing the drama level at RFA as much as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Beeb, it depends on which 'we all' you are referring to: the people who !vote/pose the quetions, or the people who talk about it on this page. Either way, the trick questions get trickier and the !voters pile on the opposes because of one slightly wrong answer. IHMO that is not volition to reduce the drama.--Kudpung (talk) 02:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how this comment relates to the topic we are discussing. Actually I can't discern any meaning at all in that last sentence. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

No, actual incidents should not be used, and here's why. When I was considering what questions to ask the candidates for ArbCom, I drafted a question on the topic of vested contributors, that while it did not name names, was not at all subtle about the people of concern. I showed it to a few people and they had a uniform response; that it was polarizing and would get ugly and mean spirited and possibly factionalize voting, all without or with only a minimal amount of return. The same applies here.

One RfA frequent question author, Mkativerata, poses hypothetical situations, often with layers of depth, that touch upon several core policies. I have seen those questions, more than the standard three, make or break RfAs, as they force the candidates to form coherent solutions to complex issues while simultaneously forcing the candidates to demonstrate their policy knowledge. Far more than the "your take on this Wikipedia incident" questions being proposed here, the hypothetical questions from Mkativerata that I refer to provide real value. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words, Sven Manguard. I've been considering whether to continue with the hypotheticals. Richwales' recent RfA was a disappointment for me. I thought the candidate covered all the ground he needed to in the question, and made a decision (to block) that was within policy and within discretion. A decision not to block would also have been within policy and discretion. Yet there were a number of opposes on the basis of his exercise of discretion, including drawing general conclusions about the candidate being block-happy. Now of course the opposers were perfectly entitled to think that the block was not the best decision. But did it really justify opposing the candidate, especially as the candidate had given an in-depth response that covered all the subtelties of the hyopthetical, that demonstrated deep policy knowledge? Richwales' RfA was a chilling experience, thinking that the RfA might have actually been doomed from the moment the question was asked. When I started drafting these questions, I hoped that the reverse would be the case: that good answers would trigger a flood of supports and it would only be the genuine cock-ups that would be reasons to oppose. But so far the questions have damaged just about every candidate of which they've been asked. The problem is demonstrated, as in Richwales's case, when you have experienced editors in either S/O column citing the question as their principal reason for being there. My worry is that it's a lose-lose situation for the candidate. I've had very good feedback about these questions but that can't disguise my own significant reservations. Perhaps the answer is to draft questions that have clearer objectively-ascertainable "correct" answers. I think hypotheticals are, per se, the best kind of questions. I certainly felt in my own RfA that it was the "how would you decide these AfDs" from Uncle G that posed the best test. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have not mentioned it here, and I am surpried that no one else has, but there is a feeling in some corners that the RfA process isn't what's wrong, it's the RfA people. I do believe that there are some users that go to the RfAs with their own agendas, and irregardless of the candidates themselves, these people look to push their agendas. I have seen votes that boil down to "I will oppose every single candidate that comes through RfA until there is a deadminship process that I am happy with." I have seen votes that boil down to "There are two sides to an ongoing dispute, and while you are not a player in this dispute, and indeed likely do not know about it, three months ago you Huggle reverted something someone on our side did, and therefore you are our sworn enemy." The long and short of it is that RfA has become, to some editors, a vicious nit-picking, agenda pushing, battleground warring, zombie voting, mess, and it is the fault of misguided (most), immature (some), or malicious (some) users. A lot of the input is good, but enough apples have been systematically poisoning the process.

Perhaps any changes to RfA need to focus less on the process, and more on the participants. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I too was disappointed to see the direction that RfA took after the question was answered, because it was given such a thorough answer that demonstrated knowledge of a number of key policies. Was blocking the right call in that scenario? Well, I didn't think so, but I recognized that a block was supported by policy, so I couldn't very well oppose the candidate for it. There are certainly ways you could adjust the scenario to avoid forcing a polarizing answer that will garner opposes regardless of how it's answered (maybe the theoretical Mkativerata has only reverted 3 times, not 4, thus taking a 3RR block off the table), but I hope you won't stop posing the scenarios. Critical thinking and policy knowledge are things we want our admin candidates to demonstrate. 28bytes (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec with above) Exactly. But therein lies the problem. How do we change the attitude of the participants? You can't legislate something like that. We have this problem from both ends if you ask me, there are some users that look for any reason to oppose, and they always find it, and there are some users who will support anyone no matter what. And then there's the pointless "moral support" of NOTNOW candidates, something I find idiotic in the extreme. You are telling them that they are wrong, that they jumped ahead and did something without taking the time and effort to even begin to understand the process they were delving into, that they are an absolutely hopeless candidate, and that you support them in spirit despite all that. Granted, this is hardly our most pressing problem, and now that I've vented about it we can back to the main issue of pile-on voting that is based on finding some other user who may or may not have actually bothered to research their position and agreeing with them. Sometimes we see this is supporters who flee to neutral or oppose when it becomes clear that if they had spent just a few minutes reviewing the candidate they would have found some obvious red flag. Then we have the opposers who latch on to one thing, no matter how minor or imaginary it might be, and you see a long string of "per whoever" votes come after them. The questions are certainly a minefield. My second RFA had a bit of this. I was opposed for not knowing that an infobox is enough to avoid deletion as an empty page. As I have since discovered, many long-term admins and most new page patrollers are unaware of this exception to A3, but that didn't stop several other users from latching onto it as a ready-made oppose rationale. But how do we stop or at least discourage such behavior? I can't say I know a good answer to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on "moral support" of WP:NOTNOW candidates. Has anybody ever actually sneaked through RFA and got the bit as a result of the moral supports? ;-)

Such candidates get a barrage of criticism which they are unlikely to have been expecting. I think it's reasonable to soften the blow if the candidate is a person who's making good contributions elsewhere. We don't want to alienate somebody who's made 500 good edits and wants to get more involved in the project; we should be supporting and encouraging them (we don't want to give them the mop either, but that isn't going to happen through a handful of moral supports).

Regulars here may realise that these candidates do not meet the high standards expected of admins, but the candidates themselves evidently do not realise this. There's no need to rub their noses in it; there's plenty of wiggle room to be nice to people whilst still withholding the mop.

On a related point, when a particular drama-monger turned up here, I deliberately held back from saying exactly what I thought about them, because other people were already saying much the same and I didn't see the point in encouraging even more drama. That candidate didn't get the mop either (and their drama was surely a factor) so the quality of Wikipedia's admin cadre has not been diluted by my refusal to put the boot in. bobrayner (talk) 09:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• In my view an RFA should focus on the candidate's editing, so I prefer questions to be based on edits that the candidate has done. Mkativerata's questions are technically great, but I think RFA is the wrong venue for them. I think we should revive and reinvigorate the pre RFA training idea involved in User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Multiple Choice ϢereSpielChequers 11:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
• @Bob: I agree that we shouldn't be overly harsh with NOTNOW cases, and that it's extremely unlikely any candidate could ever actually get the bit if they really are a NOTNOW case, but "moral support" suggests that they did something right somewhere in the process of nominating themselves, when clearly they have made rushed into something without having the slightest understanding of how it works, and ignored clearly worded warnings not to do exactly what they just did. That is not something that should be supported, morally or otherwise. A friendly explanation in the discussion or neutral sections could accomplish the same thing without the fiction of "moral" support. I think I just needed to vent about it because I think it is pointless and a little dishonest, but I'm not actually proposing we do anything about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Essay

Just thought I should let you guys know that I've offered my views on RfA's current state at Wikipedia:RfA is dead. Yeah, I know that I'm the 77,000th person to do such a thing, but I felt like making my opinions known without dumping a huge chunk of text on this talk page. One two three... 11:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

A very good essay; well written and heartfelt. It has been a while since I checked my stats, but last I looked I was about 50% Support/Oppose. For me the opposite side of the coin (of not wanting to subject myself to an Rfa) is being rather unwilling to elevate a marginal candidate to adminship when there is no community 'undo button'. I and others have proposed a "reverse Rfa" be enacted (Uncle G's was the first I saw, it mutated into the unwieldy, ill-fated WP:CDA) but it can't get past the older admins, and I won't advocate that again anytime soon. Admin term limits has been kicked around, and I'd be willing to see that tried, but again I highly doubt it can get enacted. One admin, fairly recently voted in after multiple tries, blocked a friend of mine on (I felt) dubious grounds. He validated every fear I have about admin abuse (no names please, this is merely a recent example cited here for illustration.) Bottom line: Rfa is dead, and adminship is no big deal unless you get dealt with unfairly by someone with that hat on, whom it would be a gigantic time sink to even attempt to have de-adminned by ArbCom. Jusdafax 22:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've thought about the aftermath of CDA, it seems to me that the "time sink" to which you refer is the key issue. Is there a way of rectifying that barrier to ArbCom, without, of course, being unfair to the rights of good administrators? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It's worth a thought or two, but I have little faith that such a "fast-track" could get beyond the early talking stage before those using buzz-phrases like "mobs with pitchforks" would start campaigning to toss any such considerations out. Jusdafax 23:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that the community does trust ArbCom to remove adminship, maybe(!) ArbCom can be adjusted to reflect those needs. The main problem with ArbCom as a "checks and balances" authority is that it will always take huge amounts of time and work to reach such conclusions. On the other hand, WP:BASC seems to work as a sub-committee of ArbCom for special cases, so maybe consensus can be found for another sub-committee of 3-5 ArbCom members which deals with straight-forwarded complaints of admin abuse and can decide to act or to refer a case to ArbCom. That idea of course is inspired by the way some supreme courts work, in my case the Bundesverfassungsgericht which has three chambers with three judges each that review some cases beforehand, thus speeding up the process and removing workload from the court itself. If it works for the highest German court, it might just work for Wikipedia. But I fear I digress... Regards SoWhy 23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, going with that, but playing devil's advocate, it seems to me that BASC, dealing as it does with ban appeals, is handling situations where the Committee (or the community) has already conducted a process and left a record. It seems to me that what Jusdafax and I are talking about would be situations where there may have been earlier processes, but the request being made is the start of a new action. Can ArbCom or a committee thereof deal with that expeditiously? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, One, for taking the thread you started in this direction! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually any blocked user who has had their talk page revoked is (or at least should be) directed to make any further appeals to BASC. I kind of like this idea on the whole, if ArbCom would be willing to take it on, and if they would actually fast track these cases and not take months to decide them. Of course any case where there has been no previous attempt to resolve the issue directly with the admin should be speedily rejected, unless it is a clear-cut "career ender abuse of tools" which is the kind of desysop case ArbCom generally sees now and which they usually do handle in a matter of hours or days as opposed to weeks or months. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, my idea was inspired by the real life as I said above. As one can imagine, the highest German court has a lot of work to do and iirc, about 97% of all requests are rejected because there was no prior attempt to resolve it the normal ways or because it's not a relevant matter. A (or more) sub-committee(s) for such problems could work the same way. Currently, when a case is submitted, it takes a few days for ArbCom to reject even the most obvious cases. A "admin review sub-committee" (ARSC) could deal with those cases quicker, creating a way to deal with complaints of administrative misconduct efficiently, thus addressing concerns of missing ways to "get rid" of admins who are problematic but without the "mob with pitchforks" concerns, since ArbCom is already empowered to take such actions and it would just modify the way they deal with clear-cut cases. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be ARS? - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia already has an organization by that name. Reyk _YO! 23:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin candidate was too clueful and must be stopped

See the 2nd oppose at Grondemar's RFA. This editor did lots of reading before starting to edit, so started off with a reasonable idea of how to go about things, and didn't make lots of huge errors. But for that, they get opposed.

Candidates get shredded over mistakes made on their learning curve. Now it seems they also better get used to being opposed for not making big mistakes.

It's no wonder that the number of RFA's is now so low. In fact, it's now hard to explain why the monthly tally is greater than zero. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. At my second RfA, many people used the "This user made an obscene outburst" excuse, and while this is true, it had occurred six months prior to the RfA, while I was still inexperienced and didn't know about Wikipedia's civility policy. A quick look at my contributions since that time would've showed that I had matured much, but nobody bothered to do that. And you're right about the low candidate rate being caused by this; after all, it's caused me to decide never to have another RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I trust the 'crats will show good judgement when assessing how to weight unproven accusations of sockpuppetry. While I strongly disagree with the opposes (as it is about as far from assuming good faith as you can get), I don't think it's worth making a huge deal about it, simply because I can't imagine a situation where it would change the result of an RfA (and this is coming from someone who's been there). Trebor (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See, Trebor (talk · contribs) now a days, a candidate with a mere 3,000 edits would probably not make it past RFA. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems as if most voters go for quantity over quality. It may not actually be that way, but I think it's come to that. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I was having an RfA nowadays, I would have boosted my count with a few thousand automated edits to get past whatever the new arbitrary benchmark is (what is it, by the way?). Trebor (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Trebor that the 'crats will no doubt use good judgement on this one, and even if they just did a raw count, the few opposes won't make any difference. But still, candidates really shouldn't have to put up with that.

But Utahraptor, I'm afraid that the main issue in your case was a lot of quality issues. With all due respect, I think your 2nd RFA was way premature, and while I'm sorry that you feel put off, I don't see the outcome of that RFA as any cause for concern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand that I failed because of quality issues, I was just using my RfA as an example. I wasn't trying to state why it failed.

Trebor: I don't know. Looking at all successful and unsuccessful RfAs of this year, I would guess about 10,000 non-automated edits are needed before an RfA can be attempted. But that's just my guess. Others may disagree, of course. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think automated edits are going to get us anywhere. As we have seen in The Thing That Should Not Bes 7th (6th?) a bunch of automated edits won't get you anywhere. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I said non-automated. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misread. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid this particular problem is bigger than RFA. I regularly see ip editors get asked who they really are if they demonstrate the slightest amount of clue. Some of the paranoia about this is the result of us having been fooled a few times into granting admin powers to users who turned out to be socks of blocked or banned users. that may explain it but does not excuse it. In the absence of actual disruptive behavior it is a severe breach of the concept of AGF. We all know that there are users editing here who are supposed to be blocked, but there are also users who have retired their accounts and become anon ip users because that's what they wanted to do, and there are users who registered accounts only after significant periods of ip editing. There is nothing at all wrong with that. If someone has a legitimate reason to suspect sockpuppetry they can file an SPI on it. If all they have is evidence that the user actually bothered to learn about how Wikipedia works before editing it, they should shut the hell up, be they at RFA or elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. My pet peeve, repeated in this case, is the discouragingly common accusation "knew how to use edit summaries on your first edit". That just shows they aren't an idiot, and can read instructions. There was a time, long ago, when people were expected to be able to back up such speculation before attempting to torpedo an RFA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, this was my very first edit as a registered account on Wikipedia. I knew how to use an edit summary (and minor edits). Keep in mind, though, that I did edit as an IP shortly before that, also. –MuZemike 03:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

My earliest edits weren't anything particularly grand, although I did know how to use an edit summary, since I'd been using RCS for years as a Unix admin... But then, I did register my account so early that it wasn't even logged... Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

For me, it was common sense coupled with having experienc with my own wiki website. Has anyone yet written an essay on the topic "Newbies aren't always clueless"? Because it seems if a "new" editor knows what they're doing, they're not competent, they're a sockpuppet. AD 03:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget, we also flood new users with information in Template:Welcome - the five pillars, a tutorial, the epically large manual of style. We surely can't complain when a new user actually reads all that stuff before editing...Trebor (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have someone opposing because they didn't reply to an email quickly enough - on Christmas too! God forbid the candidate might be away from the computer with their family... AD 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha ha...I'll get to work on that essay. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you need any help with that essay. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You can view it here. Feel free to add to it before I move it to namespace, I am still working. Any help is appreciated. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See also WP:BRANDNEW. 28bytes (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Newbies arent always clueless can be a "spinoff" of that. Simple, get to the point kinda thingTofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just checked my own early contribs, which I haven't done in years. Apparently a 100% edit summary rate right from the start, and although the edit summary style looks verbose now, I'm not sure how it compares with what was current then. Plus I did a successful RFD on my second day of editing, with the redirect correct tagged ... having earlier removed a POV section of an article after explaining the problem on the talk page.

After reviewing this, I now have a strong suspicion that I am a sock of myself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

:I am thinking about opening a sock investigation of you, BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) is a sock of some IP that seemed to know what they were doing. You are bad! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC) ::I even found my old old account yesterday, one that I made 5 edits on, should I be accused of sockpuppetry! Oh no! Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is bordering on teasing. We should probably stop. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Kevin took away his oppose vote anyway. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition to top of RfA page

Going by what some of the community seem to think is required, perhaps we should add this: Do not even consider putting yourself forward if you took the time to read guidelines or help pages before your first edit - we would rather have admins who rush into things; do not consider it if you have only created a few well-written, well-referenced articles - we want admins who have created at least 20 Featured Articles, as admin tools are all about content creation. Finally, be warned that you will be possibly ripped to pieces by some editors who either have failed here themselves and can't stand the thought of someone else succeeding, or by editors who wouldn't have the guts to put their names forward here.. (I should point out that the majority of opposes I see here are valid, and that most of them are from editors who do not fall into those two final categories - I leave it as an exercise for the reader to consider which editors might fall into those categories... -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 04:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support. And I mean seriously. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And here I was, thinking this was implied. Any idiot who can't figure that out on their own obviously shouldn't be an admin anyways. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I still believe in the community's ability to assess information and correct itself given appropriate logic. I have to say that I never created even one Featured Article, leave alone a good article, had two inadvertent DyKs to my credit, created a ton of impertinent stubs, was accused of sockpuppetry even in my RfA, had just about over a year of experience, add to that 6000 grandma edits or so, worse dispute resolution experience, much criticized and faulty CSD tagging behavior, a list of other net negatives that simply did not stop, and yes, I guess 23 oppose votes from a solid combination of editors, administrators and guess one current-arbitrator, many of who are people I - and the community - respect considerably. Yet, the community just about pushed me over the line - and this happened just three months back. So I do think the community takes its decisions, on the whole, with a perspective that is not as cutting as we suspect and that non-Utopian editors do still stand a chance. But yes, there have been many editors fathoms better than I am, who have been massacred at their RfAs because of simplistic reasons. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• If it was April 1 then it would be appropriate, but on other occasions it may weed out those that forget about WP:IAR where this would be one of the rules to ignore. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• The frequent focus on GAs/FAs puzzles me, since the admin tools seem to touch on every corner of wikipedia except high-quality content work. I have great respect for anybody who has the patience to hone an FA, but it strikes me as being very different to deletions, dealing with vandals, untangling disputes &c. bobrayner (talk) 10:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

GAs and FAs require commitment and are evidence of actions that build the encyclopedia. Reverting vandalism helps the encyclodpedia, but the tricky situations will likely have good faith parties at loggerheads. Having admins that have little ability with good articles is likely to lead to poor decisions when it comes to such disputes that can alienate dedicated article editors. One dedicated article editor can bring and keep an article at FA status in a way even five wikignomes frequently cannot. In a content dispute between a content creator with a history of creating GAs and an admin with a history of wikignoming at best, who would you side with? Such arguments will devolve into one about following the rule and not creating the best article. It's contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and it's a recipe for mediocrity. Better if the situation didn't come up. Better all admins had some content experience even if just one example. Lambanog (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

GAs particularly may actually have close to zero "tricky situations". My sole GA is virtually sole-author, aside from the valuable input from the GA review itself. GA and FA involvement is just extremely lazy and inappropriate shorthand for having experience of content disputes. Some experience of that is essential, though in sufficiently clueful users focussing on gnoming it's not essential that there be lots of it. Rd232 ^talk 13:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why GAs and FAs are valued so much at RfA. RfAs are supposed to determine whether or not a candidate can use the administrator tools constructively. What can you do to a Good article or Featured article with admin tools? Protection is the only thing I can think of. Experience in XfDs, CSDs, anti-vandalism, etc. are more important than having a Good article or Featured article. While they are definitely important to the growth of Wikipedia, they're not especially important when it comes to deciding whether or not an admin candidate will constructively use the administrator tools. And candidates can gain experience in making difficult decisions by participating in XfDs, as they can be difficult at times. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins use the tools as janitors but I do not want any admin going around locking pages and blocking editors in disputes if he or she has never had the experience of creating content. Ultimately, we're here to build an encyclopedia, and if they have shown little interest in doing so I don't trust them with extra tools. FA/GA contribution is one way of measuring that interest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

FAs/GAs may be one kind of content (undoubtedly the best content), but contributions to FAs/GAs would be a particularly poor proxy for admin competence because a small proportion of content is FA/GA; a small proportion of all content edits are to FAs/GAs; admin tools have a heavy emphasis on non-content work; and a lot of the thorniest content disputes naturally occur on articles which have little chance of reaching the top rung of the quality ladder. A hypothetical editor could readily spend a decade angelically trying to resolve endless disputes and mop up after vandals, SPAs, sockpuppets &c on, say, some family of articles on religion / the middle east / balkan history / music genres, without ever making a substantial contribution to an FA.

Personally, I don't mind !voters judging candidates on the basis of their content work, but I think the skills required for finessing an FA are substantially different from those required of admins (the sets of skills may not be disjoint, but the intersection A ∩ B is not huge in proportion to either A or B; of course many people have skills in both sets). I'd rather judge a candidate on how they coped with (say) a fanboy who tries to fill in the gaps on some poorly-sourced movie, or COI editors on stubby business articles, or what-have-you. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do admins have any idea what annoys regular editors? Sure there are stories of egregious abuses and cliquishness but fortunately so far in my own experience I haven't seen that much of it. Admins are generally a conscientious bunch. What's annoying is the use of rules to waylay article development or hinder the article creation process. There is a class of Wikipedia editor that has the traits of the Monday morning quarterback or backseat driver. From my observations admins with little content creation experience are the most likely to empower them. Let not the following become an apt description: Those who can, do. Those who cannot, write Wikipedia articles. Those who cannot write Wikipedia articles, become Wikipedia admins. Lambanog (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps instead add "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NODISCLAIMERS. :P Rd232 ^talk 15:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that the recent RfA is, in parts, one of the funniest things I've ever read. It's pure comedy in places. I can understand when people think that a new account showing signs of competence is the account of someone that's edited a lot in the past. It is true that some new editors sit back and read everything before the edit; but how many do? The WP:DUCK page says that if it swims like a duck, if it walks like a duck and if it quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. It could be a rabbit in disguise, but it almost certainly isn't. So when the one rabbit, disguised as a duck, does turn up at RfA; can we blame them for thinking it's just another duck? We need to assume good faith on all levels. We even need to assume good faith for those that are engaged in what people might call bad faith. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

May I just say, Flo, that your comment appears to be silly, childish, malicious, ill-timed, not well-founded in policy or guidelines, and not intended to help

I don't believe any of that, but per your AGF-of-ABF principle, isn't it something which I could say if I did believe it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand my point. If 99 out of 100 new editors don't read guidelines; then it is a logical conclusion to assume that, by the balance of probabilities, a new user with such clue and knowledge isn't a "new" editor. I'm not making judgement either way; simply pointing out that the critics have a point and are working on logic. Their methods might not be the best, but they're well founded. If one assumes bad faith of someone that is, in one's eyes assuming bad faith themselves, then one is no better than the original bad faith assumer. It's like the death penalty; by murdering murders, we're no better than the murderers themselves. Merry Christmas everyone! — Fly by Night (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The available evidence suggested that one person's early edits were competent. Perhaps not expert, but competent.

• It's a significant step from that to say that "competent newbie" = "must have edited before". I wouldn't fault people for making this step from time to time, but it does depend on the degree of competence. Using an edit summary is not a particularly high bar. (Feel free to assume the worst if somebody's first edit is a nicely-formatted !vote at a controversial AfD).
• It's an even bigger step to say that "must have edited before" = "must have edited before, and got in trouble, and decided to come back with a clean account that has not yet got in trouble, but they might do in future... so they can't be trusted with admin tools".

(Should I ever decide to run the gauntlet of RfA, which is unlikely to happen soon as my to-do list of content work resembles the Tristram Shandy paradox, it is reassuring to remember that my earliest edits were incompetent). bobrayner (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not talking about the candidate here; but about those people that think s/he may have edited before. I'm just trying to say that we should lighten up. It's understandable why they think what they do; as I've mentioned. — Fly by Night (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of things are understandable, but nonetheless wrong. As to lightening up ... well that's precisely what those with concerns should have done, rather than launching straight into max-drama allegations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but with all due respect: I think you've done the same with me. I've only tried to sound the voice or reason and look at the way you've reacted towards me. Come back here in a few days and read what you've written. There's no need for such confrontation. — Fly by Night (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Posing yourself as the voice-of-reason, against exactly what? I start from the assumption that every contributor is a voice of reason, even if I disagree with their reasons.

In this case, you made a suggest, I disagreed, and we discussed. That's how things work here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The distance between our respective positions is not huge. Can't we all just be nice to each other? bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec*3)@Fly-by-night: Hmm, I think that would neuter AGF, by rendering it inapplicable. But we'll probably have to agree to differ there.

However, on the main substance of your comment, I think you miss the point that there was a very simple solution: AGF, but ask for clarification.

Launching straight into a duck test is inappropriate without exploring other possibilities. In this case the animal did indeed have characteristics typical of a duck, but those same characteristics are typical of a rabbit. Dismissing the rabbit possibility was bad logic as well as bad manners.

You say that 99 out of 100 new editors don't read guidelines ...but 99.10763% of statistics are made up, and this one looks as dodgy as a very dodgy thing. The discussions here have shown that a significant number of participants in the RFA did indeed read the guidelines, so your 99% doesn't fit with this sample. (Consider for example the possibility that an editor submitting themselves to torture-by-fireRFA may be more likely than average to be the sort of person who does look before leaping).

Even if you think that the 99% figure is a useful guideline, there is absolutely no reason not to simply say "this worries me, but may have a benign explanation, so please clarify" ... and then await the reply. In this case the candidate was promptly tarred with sockpuppet allegations, which was both uncivil and un-necessary.

Since you talk about a form of criminal, do remember that failure to explore exceptions to a general rule is a common factor in miscarriages of justice. Scrutinise, but don't leap to a verdict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As someone who joined in March, I made it a point to read many of the guidelines in the welcome message I got. I love reading in general, and I figured that if I was to contribute to such an important website, I should know exactly what to do. My contributions for my first month or so are somewhat sporadic, as I was trying to find my niche (minor things here and there; they speak for themselves); however, after a while I found my role here on Wikipedia (New Page Patrolling), and I'm still here after 10 months with no intention of leaving. But when I think about it, I have a feeling it'll be awfully hard for me to ever become an admin; I have 6000+ edits now, but a substantial number of them are CSD tagging and UAA reports, which I've noticed here at the bear pit doesn't curry much favor. I think that people here need to remember that the guideline is assume good faith, not WP:PROVEBEYOND-ALLREASONABLEDOUBT-TOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERS-YOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH. And I really wish people didn't look for perfection; in fact, I'd rather have an admin who's made a couple of big mistakes, because that admin will be better suited to deal with users making similar or identical mistakes. Because I made a few obvious blunders when I first started NPP, when I see someone starting out on NPP make an obvious mistake I can usually figure out what happened and work it out with them; if I had never made those early mistakes, I would be more inclined to just template them and move on. But that's just my thought. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless they are so egregious as to have lead to a block in the last 12 months, early mistakes are rarely raised in RFA, especially if the editor has subsequently shown they've learned that particular lesson. When I look through a candidates speedy deletion tags I look for patterns rather then isolated examples, and I'm happy if the pattern has now improved. ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember at Thumperward's 3rd RfA, someone had raised an objection based mostly on something that happened 7-8 months before. It's that sort of thing that has me concerned; sometimes people use RfA as a vehicle to air their grievances, and it descends into a mess. Thumperward's RfA ended at 75%, despite the fact that he was clearly qualified, and it seems many other people don't want to go through RfA for the same reasons. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, Blade, now I'm going to have to remember that, and hold it against you whenever you have an RfA. Anyway, I'm glad to say that (if memory serves) my own first edit here (or something close to first) was speedied as a G8 (so I must have been particularly skillful at socking). (Tag: This entire comment was said facetiously.) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I knew that someday, my past would haunt me... ;) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Here is a good example, look At Fribblers RFA, that was just over a year ago. He had just over 3,000 edits at that time, today, that would not come anywhere near passing. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't be so sure. Panyd had around 5,700; Taelus with 2,800 wasn't all that incredibly long ago, either. Courcelles 04:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Are we whining about an RFA that has overwhelming support? Seriously??--Cube lurker (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone close an RFA

Resolved

 – Courcelles (talk · contribs) sorted it.

GSorbys second is clearly failing and per my note on the RFA just now the candidate is indicating semi-retirement. We don't need a pile on - consensus is a little clear. Instructions on how to close are linked from WP:NOTNOW if needed - please remember to update the stats pages. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero successful RfAs in December 2010?

• Well, given that December 2010 could well be the historic month when there are zero successful RfAs, it won't be long before we reach another historic month when nobody applies for the RfA process... I don't have answers, but I seriously hope editors like Mr.Wales and others out here take this issue up too seriously; and hoping that this thread is not viewed as just another perennial request (which it actually is). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well last month, Jimbo initiated this discussion on his talkpage. As far as I know, nothing has come of it yet, but maybe it will change. DC T•C 05:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• You know what else I would deem noteworthy? This is the first year since the inception of the RfA process where the Wikipedia community promoted less than 100 candidates to administrator status. As of right now, March 2010 holds the current record-low for adminship appointments per month with only two successful RfA's. It also saw the longest period of time where there were no legitemate applications (which I believe lasted just over two weeks). Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Automated maintenance tools and stabilizing rates of article creation have made continuous addition of new admins-for-life less and less necessary for the project's success. The community's toughening standards reflect that. Everything's fine. Townlake (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On the off-chance that the "Mr. Wales" Wifione was referring to might have been me (the most recently failed candidate), rather than Jimbo (who, BTW, I'm no relation to) — I do think some aspects of the RfA procedure ought to be changed, and that it's inappropriate for would-be admins to be put in the crossfire between groups of !voters who fundamentally disagree regarding the proper selection criteria or over policy interpretations that really should be hashed out somewhere else. But I'm not sure if there's any better climate now for addressing this question than there's ever been in the past — and I probably shouldn't be the one pushing for "reform" right now, lest I just seem to be a poor loser. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Based on Jimbo's question 2, I would agree that I doubt I would pass RfA post 2007. It's a sad truth that I find quite ridiculous. My RfA was based on my maintenance work, not content as is the vogue these days. Five years and ~12,500 edits wouldn't be enough because of content. C'est la guerre. I probably would have stopped caring shortly thereafter.

Instead, I passed RfA, performed nearly 4,000 admin actions, well over six hundred suppressions, several thousand emails and the opportunity to serve as a volunteer OTRS admin. This diligent volunteer work lead me to the opportunity to work for the WMF temporarily, part-time, on this Fundraising drive. You can bet I'm not in it for the paycheck or the swagger, it was all because of the trust of the community and the passion that you all share with me to support free knowledge that drives me.

I am not asserting that +sysop should just be handed out because of any personal criteria. I'm saying that it should be about trust and we've lost that. Not an article writer? You can't protect the encyclopedia. Article writer? You can't protect the encyclopedia. Over the past three years we've gone from a pack of dogs chasing each others' tails to two dogs just spinning in a circle.

Just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points. Also, I know that a number of users, myself included(!), started content building only after they were granted adminship. So lacking serious content related contributions by the time you run for admin does not mean that you are incapable of performing them. Regards SoWhy 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's unfortunate that some admins who to some extent lost touch with substantial content creation after becoming admins, in a way which negatively effected certainly their relationships with some editors and possibly their judgement as admins, has coloured RFA to the extent it has. The main thing to look for in potential admins is a level head under stress and a sufficient degree of cluefulness (which, as noted above, is not the same as a phd in policy). Rd232 ^talk 08:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you really needed someone to apply to avoid a 0 month, I would offer to run if you'd like me to as I have 5,700+ edits and 2.5 years expirience and I do fancy assisting in WP:RFPP and WP:ANI but there are a couple of issues, 1. I feel that things I have done out of ignorance in the past may be held against me and 2. There also seem to be some people I've annoyed in the distant past who don't like me very much. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As an old-timer who sort of stopped editing when bots became vogue, I'll pitch in my two cents and say that it seems like we almost expect prospective admins to be machines nowadays. If I started my time at Wikipedia on January 1, 2008 or January 1, 2009 instead of January 1, 2004, I'd be screwed right now if I went up for adminship. One two three... 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Keegan nails it. Rfa's are such a huge hazing ritual now that many of us - speaking for myself, anyway - refuse to consider it. To have to be judged by a hard core bunch of admins-for-life, who mostly got in when it was easy and wouldn't stand a ghost of a chance to pass a Rfa now is absurd. I have seen way too many borderline abusive admins, experts at gaming the system, get away with too much. (No I will not point fingers.) The failure of WP:CDA earlier this year on a questionable !vote where old-school admins tipped the balance against it shows what the score is. Watch for fewer and fewer qualified candidates for Rfa be willing to undergo the mania. Wikipedia is stuck and must change... but it can't. Jusdafax 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's not just admins. I looked at Richwales RFA (the most recent one) and most of the early opposes came from non-admins (myself included). DC 17:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jusdafax, and I've been flip-flopping on if I want to take the verbal abuse of RfA recently. CTJF83 chat 18:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing my best to put a positive spin on the experience — treating it like an intense (if brutal) "editor review on steroids", going back to work improving articles I dealt with earlier, resolving to spend more time on a regular basis looking for sources to add to articles, and adopting Twinkle for greater productivity when fighting disruptive editing. It's too early for me to be thinking about when (or if) I'll try another RfA, but I would like to hope that some improvements will have been made to the process by the time I do decide to give it another go. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• You're all glass half empty guys. Every RFA in december was successful in doing it's job.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't so much about the handful of RFAs we've had this month as about the much larger number who haven't run. A year ago we had 867 active admins, today we have 780. A loss of 10% of our active admins in 12 months is not indefinitely sustainable. We have a longstanding problem at RFA and at some point we will have to fix it. ϢereSpielChequers 19:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it will cycle. If it doesn't though, it's true 10% loss a year would not be sustainable. The source of the problem though is debateable. Some seem to have the idea that every RFA that doesn't lead to a promotion is a fantastic admin candidate that got screwed by an unfair process. A view that I don't hold.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone holds that view do they? Malleus Fatuorum 20:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not the bright people, but read the support section of train wreck candaidates. Even the worst candidates get a dozen "Cmon!!!! Why the hell not!!!!" votes.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true, but they're not always the same people, maybe just the candidate's groupies. Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that people actually profess to the viewpoint I stated. However I believe It's present in a certain group, demonstrated by certain votes & vote comments, as well as the comments that pop up here every time a few people aren't promoted. More of a subconcious belief as opposed to a political platform, if that makes any sense.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the theory that there are a dozen support votes that go to every candidate even the trainwreck ones. Since August We've had 14 dozen candidates get zero votes and 14 get 1-3 supports. By contrast only two candidates since August have had 0 opposes. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear lord, this isn't a freaking math lesson.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

If I'd just pointed out that some candidates got ten or eleven supports then yes my point would be pedantic. But even treating half a dozen supports as approximately a dozen you still have a clear pattern that many candidates get no support at all, and since August more candidates have had less than four supports than have succeeded. ϢereSpielChequers 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone ever tried to stir the pots of semi-active and inactive admins to see if any would return? There are almost a thousand of these, so even a 1% positive response would increase the number of active admins by almost as much as the last three months of RFAs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody has. It would be a tedious job, and would probably require at least four or five volunteers. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• I could very well be dead wrong but perhaps people are just not interested anymore or are discouraged? Looking back at my RFA in July, I realize how foolish I was in accepting it when I was not ready and to be quite frank, I'm not as eager to gain the bit now. Perhaps others have felt the same way or simply got discouraged because they failed the first or second time?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yep, bugger that for a game of soldiers. Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• What does that mean?--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's one of our Anglo-Saxon sayings that means the game isn't worth the candle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Are you trying to say that going through RFA is not worth obtaining the tools or something? I'm sorry but I'm still not getting it....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 01:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• It really means, "fuck that".--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's another way of putting it. And here's another; nobody needs to go through the humiliation of RfA for the sake of a few extra buttons, but wikipedia needs to keep persuading mugs to do it. So yes, I am saying that RfA isn't worth it to the candidate. Wikipedia needs to sort itself out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ah...now I get it. I've also come to realize that since July....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 03:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• You really ought not to have accepted that nomination, but that's water under the bridge now. I expect that you'll have as good a chance as anyone at your next go. Malleus Fatuorum 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If admins are needed, I will volunteer. I have 3.5 years of experience and over 10,000 edits.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Are they needed? Malleus Fatuorum 23:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Areas generally considered urgent (CSD, AFD, Unblock requests, AIV) are not currently backlogged and have not been experiencing significant backlogs recently, even though it is a very busy time of year for many, so I think we can all relax secure in the knowledge that despite not promoting any admins this month the project is not going to collapse from lack of administration. (You appear to have a fan who has just been blocked at AIV though:User:Malleus Felonius). Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to state the obvious, the number of active editors has fallen 10% over the last 12 months. It's entirely to be expected that the number of active admins would also fall by 10%. – iridescent 00:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to wonder if it is the way we treat new editors that keeps them away. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but what do we worry about most? Wikipedia can obviously do without editors, it's more administrators that are so badly needed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why was my sock he blocked? Was it collateral damage, the admin was aiming for me? Malleus Fatuorum 00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For this I imagine. AGF has a limit. – iridescent 00:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per Beeblebrox (talk · contribs), CSD has been backlogged, the other day there were over 50 pages tagged for CSD, and some pages that I tagged were not taken care of four about six hours! Or more! I have also been monitoring CAT:RFU and I have seen unblock requests stay there for a day or two, so calling them not backlogged or needing help is an understatement. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

50 articles at CSD is by no means a backlog. Often A7 alone can see 50 new nominations over ten minutes. Attack pages and other urgent matters are being removed quickly. That is what is most important, not the impatience that seems more and more to be a common characteristic of new page patrollers. Speedy deletion is not and never has been "instant" deletion, if a page on a non-notable garage band takes a few hours to get deleted it's no big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I delirious with fever, or wasn't the backlog level of CSD set at 75 not all that long ago? Anything can look backlogged if you lower the bar for what constitutes a backlog. Courcelles 03:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It's often at close to 200, so I'm not sure what he's talking about.  f o x  10:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

We should have at least a few non-SNOW RfA's coming, per this. Perhaps they've seen this thread, or perhaps it's just a coincidence. —Soap— 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is this: go, Grondemar, go! --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, one is better than zero any month. When was the last month we had only one RfA passing? Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Never Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Possibly December 2002, but records are a bit flaky that far back and it's possible that Jimbo may also have appointed an admin that month. ϢereSpielChequers 12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem solved, sorta. One is better than none, right? Reach Out to the Truth 00:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorta.  狐 FOX  00:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I emailed Jimbo a year or so ago to tell him that many of the adult admins had gone inactive and that something needed to be done about it. He wrote back and told me that I was a major part of the problem. So, there it is. Anyway, I'll say it again, administering Wikipedia appears to me, in the long run, to promise nothing but disappointment and disillusionment to admins. There is no formal structure to ensure that decisions get ratified as best practices or standard procedures. There are no formal mechanisms to standardize routine and repetitive decision-making and for dealing with bullying cabals of editors who try to intimidate admins who oppose them. Cla68 (talk) 02:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Maybe Jimbo isn't interested in all of this back room stuff. The user interface part of the project can function with half of the number of admins that we have today. Yes, RfA is broken, but is that really a problem? It is if you want to become an admin. The encyclopaedia will work perfectly well for many years to come. Maybe if there was less back room bureaucracy, and less guidelines, then the admins could get on with things. It's only an idea. Instead of worring about admins we should worry about users too. I've been on here a year and I'm ready to jump ship. Nothing goes anywhere. Every proposal is shot down. People are rude to each other, when that rudeness doesn't bring about change but it maintains the status quo. Let's all get back to editing, for that's what really matters. That's what I'm going to do. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin really is kind of a "golden turd." You can make thousands upon thousands of admin actions that pass by without comment, then the second anyone so much as perceives a decision you have made as flawed they begin to scream for your head. The same things happens at RFA. One mistake, or perceived mistake, or action that is supported by one policy and contravened by another, and ten thousand good edits are suddenly forgotten. Most places on this earth an error rate of 1-5% is considered damn good, but the RFA regulars for some reason demand more better than that. As has been mentioned here before though, you get an extremely skewed view of what the whole of WP is like if you only hang around here at the snake pit or at ANI and ArbCom. There are still thousands upon thousands of positive contributions made to articles every day. I think my New Years Resolution this year is going to include spending less time in these endless policy discussions that don't go anywhere and more time working with articles. Like most of us, I didn't actually get into editing Wikipedia because I am really interested in policy discussions, but rather because I wanted to help build the best damn encyclopedia the world has ever seen. Despite all the behind the scenes crap that goes on and how jaded many of us have become with it I still believe in that ideal. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The admin experience of wikipedia is hardly any different from the rank and file's experience, with one exception. When an admin makes that "flawed decision" the ranks close, wagons are circled, and excuses are made; when a non-admin makes that decision they're blocked. As long as administrators believe themselves to have been appointed as a police force then this project will continue its slow and inevitable decline. Malleus Fatuorum 05:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• In my opinion, one of the major reasons that the RfA system is failing is because admins are nowadays expected to be active in essentially all aspects of the project - even aspects that don't require sysop tools, such as content creation and improvement. I think that this is coming out of an over-valuing of adminship - I've seen this happen on many a Wikia wiki with kids, but I guess it can happen with mature adults as well. To put it bluntly, people are seeing adminship as something special because admins have a longer list of rights. Most sysop tools are used for countervandalism - none are used for content creation and improvement. I have seen some people arguing that knowing how to write content allows for greater wisdom when dealing with edit wars, page protection, etc. Experience in those areas is what allows a candidate to do well in them, not experience in content creation and improvement. Now, I'm not just saying this because I want to be an admin but can't because I'm stupid and don't know what to write about. I have no desire to waste even more of my time mopping up this wiki. What I do know is that the RfA system on Wikipedia is broken - adminship is being over-valued, and as stated above, candidates are expected to be machines. No mistakes, active 24/7, thousands of edits (none automated). Some have stated that it is not important if the RfA system is broken, and that we should get back to editing. We are rapidly approaching a point of not having enough admins to have vandals blocked in reasonable time, amongst other areas that require sysop tools. We need users with access to block, delete, protect, etc. to maintain the integrity of the content of the encyclopedia just as much as we need people improving it. It all boils down to this: Adminship is not a big deal, and we collectively need to work to reduce the aura that surrounds it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  • There is of course an asymmetry in your argument; if it's no big deal then why is it so hard to remove? Malleus Fatuorum 17:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Personally, I think that an admin that has not used his tools in one year should have them removed. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      • At least an administrator who does not use the tools is less likely to actually do harm. Malleus is right (yeah, you can quote me on that!). Although there are definitely a number of unreasonable opposes at some RfAs, what I think Ajraddatz overlooks is that some users, quite rationally, are concerned that someone who hasn't demonstrated the ability to work through complicated disagreements over content might turn out to make bad decisions about blocks and such—not blocks for vandalism, but in trying to deal with complicated disagreements over content. Administrators are indeed called upon to do that, sometimes. Now don't get me wrong, my opinion is that most do it with integrity, but a few end up conducting themselves in ways that the community wishes there were an RfA revert button. I wish there were a lot less nitpicking over content during RfA, but it's reasonable to insist that a candidate have a track record of dealing with conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
        • It shouldn't be hard to remove - this is the only wiki that I know of that doesn't allow bureaucrats to remove sysop rights. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Commons doesn't either. Juliancolton (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Emoticons

Is it okay if I use emoticons for my vote on the RFA? Baseball Watcher ^{Lets Chat} 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Angry1.gif

It's high time we had an illustration for this talk! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't resist replying to this: I guess it's no more objectionable than saying per someone else. But you might want to consider, instead, actually writing out the reasons for your vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It would only be considered objectionable if you were to oppose. Any old rubbish is perfectly acceptable in the support column. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about that - I've seen some pretty stupid or crass opposes which have received no comments! However, I would say that a reasoned argument - whether a support or an oppose - would be preferable to emotions. -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 22:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not know that, but I do. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA is often a bitter place full of dysfunctional people. There are no rules against using emocons, and I've seen it before. That being said, don't be surprised if a bitter and/or dysfunctional person gets upset. The rules may be on your side, but this is RfA, which occasionally feels like it's straight out of a Charles Lutwidge Dodgson or Norton Juster book. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

Why does everyone always leave the line "Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here" in place and follow it with the acceptance? Surely one should delete it and replace it with one's acceptance. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

By nature, people follow the pattern of established examples. Therefore, your suggestion is certainly valid, but to your question, "Why", it is undoubtedly related to the tendency I've enunciated. That is just my opinion, thanks for considering it as well. My76Strat 19:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It was meant as a rhetorical question. It's obvious that people do it because everyone else does it: as I said "Why does everyone always...". It always comes across as silly to me. It's like those Microsoft Word Wizards they used to do. It'd say "Type address here", but one wouldn't leave that line in place; one would delete it, and replace it with one's own address. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Best examples are the instructions that get left in by people who use the New Article Creation Wizard.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Very true - you can always tell an Article Creation Wizard article when you see it. "New article name is..." :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 23:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Question time (again)

With some of the talk during December I began to feel bursts of enthusiasm that something might eventually change at RfA. I see however that no sooner have the New Year fireworks ended their lives as black smudges in the snow, that we have again entered the silly season for so called 'optional' questions. How long does a New Year party hangover last? It's my guess that we are going to see a continued drop in RfA from mature, experienced candidates in 2011. I hope I'm wrong though. --Kudpung (talk) 11:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a particular rise in number of questions. I haven't looked at the question quality though... AD 13:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

At the end of this month, we can look at the records of 2010's January RfAs and compare and contrast them to this year's January RfAs. We can also do this for each successive month; February, March, etc. At the end of the year, we can see if there really is a major decline in RfA activity, and if there is, we can do our best to correct the problems in the current RfA process. And I concur with Aiken Drum; I don't see a rise in the number of optional questions, either. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually mention RfA activity. I said '...from mature, experienced candidates.'--Kudpung (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you're saying we're going to see a decrease in mature candidates, so do you think that we're going to see an increase in immature candidates at RfA? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite see how that question enters into the equation, and don't understand its relevance here. SNOW and NOTNOW are good faith RfA from users who don't understand the first thing about RfA, or worse, think that they are applying to be moderator of some internet forum. There is of course absolutely no way at all of predicting their frequency. It's something we just have to take in our stride. We can't predict accurately the total number of serious RfA for 2011 either. Much depends on whether participants (!voters) will understand that the drop is due (as appears to have been demonstrated in earlier parts of this discussion) to the incivility, and the trick and irrelevant 'optional' questions, and not necessarily to the bar being set to high. Kudpung (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a record here?

Ironholds appears to have done it at last, on his seventh nomination. Has anyone else ever gotten in after so many attempts? I don't think so but maybe I'm not remembering one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Be patient. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I seriously laughed out loud to that. Certain more rotund members of our 'crat team haven't closed an RFA in years after all; I'm sure a slender crat will belong shortly to close it..... Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, now it's being closed, and obviously the crat has no choice but to promote, so back to my original question: is seven a record for passing RFA? Has anyone ever even run eight times? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has run 8 times. One person has failed 7 times. Name withheld to protect the guilty. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

(e.c.) If a 'crat fails the RfA at 96% support, I suspect that would be a certain record for highest support in an unsuccessful RfA – not that that is a record Ironholds would want to hold, of course... EdChem (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

They just flipped his switch, we have our first admin of 2011. Since nobody seems to know for sure I am going to go ahead and believe that this is the record. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

He's tied with Jaranda. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the person behind the Jaranda account went through RfA a couple more times than that - 9, I think, including another username - plus IIRC they claimed they'd try to get the mop directly from arbcom (or whoever) when the most recent RfA didn't turn out how they wanted. Personally, I'd count that as an additional attempt to get the mop. It's hard to keep track of all the drama; I may have miscounted, and there might even be another username that I'm not aware of. Had I known the full history at the most recent RfA, I would have hit the "oppose" button, and I think other editors might too. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that Jaranda also requested adminship via ArbCom – I haven't checked whether s/he actually did that – but including Aranda56, Jaranda went through 7 RFAs in just 9 months before being promoted. However, Jaranda lost (or resigned) his/her admin rights a few times, and eventually went through a reconfirmation RFA in July 2007, which was closed as successful. Jaranda then retired in September that year. HeyMid (contribs) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The highest percentage support in an unsuccessful RfA in the last three years, excluding withdrawn ones, is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWY2190 at 75%. Hut 8.5 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I wondered about this sort of thing some time ago and created User:Useight/Multiple RFXs, but it's out of date and likely missing information. Useight (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry I won't run for another RFA again as my illness prevents me from running, I have to go though ArbCom. If I'm forced to run again I won't look at my RFA and answer the questions from my talk page, which means I would never pass. That's what happened with all these RFA I can't handle the stress of RFA. I could handle the tools though, as it's not stressful. Lets avoid my name here please. Secret ^account 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Others had avoided mentioning your current username, until you replied. Apparently you're now leaving the project, as you have many times before; perhaps not the best way to renounce drama, but that's your choice. You don't have to leave. You are, like many thousands of other editors, still welcome to improve encyclopædia articles - surely that should be a priority for every editor. If you want to stop hanging around at RfA, that's fine by me; if you want to spend time improving content, even better. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not leaving I just started a new account that ArbCom knows. I want to start off fresh without the drama hanging over my shoulder, eventually people will catch up that it's me because I have no other interests other than sports articles. (I signed off on purpose) 131.94.55.108 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

New account? Well, that's your choice and I hope you do much more productive work on articles. But why would you tell arbcom about it? They don't really need to be involved in a clean start - unless, of course, you plan to apply for adminship again. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I got desysopped by ArbCom so they should know, and I'm not planning to apply for adminship again for a long time, and if I do get the tools back, it's by ArbCom. 131.94.186.20 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Who are you? HeyMid (contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That shouldn't be difficult to figure out based on the comments in this thread. However, revealing the new account (which would link it to the old account) would defeat the purpose. Useight (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWBCPBot

Input would be appreciated at this bot request, as the bot will require administrative privileges. Please also see WP:ADMINBOT. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA activity is decreasing

I understand that this has already been established, and there's probably something along these lines in the archives, but I wanted to get some discussion going on this again. I've done a quick tally of successful vs unsuccessful RfAs from 2005 to 2010. The data is below:

• In 2005, there were 387 successful and 213 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 600 people had an RfA in 2005, and of these, about 65% were successful.
• In 2006, there were 353 successful and 543 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 896 people had an RfA in 2006, and of these, about 39% were successful.
• In 2007, there were 408 successful and 512 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 920 people had an RfA in 2007, and of these, about 44% were successful.
• In 2008, there were 201 successful and 392 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 593 people had an RfA in 2008, and of these, about 34% were successful.
• In 2009, there were 121 successful and 234 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 355 people had an RfA in 2009, and of these, about 34% were successful.
• In 2010, there were 75 successful and 155 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 230 people had an RfA in 2010, and of these, about 33% were successful.
  • As you can see, there was a large decline in successful RfAs between 2005 and 2006. A small increase occurred between 2006 and 2007, but the percentage dropped about 10% between 2007 and 2008.
  • The number of candidates increased between 2005 and 2007, but the number of candidates fell sharply between 2007 and 2008. The number has been decreasing steadily ever since.
  • Somewhere between 2007 and 2008, something happened that caused the number of candidates to decrease. I think it's important to know what caused this sharp decline in candidates so it can be corrected.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed that at least part of it was that up to 2007, the number of active editors had increased, but from then on has been falling. See File:Activeusersenglishwikipedia2.png.  -- Lear's Fool 15:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading the graph, the blue line indicates editors with 5+ edits, correct? That's where the sharpest decline is. Potential admin candidates would be the purple line, which indicates editors with 100+ edits. The data shows that that particular number has increased only very slightly decreased. Again, I may have misread the graph; please let me know if I did. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the rate of new admins will be related to the number of new editors, not to the number of current editors. Since 2007, the rate at which we gain editors has fallen dramatically, and so there will be fewer editors reaching the level of experience required to become an administrator. There are, no doubt other factors, but this one should be easier to quantify.  -- Lear's Fool 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point there. But I do think that something else besides the fact that we have less active new users is causing this decline in candidates. It may be that we have unintentionally made our expectations stricter than they were in 2005, for example, or 2006. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The number of new users is a red herring. The number of new users each week will increase for a certain period until the number of users, amongst possible users, becomes a majority. Then the system will tend towards a saturation point where we have less and less new users because almost everyone that could use Wikipedia does use it. Imagine a month with not a single new user, but when everyone in the world already was a user! We have to study how many active users there are, i.e. the number of people stopping editing is just as important. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought of something. If you look at the level of activity by new users in September 2009, it's about the same as it was in June or July of 2006. However, less candidates ran in 2009 than in 2006. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are a few other things some good numbers could help with:

• What percentage of admins promoted during the "looser" periods (where a higher percentage of RfA attempts passed) have since been sanctioned (including being placed under ArbCom restrictions related to admin actions, involuntarily desysopped, successfully recalled, or found to have "resigned under a cloud"), in comparison to those promoted during the "tighter" periods?
• Have the number of administrative actions reversed by ArbCom or community consensus decreased since the "tightening"? (This one would be hard to nail down, but awfully instructive).
• Have the backlogs on tasks requiring administrator intervention become more or less severe in duration, frequency, and occurrence?

I suspect, that if a lot of people I know to be awfully good admins were to run today, they wouldn't pass. Given that, I think we need to know if the "standard tightening" is worth losing potentially good candidates. Has it really made things run that much more smoothly? If it's really worked, maybe there is something to be said for it. If not, we may actually do better to pass more admins with different talents in different areas, and perhaps encourage people to have less rigid requirements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Our "tight standard" policy isn't really doing anything good, as one can see by the numbers in my first post. Perhaps we could do as you suggested and encourage people to stop being so stringent towards potential admin candidates. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yawn. Until someone figures how to reduce the impact of the absurd standards that many RFA regulars use I don't see how we can actually fix anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Remember when I suggested we lower standards? If not, I could probably find it in the archives. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. Maybe asking bureaucrats to vet candidates is one thing we could do. There are some bitter people on RfA that have failed, or that would never pass, that don't want to see people pass. There are some people on RfA that don't understand the job and what properties an admin should possess. I'm tempted to say that admins and bureaucrats should vet the candidates because they're the only ones that really know what qualities are required; but asking admins might lead to a conflict of interest. I don't know. But we need to get rid of bitterness, spite and ignorance. RfA would be a better place without those three things. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Perhaps, if there are so many biased and rude opposes that the candidate can't pass, a bureaucrat could make the final decision? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that what they're already supposed to do? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Bureaucrats currently decide close calls, such as RfAs with 70% of support. What if there was a pile-on of biased and bite-y opposes, and the candidate only got 40% support? Instead of failing the RfA, the bureaucrat could look at it and count how many of the opposes didn't use the bite-y excuse, and make the decision from there. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In my recollection they already do that in the case of former administrators for instance, who are not expected to meet the 70% barrier, as it's become a meme that all good administrators will make enemies. The bad ones will for sure, which is where the trouble starts. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that 70% is too strict? Could we slightly lower the percentage to, say, 65%? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Might lead to a conflict of interest"? Wake up and smell the coffee. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wheeling out mindless, old clichés isn't the most constructive response to someone making an effort and putting forward their thoughts. It's gone 11pm in the UK and I don't even like coffee. Get a grip! — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of the opposes in some recent RFA's are about on incident, a disagreement, or just because the editor does not like the candidate, and opposes for some silly reason. Everyone has a different view on what it takes to be an admin, some people are very strict, 5,000 edits, a FA, and lots of content work, others not so much. It is personal opinion, which, can be an issue. If there was a set "standard" (if we could ever agree on one) maybe that would be better. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

One incident can be one incident too many. Until there's an easy-in, easy-out then there's no way that RfA can possibly be made to work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But should one incident really be held against a user? Have we overlooked all the good that the person has done? Or do we go right to the bad, it sure seems that. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just the way it works, in fact the way that life works. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A change of the passing percentage is something that needs looking at. A man can be president of a nuclear armed state with 51%. But to have some extra buttons on a website you need at least 70% to be confident? You can undo a deletion while you can't undo a nuclear attack. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You need 51% of a much larger number :) -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's totally, and utterly, irrelevant. That's why percentages were invented. You may well have 51% of more people, but you'll also have 49% of more people that don't approve. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may want to calculate and compare the probabilities of getting a 70% success rate out of a population of 30 people (21+) where the probability of each individual success is 40% against the probability of getting a 51% success rate of 131,000,000 people where the success rate is, let's say, 49.9%. Which is more likely? (Unless I'm wrong, I think you'll need to use the normal approximation with continuity correction for the second, which is actually more accurate than the Poisson approximation for the first, I believe). -- Avi (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, 49% who do approve but just prefer the other guy. Unlike presidential candidates, RFA candidates have no competition, they just have to convince people they'd do a good job. The percentage should be higher when you've got no competition. (Not to mention that, assuming you were referring to US presidents, they get to be voted out again.)--BelovedFreak 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Figures, who came up with 70% anyway? When was that "set", and evan at 70%, many go as no consensus. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think it should be changed at least to 65%. But, knowing what other people think of my ideas, probably nobody will agree with me. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Whats the difference, 65, 70, peeh, I don't think anything different will happen. Maybe lower? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lower? I agree with you, but I don't think anything lower than 65% could get past the rest of this courtroom. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

65% is an improvement on 70%. Big changes are made little by little. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea has always been that administrators need to have the trust of a significant majority of the community. If more than 30% of the folks commenting at any given RfA, for whatever (sincere and considered) reason don't have that trust in any given potential administrator, that's probably not a good sign. Lowering the percentage might slightly increase the number of folks foolish enough to put themselves up for public ridicule, but I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. jæs (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that "public ridicule" may be the key phrase there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's the public ridicule aspect, although for a few yes, and especially if first time doesn't work out. But mainly it could be that the RFA process is not something that article editors encounter. It seems that plenty of potential admins are floating around just doing good work without a thought for being an admin. What is all the work they would do as an admin anyway? I'm not aware there is a requirement for more admins. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's the case. If it was, how do you explain the fact that 920 users had an RfA in 2007? The data doesn't match your claim. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Public ridicule" is the key phrase there. Enough users have clearly stated that it's the reason they won't run the gauntlet. Along with the often unfair and irrelevant 'optional' questions, and the general incivility.Kudpung (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be on to something. The nitpicking that opposers tend to do almost always borders on incivil. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Public ridicule" sums it up. I really don't feel the need for some 14-year-old kid to question my maturity, to say nothing of the many revenge votes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't really know. I'm guessing that there is no need anymore. I wasn't here pre 2007 so can't comment on why so many previously applied, was RFA generally advertised in some place back then? Since 2007 there always seems to be an abundance of admins, even excessively so at places like ANI and few tasks obvious on the content side that require the mop. Could it be that amazing tools such as User:ClueBot unleashed in 2007 have removed most of the need of the admin power. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I also reject the notion that we are desperately short on admins an there is an impending crisis. This has come up here again and again, yet the supposed crisis has failed to materialize. However I do like the idea of lowering the threshold to 65%, and lowering the "discretionary zone" still further along with it. As it stands now anyone above 75% always gets in, anyone below 65% does not, and in between we go do the crat chat to resolve. I suggest the bar be 55% for a crat chat, as it is still a clear majority but not quite a two-thirds supermajority. 65% is a more reasonable bar, and an achievable change as it not too drastic. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers provided some pretty convincing stats and a highly rational exposé in Signpost - people seem to have forgtotten that. The thresholds are fine where they are. It's the quality of the !voting that needs looking at and the silly 'optional' questions that are deliberately designed to faze even the most mop-deserving candidate into submission, or cause follow-my-leader pile-ons. Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I can't find that; can someone link to it please? Unless it's just a transclusion of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, which I've seen. —Soap— 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I found it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats. I just didn't look back far enough in history. —Soap— 13:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that thresholds are not the problem, and the stats showed that changing them would make little difference. We do not have a plummeting success rate, but we do have a steadily falling application rate.

The problem is the mauling at RFA which puts off more candidates from applying. Even exceptionally good candidates must feel like they have spent a week in the stocks on a very busy village green well-stocked with rotten tomatoes, while borderline candidates go through an experience that would make stay in Gitmo seem appealing.

I recently asked an experienced editor to accept a nomination. He took a look at a few recent RFAs, and said "no way" ... and since this editor is no shrinking violet, I cannot believe that his response is unusual.

Reform of the process would not be complicated. One possibility is reducing the week-in-the-stocks element by requiring questions to be endorsed by more than one editor before moving to the main RFA page; another possibility is to turn the whole process into a more structured form of decision-making, either by examining the candidate under pre-defined headings, or an RFC-style process of discussing various motions.

But at this point, I still think that Jimbo is right to suggest it's worth trying to untie the knot of editors imposing high standards because adminship is open-ended. I have previously suggested trying a process of initially-limited-term adminship, where a first RFA is for a limited period. It may not be a long-term solution, but we could learn a lot from seeing how much that helped everyone to relax a bit ... and for now we are stuck in an impasse where even modest trial reforms are rejected because they won't instantly solve everything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A limited term admin process could work, but how would that attract more candidates? We also need to find out how to attract more candidates. Although we're not short on admins, we are short on candidates. Perhaps we could put up advertisements on the most viewed Wikipedia pages? I think somebody said this before me; I can't remember who it was. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that by making RfA less arduous, you encourage more candidates. I don't think there's a lack of awareness of RfA, just a lack of people willing to put themselves through the process. Using limited-terms for first RfA would be an interesting experiment, but is obviously susceptible to being gamed. But this page never achieves consensus on how to change the RfA process, so I think efforts should be focused on changing (somewhat) the nature of adminship. For instance, if admin recall could be made binding (this doesn't mean compulsory)—that is, any user who pledges to be open to recall at their RfA is forced to remain so, and forced to be de-adminned if they are not reconfirmed—then I would be far far more liberal in my support for people. Since there's currently no obligation, then there's always an element of doubt. Trebor (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be right, but how will making recall stricter cause an increase in the number of candidates that put themselves forward at RfA? As Kudpung and BHG said, people aren't putting themselves forward because of the borderline incivility and ridiculously difficult optional questions. At this point, I think that writing definite RfA !voting and questioning guidelines is the solution to this problem. Any suggestions as to how to follow-up on this? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think that going to a two-tiered system (6 months to a year of the initial term, followed by a confirmation for permanent status) would accomplish both needs. Voters might go easier on candidates they can revisit later on. But it does nothing about some of the other problems that show themselves here regularly. There can't possibly be too many admins, and the only real way to counter the impression of admins as an elite class of users is to have them be so common that it is not seen as a special status. But I still think that we need to modify the entire definition of adminship so that it is, by policy, viewed as a status. We need to establish that there are behaviors that rise to the level of "conduct unbecoming" of that status. This acknowledgment of the obvious would then allow for ArbCom to remove adminship for actions that do not involve the direct use of the admin tools, but reflect poorly on the admin corps and the project as a whole. As long as "misuse of the tools" is the only viable cause for removal, I believe that the high standards will remain an issue at RfAs. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You make a good point, but the question still stands: how are we going to do this? As I suggested, I think that writing guidelines for !voting and questioning is a good solution. Also, perhaps we could try and think of other means by which to "de-admin" administrators? Others may disagree, however. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have said over and over again that the arb committee serves as a place to review tool use for those concerned with how admins use tools. I generally incorporate that in terms of how I vote and comment here. For some reason that seems to get lost in the noise somewhere, and seems to me to be a straightforward fact that might make some folks give more editors a bit of a chance (????). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your claim isn't lost, it's just that too many of us see the reality. Can you honestly still claim this after arbcoms most recent deriliction of duty?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think a lot of us would like to see ArbCom fulfill that role, but we are not convinced that they are actually doing it, as opposed to talking about doing it. Casliber, if you can move the Committee in the direction of doing a better job of that, I and (I suspect) many other users would be very happy to see that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's just not forget that the reason candidates are not coming forward has nothing to do with ARBCOM, probationary periods, recall, raising or lowering the bar. It's all due to the silly questions, the bickering, and the general drama. I think the first steps are as The Utahraptor echoes the sentiment of many: writing guidelines for !voting and questioning is a good solution. The fist rule would be that the additional questions are genuinely optional, candidates should only answer them if they think it would enhance their chances. That would put an end to the trick and silly questions. Best of all of course, would be to go back to old days and have no extra questions at all. I'm convinced that some of these questions are posed by people who are just trying to be clever and show off their own knowledge (or lack of it). Too many of them are posed by people who don't have an inkling of what adminship is all about, but can nevertheless cause the pile-ons and make a trainwreck out the candidature of a most mop-deserving editor. --Kudpung (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So straight up/down voting without the silly pretense of community discussion. I'll pass.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We can add as many disclaimers as we like to "This question is only optional", but as far as RfA outcomes are concerned, I think that truly optional questions are only possible with a change in how many !voters think; and that would be rather difficult to engineer. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposals: change how questions are asked

Okay, so reading the above there does seem--and this is unprecedented--that there is broad agreement regarding the general uselessness/hazing of the 'optional' questions. We all know these questions, except for silly ones about haikus and favourite elements, are truly not optional. Given the fundamental impossibilities of changing behaviour or the admin-for-life concept, it seems logical to change the process by which we question the candidates. So, three proposals. I would ask that for the sake of showing support or opposition to these proposals, everyone look on the bright side, and assume for now that we can achieve consensus to make them work; one of the major roadblocks on Wikipedia is the "naah, can't work, oppose" mentality that prevents even trying something new. Supporting does not mean immediate implementation, it is merely an indication of which avenue(s) we should pursue. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To begin I disagree that there is "broad agreement". There's agreement within a narrow group that comes to this page to complain that RFA is too hard.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is a statement of fact and a realisation of the truth. It is too hard! — Fly by Night (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is of course somewhat contradicted by all the complaints about how hard it is to get rid of a bad admin. If it is so hard, logically only the most qualified would get in. Logic of course is often out of the picture in the back rooms of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Just because it's hard to get through doesn't mean that those that do get through are qualified for the job. The point is that RfA, i.e. a selection process, is broken. Let me make an extreme example to make the point: what if those that represent the USA in the 100 metre sprint at the Olympics have to throw a shot put 75 feet to qualify? That's almost impossible to do but, even if you did manage it, you needn't be a good 100 metre sprinter. As I've said, there's some level of bitterness and spite involved, it's partly a popularity contest. None of that has to do with being a good admin. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fact" and "Truth" are often worlds apart. See WP:TRUTH--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to use a dictionary to understand the meaning of words. Princeton say that a truth is a fact that has been verified. So I can't see how they are often worlds apart. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Standardized questions

Each year, members are elected to ArbCom with a slate of standardized questions that are generated by the community. These questions are designed to gauge potential Arb attitudes towards various policies, decisions made throughout the year, and so on. Likewise, a set of questions aiming at finding out potential admin attitudes regarding admin functions: blocking, deleting, protecting. We could use either hypothetical examples, or historical situations which involved complex decision-making. (I would also note a personal preference to include the frequent "what are some reasons someone shouldn't vote for you?" question; it shows introspection and self-awareness, something sorely lacking in many admin/candidates.)

The benefits to this are multiple: we will see what the candidate's attitudes are, and even more important, we will be able to assess their responses in comparison to the responses of others.

There is a potential downside, inasmuch as candidates could over time game the system by parroting answers. Easy enough to foil; come up with half a dozen questions that explore each admin function, and only ask two per RFA. Or something.

• I admire that you're putting forward some proposals, but I can't see what the proposal is here. Is it that we ask a candidate why people shouldn't vote for them? Could you please be more explicit? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I was explicit. Please read the sentence starting with 'likewise.' → ROUX ₪ 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The sentance you mention is 18 words long, and the post was 177 words long. Without you telling me what your point was, I wouldn't have known. I'm sorry, but I don't call that explicit. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure why you're being a jerk about this. The sentence is perfectly clear, particularly when one notes the preamble, outlining a similar process. Oh well, your failure to read clear English isn't really my problem. → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, it wasn't at all clear to me. I'm sorry for expressing an interest and actually wanting to know what you wanted to say. I'll leave you to it next time. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Vetted questions

Though it failed, this is a decent model. We can see where it went wrong (way the hell too many questions), and fix those problems. I propose a modified version of what happened there: candidate indicates their candidacy, community has five (four, seven, three, whatever) days to come up with questions. The community then votes S/O, top 10 net supports are the questions the candidate answers. After answering all the questions, voting begins and lasts however many days. Think of this proposal as closer to filling out an application for a job.

Proposal 3: Hybrid approach

Take the two proposals above, mix in a blender. Perhaps lower the number of vetted questions to 5. I personally feel this is the best approach, as it allows us to examine commonalities across candidates, while still asking questions tailored to the specific situation.

Proposal 4: No optional questions

Encourage voters to do research on candidates, and to vote based on what the candidate has actually done rather than how responsive they are to an RFA quiz. If a voter must ask a candidate a question, let that happen on a talk page somewhere.

Proposal 5: move all optional questions to the talk page

A simple, achievable change. Using a talk page format instead of the "exam" format currently used will allow easy back-and-forth between the candidate and those asking the questions. Also users who want clarification on a point can just ask instead of doing something like putting a !vote in the neutral section to pressure a candidate to provide a better answer. It might help, it might not, but it would be easy to implement and if it didn't do any good it could be just as easily reversed.

Comments

• Comment. I'm not sure that I buy the opening premise that there is really consensus that we have to fix the questions. And I'd be reluctant to go too far in restricting anyone's ability to ask questions. No one's ability to choose to disregard questions is currently being restricted. As a general observation, I wish those who make a habit of asking these questions would, voluntarily, adopt a policy of "first, do no harm" before posting the questions to the page. Perhaps it would be a good idea to modify the second, vetting, option to still allow questions while the RfA is in process, but to ask that a second user endorse a question before it can be posted. In other words, if no one else sees merit in your question, it shouldn't be used. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• CommentWouldn't it just be easier to have crats disregard any opposes that cite unanswered optional questions as a reason for opposition? Then the questions would truly be optional, and there would be no need to create complex rules governing questions and their formulation. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's a nice idea, but if people know that citing an unanswered question as a reason for an oppose will mean their oppose will be discounted then they'll just find another reason. The search for a new reason being motivated by the unanswered question. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that RFA is broken, and I agree that the question section is distracting editors from assessing the candidate's edits. Though questions can be useful if they are based on diffs found in a candidate's edits. And reforming the question section is distracting from some of the sillier aspects of the current RFA process, such as opposes based on the percentage of automated edits. I would probably oppose a candidate who didn't have any manual edits, but a candidate who has 10,000 manual edits and 30,000 huggle edits may have only 25% manual edits... But have far more substantial contributions than a candidate with 7,500 manual edits and 2,500 automated ones. In my view the quality of the manual edits is the thing that really matters, and I don't see how doing tens of thousands of huggle edits reduces the value of a candidate's manual edits. ϢereSpielChequers 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I would agree that there are some problems around optional questions, but I think it important to have the capacity to ask questions that are tailored to the question rather than "generic". Sometimes we get specialist candidates who are focussed on a particular niche, and they could be grilled on subjects which the average candidate knows little about. Sometimes we get candidates with an unusual personal history and it's reasonable to ask a question specific to that (for instance: "You got in trouble a couple for X, Y, and Z of years ago; how can we trust you as an admin who might work with X or Y or Z?"). So, out of those options, I would prefer 2 or 3. I'm not sure that this is the best solution to RfA's problems, but if this approach has potential to mitigate the problems, I'm happy to jump on board. bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Since comparisons are made above to the process for the ArbCom elections, perhaps it would be worth considering some of the other approaches used in those elections:
  1. Each editor is permitted only one question on the candidate page.
  2. Questions are limited in length, which precludes the "one question" from being a multi-part monster.
  3. Questions must be candidate-specific, not repeats of questions asked of every candidate.
  4. Questions may not be redundant to those already asked by others.
  5. Questions that do not meet these criteria may be entertained on the talk page if the candidate wishes.
  6. Questions are not vetted in advance, but they are subject to amendment or removal if they do not follow the rules.

I think these may actually be more useful ideas for RFA than any of the proposals above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I would disagree on some of these points. Obviously, users shouldn't be asking five or six questions to every candidate (those users will, I suspect, quickly be "dealt with"), but I think the issue is more on the type of questions. I try not to ask the common "What's the difference between a block and a ban" because it's overused and should be basic enough. I don't like asking things about when someone should be blocked without warnings unless it's a regular part of the area of work in which the admin indicates interest (SPI, AIV, etc.). And using the same questions over and over is not something I like, but it's OK to reuse them occasionally—just not every single RfA for the sake of asking questions. I personally prefer two types of questions: ideological/philosophical ones, from which I try to better understand the candidates "approach" to editing and I usually gain insight into the candidate's work; and situational questions, which is where I disagree about the length concern. For example, there is no issue with a multipart question of a long one—it's Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where really complicated and long-winded drama occurs. Shielding an admin from a BLP mess a week before it could happen won't help. Sure, we should be more tolerant toward honest mistakes within answers to complex questions, but that's something for a crat to weigh in closing the RfA. I agree that redundant questions are not needed, and that the talk page is always open—RfA talk pages should be used more, I think. But removing questions isn't necessary in my opinion; additional questions are meant to be optional and if a candidate feels uncomfortable answering one, they don't need to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, but your last sentence is completely unconnected with reality. There is no such thing as an optional question at RFA. Yet again, we may call them optional, and that may well be an ideal to which we should aspire. In the real (ahem) world, they are about as optional as flair. Again... you want to change behaviour. That is vanishingly unlikely. The only way to change the behaviour is to change the stimuli presented. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I know they're only called optional now, but if people actually treat them as optional ... well, that's changing behavior, as you say. Which is why I don't think there's an RfA problem, just the usual problem of an individual's behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've added my own proposal (#5) as a simple solution not requiring any complicated vetting or other new rules, just a slight change of venue to encourage discussion with the candidate as opposed to an interrogation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• The problem with standardised questions is that the areas where admins can work are numerous and not everyone intends on working in every single area. Someone who is good at closing AFDs might not intend on working in say copyright or username violations, or even CSD. Either we'd have questions which would not be relevant to the candidate, or the questions would be so general as to be of little use. I made it clear in my RFA which areas I would and would not work in, and the optional questions reflected my areas of interest and thus adapted to my candidacy. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: We don't need to make any changes to RfA itself

I dislike "RfA issue" threads and proposals, but I'm making one anyway. I think there's no "RfA problem". What the problem is, is specific users badgering other users because they think certain opinions are stupid. It's an opinion, FFS. I support discussion but I don't support pile-on badgering. It is perfectly valid to hold an unpopular opinion; that's part of the "marketplace of ideas" concept—we should be "free both to speak and to listen" and this "ensures that nondominant views are not squelched simply because they are different" (Krotoszynski, Ronald J. (2006). The First Amendment in cross-cultural perspective: a comparative legal analysis of the freedom of speech. NYU Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780814747872.). Now, one must be careful in applying principles of the U.S. Constitution to Wikipedia because our governing principles are quite a bit different, but I think this concept is perfectly applicable for RfA.

Here's my proposal about badgering (perhaps not the exact wording):

Every user is entitled to his or her opinion. Other users are encouraged to discuss views they disagree with, but excessive badgering is not acceptable. Users should not post comments such as, "This is the lamest, silliest, and worst-thought-out reason to [support/oppose] I have ever seen." If the original author of the comment in question requests that others stop badgering him or her, other users should respect the existence of alternative opinions and allow the closing bureaucrat to weigh the values of the respective arguments in determining consensus.

It's not a vote. It doesn't matter that much what the percentage is. It doesn't matter what questions are answered or what questions are asked. Limits on questions are unwise; there are no limits in the size of a messy incident on Wikipedia. If I see, say, a pedophile, and block him/her, I can't just say, "Situation dealt with" and move on—what if they sockpuppet for two years, stalk me, harass child editors? Questions are useful for getting a sense of the candidate, and not just "what's the difference between a block and a ban"-type question. (We need less of those, I think, but that's not the point.) The questions are not the problem; they don't have to be answered at any rate. (Although, all users will encounter situations they cannot avoid, so it may be sensible to answer all the questions anyway.) The issue is users who are constantly harsh, uncivil, and plain bothersome at RfA. If people take an extra second to help the candidate improve and not write oppose in a rude manner, then it doesn't matter why they oppose—that will be weighed later. If people don't act as if they are taking personal offense to someone else's opinions, valid or not, and complain about how stupid their ideas are, then RfA might not be thought of as a bitter place. And if people would stop saying things like, "You're a good writer, but not good admin material" or, "Come back in 6–8 months and try again" and actually put some thought into their comments—how would they like to hear that—RfA might become a bit less cruel. Seriously, if you can't say/write something nice, shut the hell up just turn away. And if you make a comment you later regret or did not really intend, strike it and apologize.

I'm not claiming to be perfect and I'm trying to improve my own attitude at RfA. The issue isn't the RfA process itself, it's some users who make it a bad place. I'm not saying it's the same users, nor am I saying every user at RfA is rude, but everyone needs to make an effort to be more thoughtful with word choice. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You want to change behaviour. That is a fantastically difficult thing to do when when one has incentives to dangle in front of the people one wants to change (this is a well-established concept, and informed a lot of how we worked in my former career, which was in employee incentive). We have zero incentives to make people change behaviour, making such a change virtually impossible. Second, I take enormous issue with you saying that RFA is not a vote. Yes, yes it is. We can lie to ourselves as much as we want, but so long as there is a numeric formula for who passes and who fails (with scrutineers checking the edge cases and making a call), it is a vote. Period. Anyone who keeps pretending that it isn't is, sorry because I generally respect you around here, part of the problem; willful blindness is a major problem on Wikipedia, and it does nobody any favours to continue propagating the bizarre notion that RFA isn't a vote. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, no, I'm know full well the memes around here, but it's only a vote if it helps my argument :P. Seriously, though, it's not as much of a vote as it could be—and if we had more crats that considered arguments more carefully and closed RfAs like AfDs—where I would argue that it's much less of a vote because often in controversial cases, the decision is not in favor of the majority view— RfA wouldn't be as much of a vote as it currently is. There shouldn't be a set percentage, but more weight should be put into strong rationales and less or no weight to weak rationales. (But then there's the old debate over people simply signing supports whereas one must explain oppose thoroughly—an example of its vote-ness currently.) I completely realize this is an unlikely goal, just as impossible as erasing incivility from ANI, but what else can one do? There's nothing majorly wrong with RfA itself, people just need to ignore the rudeness and not take everything personally because people probably won't change. I just stated my opinion because I hope that at least one person who reads it is compelled to write something a little nicer at the next person's RfA. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to consider badgering a problem, but it usually isn't an individual !voter that finds his vote badgered. Take a look at the difference between WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 and WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 4. Do you think it was a coincidence that I waited for a time when A Nobody and Okip/Ikip had been blocked before submitting myself again? A dedicated opposition can completely disrupt and distort an RFA.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• We don't need to make a change to RfA itself, but we need to make a change to the way that some of those who take part look at it and the way they conduct themselves. That's why I suggested letting bureaucrats and some admins do the vetting instead of it being a free-for-all. If it does have to remain open then we can't change the way the !voters behave, in fact it'll just get worse. So we need to reform RfA to compensate for problems caused by the !electorate. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, but this is what I think roux would call wishful thinking, just as I consider any major change to RfA wishful thinking for the most part. I want to change how people look at RfA and how they vote, but only letting certain users vote isn't, I think, the right option. At the very least this will lead to the formation of some RfA cabal. All we need (at least now) is, when consensus is being determined, the more "silly" and "lame" opinions discounted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't think having only admins and crats choosing new admins is ever going to be doable, but there is some merit to the idea of having the crats vett candidates before their RFA is posted. It could be done by email, the same way it is done for CU and OS candidates. NOTNOW cases could be told gently and not in public that they are grossly unqualified, others could be told of any red flags detected and advised of how it will affect their chances. This could help reduce some of the nastiness, but as roux says there is precious little we can do change people's attitudes given the lack of incentive (other than the incentive not to be seen as a jerk, which usually does not apply on the internet). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

One or two very good suggestions there, Beeblebrox, but still doesn't change the fact that the current situation of a drop in the number of candidates could be easily resolved if people would just refrain from posing silly, unintelligent, and and trick questions, and being generally uncivil.Kudpung (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A problem that is 3/4 resolved by any of the proposals I made above. → ROUX ₪ 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See my proposal in the above section to move all optional questions to the talk page. It is my opinion that it is more or less impossible to craft a policy that clearly defines what should and should not be asked. Therefore, trying to legislate the optional questions will most likely lead to endless fights about whether a particular question violated the policy or not. Getting rid of them entirely is not a viable or wise option either. Moving them to the talk page might help change the whole experience. It might not, but it would be so simple to implement that I believe it is worth trying. And not just for one single RFA like the last experiment, we need to give it an actual chance to succeed, at least a three month trial period and we can examine what impact it has had. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is getting rid of the questions entirely not "viable or wise"? Why not try a no-quizzes rule for three months and see what happens to the nomination count? Townlake (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be an extremely interesting exercise, one which I would strongly support. But try and get a consensus to it... --Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wise. I have spoken to many users who would seem like they could pass RfA based on activity, time here, edit count, articles written, etc. but in reality have no clue whatsoever. I think questions are useful for helping users unfamiliar with a candidate get to know what they do and their editing style, or for clearing situations where someone might have misunderstood what happened and actually oppose a user for an invalid reason. Of course, as Kudpung said, if people used common sense in asking questions, there wouldn't be an issue, but that's not going to happen. And when all the questions are essentially non-optional, one can't just skip the poor questions. I dont think questions are a big issue if handled correctly at the end—if someone doesn't know the difference between a block and a ban, that's ... unfortunate, but if there is a complicated question and they get most of it right or they get opposed for differences in editing decisions or opinions on, say, an AfD, bureaucrats should be able to discount or put less weight into those opposes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You can get to know what a user does and their editing style by looking at their past contributions. I have no idea what you mean by "oppose for an invalid reason," but I oppose all the time for what users do in quiz questions, which might or might not be a valid reason to oppose but it sure promotes me being lazy. I'd be the first in line to have this crutch removed so I'd have to go look at what a user did before the RFA gauntlet and consider their whole body of work instead of having excellent reasons to oppose served up by the candidates themselves via a hypothetical-based quiz. Townlake (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant, if I see a situation on a user's talk page, and I misunderstand what happened and think they were in the wrong, I might oppose for it. Asking them a question lets them clarify what happened for non-involved watchers. I certainly agree that looking at the contributions is necessary, but eliminating questions altogether is something I feel is unwise. I don't mind moving questions to the talk page or asking them in a less formal manner, but people should have the chance to ask something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, We want to make RFA look and feel more like what it really is. Going through it now it feels like an interrogation in front of a mob who will lynch you if you don't give the right answers, and quick too. If we can make the questioning more conversational it will be more like an interview for a job, which is what it actually is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Worse than that, it's sometimes like an interrogation where half the mob will lynch you if you answer one way, and the other half will lynch you if you answer the other way. Complex policy questions should be hashed out somewhere else — not in an RfA where the candidate is intentionally put in the crossfire between opposing camps and used as a scapegoat. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. And very often a scapegoat for the answers that the interrogators don't even know to their own trick policy questions. Kudpung (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I had one of those at my second RFA. I was opposed for giving the wrong answer to a copyright question when there was a quite long discussion on the talk page about what the right answer was and it was clear that there was substantial grey area around the issue. What the right answer was was not resolved and the image in question is still here and has never been challenged. I think it was only one or two opposes and obviously I did get through, but it was still frustrating to be opposed for not knowing something that nobody else knew either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to echo Richwales's comment about RFAs "where the candidate is intentionally put in the crossfire between opposing camps and used as a scapegoat", but also to note that there are two aspects to this. If an oppose is explicitly based on a judgement that someone doesn't like a candidate's position on a policy debate, then however inappropriate some may feel that to be, at least it's upfront. Unfortunately what's been happening is that we have some opposes on that basis which misrepresent the policy disagreement as an error judgement by the candidate, and the resulting debate causes much drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Test case type trick questions of the kind mentioned by Beeblebrox should definitely be disallowed, as well as any others that are deliberately conceived, like a TOEFL exam, to lull the candidate into making the wrong answer. Perhaps a first step, if we can't get the 'optional' questions banned altogether, would be to allow the supervising crat to remove any questions that are deliberately intended to have a negative impact on the RfA. RfA at the moment is like forcing a new driver to take his driving test in central Marseille or Bangkok in the rush hour instead of the traditional routes through the leafy suburbs and round the housing estates. --Kudpung (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW: Comments by !voters such as "I reverted my support because i did not see his contribution count" are a clear indication that we need to insist on a better quality of !voting. Such comments are also evidence of 'follow-my-leader' style pile-ons. Kudpung (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments regarding edit counts, types of edits, content creation, etc. also illustrate the fact that there are serious disagreements and a lack of consensus regarding qualifications for an admin. Regarding content creation, for example, there are good arguments being made both that it's essential and that it doesn't matter. IMO, efforts should be made to resolve issues like this outside the RfA process — and to the extent that any consensus can be reached, the crats should feel free to discount !votes whose rationales reflect a failure to accept the agreed-upon criteria, even if that means a given bid ends up succeeding or failing in apparent defiance of the stated opinions. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue with trick questions is, what might seem completely obvious to one user might seem extremely misleading to another. This could lead to a lot of "well, any admin should know that" and "it's not fair to the candidate by asking this question". I'm putting a lot of hope on the crats, but I think any opposes from an answer to a potentially misleading or purposely double-sided question would be given less weight, especially if it was not a likely situation. However, tricky situations do pop up all the time. Banning theoreticals would lead to questions of "How would you close [some AfD]" or "What's wrong with the current BLP policy" I imagine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the system that is preventing successful RfAs, it is the community. No matter how the system is changed, the community will adapt to the change and the frequency of successful RfAs will turn out the roughly same. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, if we tinker with the system, there will be a short term effect. But in the longer term, the community will continue with its current expectations for prospective admins.; it goes without saying that if the pass threshold falls, the proportion of editors who will oppose a candidate that they're unsure about will be higher. In the long run it won't make a difference, and I wonder whether increasing the proportion of those who oppose marginal RfAs will lead to more or less drama.

The question is whether the decline in successful candidates, and indeed of active admins, is a problem for Wikipedia. If it isn't, then this discussion is a waste of time. If it is, then surely we need to evaluate whether the current system of tenure, and an all-or-nothing approach to the tools, is in Wikipedia's best interests? Only when (or if) that (ever) happens will a discussion about the RfA procedure be worthwhile. —WFC— 05:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The decline seems real enough according to the stats. As long as the crats' hands are tied to a simple tally of !votes (except in extremely marginal cases), they will never risk invalidating even the most silly !vote, support or delete. On a recent RfA, following one trick question, no less than thirteen (13) !voters directly or partly based their opposes on the candidate's not-too-wrong answer, and a 600 word opposing diatribe from a blocked, confirmed puppetmaster. That candidate would have passed. I'm sure the question was posed in GF, but it was totally misplaced. Let's not imagine for a moment that there is any 'consensus' as there can be in an RfC or an AfD. The system is practically a trial by fire, although generally it does seem as if most of those who should pass, get the bit. The vast majority of those who don't, either withdraw, or fail blatantly by SNOW/NOTNOW. Problem is, it's the trial by fire that's holding the good potential candidates from coming forward. Plenty of them have said so. The advice of one well known and well respected admin recently to a cogitating candidate was: "RFA? May the gods have mercy on your mortal soul. Have you considered any more relaxing alternatives, such as gouging your eyes out with a rusty baked bean can whilst enjoying a holiday at Bagram?" --Kudpung (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia getting bigger, but it's also the different aspects of Wikipedia editors leading to major disagreements and different criteria for successful adminship. Obviously, the rate of successful rfa's is going to keep declining as history has shown us. --Monterey Bay (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Its something thats stewed on the back of my mind recently (I dont necessarily agree with the following thought as being good or bad or that it would actually improve anything, might even make things worse), But when it comes to participation and tone of RFA, I wonder what a Request for adminship discussion for a candidate would be like if only people who had a previous RFA discussion themselves participated in the discussion for the candidate only? Ie, if you ran for adminship whether successful or not only those who ran before would participate in the voting/discussion/asking questions for the candidate. I just wonder what the tone of an RFA would be like with only that type of participation..... Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:RFApremature

I came across Template:RFApremature when looking for instructions on how to close an RfA, and noticed that it's a bit out of date: "Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months."

I was going to change the "3 months" to something more realistic, but after doing a search, it appears that the template is no longer being used. The last two substitutions appear to have occurred February 2008 and February 2009. Since it's gone unused for 2 years and has been superseded by Template:Notnow, is there any reason to keep it? 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not; mark it historial and a link to t:notnow ? Pedro :  Chat  19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that if no one raises any objections here. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• In case you're still looking, see WP:SNOW/HOW. –xeno^talk 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. I had found what I was looking for at WP:BUREAUCRAT#Instructions and other closers' contribution history. I think I did all the steps correctly, but double-checks for anything I may have missed are always welcome. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee...

Am I the only one to think it's weird that over half of the last 10 or so RfAs have been for editors whose usernames start with a G? 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer says no.... Rd232 ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And then a couple other ones start with C, which looks similar. Useight (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of the global masonic conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.--Korruski^Talk 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, they're all socks! (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, you have no idea how much work that was. And all for a joke that wasn't particularly funny.--Danger (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a nominator

Hey. I'm looking for a longstanding administrator who could offer some time in thoroughly reviewing my account for a third nomination. I have self-nominated twice before, both failing due to "lack of experience in all admin areas". My last RFA was more than six months back, and since then, I have considerably changed my editing areas are patterns, I have also been nominated (and passed, on my first nom) as an admin on Wikimedia Commons, where I do a lot of maintenance work.

At en.wiki, I do a lot of speedy deletions relating to files and maintenance too (deleted contribs), and I really could use a few tools to speed things up; save my time asking, and save other admins time of responding. IMHO, I don't think there is any issue with trust, just the issue of "experience", which I think is now sufficient.

Please see my past requests (may be slightly outdated) for detailed information of where I would like to work . I am also quite an active global editor, can respond to requests fairly quickly. I've decided to not go for another self-nom, after failing twice... Rehman 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Rehman, I know it's a tough issue self-nominating. I'll go through your contributions in a couple of days to check out whether you can stand a a good chance of clearing an RfA. I do realize you've had some earlier dialogue on this issue. I'll take that too into consideration. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wifione! Rehman 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?

This page is too much of a free-for-all to discuss one particular issue in isolation, therefore I have restated a proposal I made above as an independent RFC on this one topic only. Frankly, I'm hoping to get participants that aren't regulars on this talk page but in the interest of fairness/transparency/etc I'm dropping a note here informing everyone of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Idea: Add a smaller version of SQL/RfX Report to RfAs

In one current RfA there are about 80 !votes, while in another there are about 140. I've seen these discrepancies before. There's no way to tell exactly why these instances occur, but I imagine part of is that some editors go to an RfA because they know the candidate or are involved around issues pertaining to the candidate rather than go to an RfA because they've looked at User:SQL/RfX Report. In fact, some editors may not know that User:SQL/RfX Report exists. I propose that we add to the RfA template a smaller version of User:SQL/RfX Report that would list only the RfA candidate column (but maybe renamed Other RfA candidates) and either the Ending (UTC) or the Time left column. It could be automatically listed in the same place we put "RfAs for this user:" or listed at the bottom of RfAs. Doing so would allow editors aware of only particular RfAs to be aware of concurrent RfAs. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I think a way to get even more exposure would be to link the User:SQL/RfX Report from the Wikipedia:Community portal page. -- œ^™ 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the level of involvment in an RFA (the interest) has to do with the number of page watchers a paticular user has, combined with the points turtle mentions above- Just a hypothesis and as said no way to really tell. As for the proposal I dont think it would hurt. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean how many centijimbos? ;P -- œ^™ 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess thats the scale. :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just have the User:SQL/RfX Report placed at the top of every watchlist by default, with an option to hide it ? --Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think RfA is something that many users will be interested in. I mean, participation is good, but most users simply don't care about RfA. In addition, I don't know if a bunch of new users looking to "get involved" and seeing RfA is a good thing—they often (in my observations) misunderstand the process or vote based on the "trend" instead of actually looking through contribution histories. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right to the extent that Kudpung's suggestion of putting it at the top of every watchlist is a bit overboard, since the average person with a watchlist probably doesn't care. But if notices were placed at venues more commonly visited by editors with a greater interest in community issues, then I think that would be a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One feeling i get about the whole watchlist theory is that, a user's page (in this case a candidtae for RFA) is added to a watchlist becuase another user has an established interest in that user. Where the if the SQL/RFx report is added to the watchlists it might not necessarily establish interest in a user participating in discussion at RFA for a candidate. However if anyone loves statistics, Id love to see a graph or something showing the participation in individual RFAs versus the amount of users the candidate has watching their user page (has this information, or simmilar info, been compiled before in the past?). Obviously theres other factors involved but it might look pretty interesting. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep the watchlist as free as possible of announcements. Also, placing it in the watchlist would be more like a recruiting tool, and recruiting is not what we need. I think we just need a way to better spread the word to those already interested in engaging in RfXs. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Those already interested in RfXs are likely to have it watchlisted (or they might check manually). I like the idea of reaching people beyond the current clique of RfX !voters, but don't want it to be spammy... that's a tough balancing act. bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've said this many times before: I think it would solve a lot of problems if more admins would take the initiative to participate in RfA and and support the process that got them the bit by regularly !voting. I'm not saying that all admins are more responsible than any of the run-of-the-mill one-time !voters, but it is to be hoped (and I think they are) that most of them are pretty good role models, and lead by example. Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite so sure about that. If new admins are elected by other admins, there's a risk of creating a self-perpetuating group. I'd much prefer to see more participation by experienced editors who are not admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure about that; it's a terrible idea. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, BHG, you're getting very close to the things I'm not allowed to spell out here, but which have a lot to do with a famous statement by Malleus that is quoted on my user page.Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding users

<-I've thought for a long time that the one thing that could do most to improve RfA would be greater participation by longstanding users. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a "currently running" item in the signpost would help. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea, particularly if it's not substed, so it reflects the current runners at time of viewing, rather than when the Signpost was published. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following this idea at all. Given that The Signpost is distributed on Tuesdays, why wouldn't any honest and rational person delay their nomination until a Monday? Unless of course they hoped to fly under the radar, in which case they might choose to wait for a day. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's why Dweller suggested not substing the info. Of course you'd still have the phenomena that presumably the readership is skewed towards the publication date, and some will decide to start their RFA busy and others to end it with a rush. But both RFA and Signpost are on a 7 day cycle so I don't see a great problem ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's by now well established that the early pattern of voting in an RfA determines its outcome; how many are affected by a last-minute deluge of votes? In the grander scheme of things though I agree with you. Compared to everything else that's wrong with RfA it's hardly a problem that some are advertised and others aren't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, The Signpost published today has a link to Giantsnowman's RFA in the features and admins section. The editor-in-chief noted that dynamically changing content is generally avoided (so they would prefer not to transclude). –xeno^talk 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

<-IMHO, the Lear's Fool RfA was significantly affected by a last-minute deluge of !votes (actually, post-last minute, as they came after the originally-scheduled close) and some at least of those !voters were probably prompted to go there by the "advertising" of the RfA being discussed at BN. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The best of all possible worlds?

Those who persist in believing that RfA is the best of all possible worlds might like to reflect on how often this kind of thing happens. As should those who persistently nominate candidates who are certain to fail. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience (and here I know what of I speak), much the same could be said of the real world. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you about RfA, though.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think certain to fail may be your opinion, as the nom (HJ Mitchel) and those who supported did not feel that way. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Tryptofish: In the real world people are paid for their work, and so are hardly likely to walk off in a huff after being turned down for a promotion.

Reply to Tofuwitch11: Anyone who had been paying attention would have known that this RfA was doomed before it even began. That the supporters and the nominator failed to see that speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Malleus, albeit really off-topic: That's true, which makes it all the more painful when the person has to live with disappointment. Conversely, one can always walk away, whether temporarily or permanently, from Wikipedia, with no loss of income, heck, maybe even a gain. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is, if one asks to be judged, don't be surprised if you are judged. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your "real world" analogy falls short on so many different levels. When you attend a job interview you're not being "judged", and you aren't told either during or after the interview that the reason you failed to get the job is that you're a childish, immature piece of shit. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of your opinion, (you did not even vote in that RFA) if people were not so rude in their opposes, saying "Easy Oppose Sorry, but this is one of the easiest opposes that I've encountered." The strike out of the "sorry" is completely unnecessary. If people did not say things like that, maybe this would not happen so often (users "retire" after RFA). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tofutwitch11, I'm not sure who you are addressing that to, but I agree with you about that. And Malleus, I think you just showed me that you know less about the real world than I do. And with that, I will, temporarily, walk away! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that I know less about the real world than you do then I suggest that you consider seeking psychiatric help immediately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to have some respect for each other around here? That's part of the reason so many people leave here is because of the constant fighting and "I'm better than you" comments and attitude. Frankly, telling someone they need "psychiatruc help" is certainly uncalled for and simply rude. As mentioned, it's no wonder people are walking away from here. Lets try to be nice, if that is even possible. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to vote in any RfAs until something changes here; wikipedia will continue to get the administrators it deserves. Why is it so hard to produce a job description, instead of the tediously banal supports based on "I see no problems", or the even more tedious "no big deal"? Dishonesty or incompetence? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's a problem with someone's editing that causes you to oppose then you can explain what you find problematic and why it's a dealbreaker. If there aren't any red flags then there's not a lot more you can say. That is why so many opposes go into great length and why so many supports are short and bland, or at least part of the reason. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with a candidate's editing are swept under the carpet, under the guise of "no big deal". That opposers are required to write PhD theses while supporters are allowed to say "why not?" says all that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So which would you prefer? That supporters should also have to write PhD theses, or that opposers should be able to just go "oppose- nope" without being asked to elaborate? The former as I've explained is unworkable because if there are no problems with a candidate's editing there's nothing to be said but "no problems here". The latter isn't going to work either; I'll explain why. Let's say someone's up for RfA that I have worked with extensively, I've always been impressed with their demeanour and clue levels without being aware of any misbehaviour. Of course I would support them. If some other editor opposes them, of course I would want to know why. Perhaps I've missed something. If so, I would want to know and modify my vote accordingly. The reverse doesn't really apply as much. If I oppose someone I'm not likely to be as perturbed by subsequent supports; maybe they've missed something or they don't put as much weight on my concern as I do. Either way, no biggie. I would, however, be interested in hearing from people who might argue that I've been unfair in my oppose or have made a mistake. Finally there's the fact that you need ~75% support, which makes an oppose about three times as much a big deal as a support and therefore an oppose attracts three times as much scrutiny. So yeah, intense scrutiny for oppose votes and less scrutiny for support votes is pretty much natural and inevitable. If this is a symptom of RfA being broken it's a benign one. I for one am more concerned about trick questions with no correct answer from people who have already made up their minds to oppose. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a rational and logical approach, starting with a job description for the role of administrator that voters can either agree or disagree that the candidate meets. That's not an original idea of mine but one floated by User:SandyGeorgia. Right now all we have is "I like him" vs "I hate him", and those who hate him have to write an essay that his supporters will do their best to rubbish. Hardly healthy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To have left the "sorry" would have been disingenous to say "sorry" as I then admitted that I was actively watching wt:rfa for this RfA. My Oppose clearly indicates that *I* am not completely impartial when it comes to GW---and I intended it that way so that my !vote could be assessed with that bias. I have no problem with opposing him, I think he would be a miserable admin... but I have to agree with MF. The fact that the major issue of opposition was still on the users talk page indicates that the nom didn't really review the candidate before making the nom. Anybody familiar with RfA (and this nom is)should have realized that that incident would have doomed the RfA. Having a favorable opinion and good experience with a candidate should not be the sole basis upon making a nom. The nominator should check the noms history to see if the candidate as any skeletons in the closet that might garner opposes whether real or imagined. Thus, I was really surprised to see the RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that nominators have a responsibility to their candidates, but there are some who just chalk them up as trophies. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's extraordinarily true. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. How awful. I've not participated in an RfA before and I didn't expect that this one would end like that. I certainly didn't intend to distress Giftiger and, whilst I wouldn't change my oppose to support, I would word it more carefully. I regret that I may have caused him any distress. In future I will be much more attentive to the tone and manner of my comments. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Three thoughts, none of which are a reflection on GW or anyone else, because they largely go against accepted WP practice:

• A job description or outcomes-focused selection criteria for admins, as suggested above, would be good. It would help focus the minds of RfA !voters, both supporters and opposes. The GA and FA criteria would be good examples. The criteria need not be prescriptive. I'd envisage broad criteria that most of us could agree on, like (a) ability to deal with stressful situations while maintaining civility; (b) knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines; (c) capability to use administrative tools in a variety of areas. The parts of the project that use criteria to guide discussion tend to work a lot better than RfA.
• Self-noms are good. If you want to be able to delete people's work and block people, it is appropriate to put yourself forward for the job. No nominator can ever know how many skeletons are in your closet. (Disclosure: I've made the occasional offer to nom someone myself, although my own approach was to go it alone)
• Watchlisting ANI is bad enough for the health of an admin, let alone a non-admin. I agree with NW's comment in GW's RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a set of standard criteria would help a lot. If someone did subsequently make an argument which didn't meet the criteria it would be more likely to be challenged and bureaucrats would be more confident in dismissing it. Over time it would probably result in a reduction in the number of bad arguments. Processes on Wikipedia which are devoted to determining whether the subject meets some defined set of criteria, such as deletion discussions, don't have the same problems as RfA. Even if it isn't possible to come up with such criteria it may still be possible to come to a consensus that certain types of reasoning aren't valid. Hut 8.5 09:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a job/person description would look, but it couldn't do any harm to try drafting one. (Even if we couldn't agree a standard, a few competing ones could serve a purpose a bit like the Arbcom election voting guides.) But really, I wish we could get some kind of informal discussion before RFA (Editor Review) as a matter of routine; this was discussed here but the discussion ran into the ground. Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't take part in the RFA in question, but would agree that having a good faith editor leave is one of the worst outcomes one can get from an RFA, almost as bad as promoting a candidate who becomes a bad admin (though we've had at least one RFA where the candidate was rightly blocked by the end of it and such RFAs do serve a grim but useful purpose). Agreeing a set of criteria that candidates are expected to meet is a perennial suggestion, and while I still strongly support it I'm realistic enough not to expect this to fly. A minimum criteria before candidates are allowed to self-nominate is also a perennial suggestion, but we've been close to consensus in the past. In the last two years we've had scores of candidates burned who could have been gently dissuaded from running if we at least had a 1500 edit requirement for self noms. I think there are a few other criteria that we could probably all agree would prevent a successful run. I'm not suggesting that we go as high as my own criteria for nomination, but is there anyone here who would seriously consider supporting a candidate who had less than 1500 edits, less than 6 months editing experience, or a block log that wasn't clean for the last 12 months? ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a job description is that no one can agree on what an admin has to have. Some expect 2 years and 10,000 edits, with at least 1 FA. Others are happy with about a year, or 5,000 edits with no significant article work. We have Wikipedia:Administrators, which clearly says "Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience ... however ... considerable experience is usually expected. Each editor will personally assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way..." This is the issue - on one RFA, we may have an abnormal number of "tough" voters, and on another a high number of "why not" voters. It is never, ever consistent. Not everyone votes on every RFA, which makes each one unique, and not fair.

What we have is a popularity contest to become an admin. An editor, like Ironholds, for example, recent passed his RFA with well over 100 supports. Most RFAs which pass have less than 60 or so. This is not necessarily bad (I supported IH, fwiw), but it means if you are well-known, you're more likely to get more votes. This is also unfair.

No one will ever agree to a set standard of criteria, and besides, if we implemented it, what would be the point in voting? A bureaucrat would just have to check they met them, and if they did, promote them. I've concluded the only solution is to appoint an RFA committee who will appoint admins. A group of, say, a dozen editors, changed every 6 months perhaps, would be the only ones to vote on candidates. Other people could of course offer information and opinions, but like Arbcom, the committee would be the only ones to get a vote. Furthermore, if we find the committee has made an error, they should be able to easily reverse it.

Obviously, we'd need a way to appoint this committee, which would undoubtedly be by a vote, but I don't see any other way about this. AD 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, but there is a difference between a "job description" and the "skill set required for the role";

• Real World Job Description - "to be able to make up customers order of foodstufs in an accurately and timely fashion"
• Real World Skill sets required - "to be able to work under pressure, to be able to cook fries and to not sneeze on the food"

The job description for an admin does not exist; (WP:ADMIN for example is more about the technical capabilities of the tools). The skill sets required has seen, as noted, endless debate (edit count, tenure, type of ediitng etc.) and we are still, and indeed never likely to, come to a consensus on what it is. In the real world analogy candidates for a job without the right capabilities will not even get an interview in the first place. On WP you can self request the "interview for the admin job role" anytime you like. That's a crucial difference. The nice thing in WP world is that you can't lie on your CV of course. Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin capability criteria

(Largely re WSC and AD) Criteria expressed as minimum standards certainly won't fly with the community. But what about generic capability statements against which RfA voters can assess contributions and answers to questions. For example, as a rough start, a candidate could be assessed against the following:

1. Sound judgement and experience relevant to the broad range of administrative tools.
2. Adequate knowledge of policies and guidelines relevant to the use of those tools.
3. Ability to use administrative tools without involvement, bias or improper purpose.
4. Ability to manage stressful situations.
5. Civil behaviour and the ability to avoid unnecessary escalation of conflict.

All very bland, but it can help focus discussion. For example, "too many automated edits" is an oppose that would need to be with reference to the criteria to carry any real weight. On the other hand "Support. Good editor." would be similarly unhelpful.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bland perhaps, but a major improvement over what exists now, which is of course nothing. And if it helps to curb or reduce the value of those "Support, I like him" votes as well then so much the better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the basic requirement for being an admin is "trusted." While this is a difficult thing to quantify, this can be as simple as "won't delete the Main Page" or as difficult as "Lack of experience in Admin-related areas" and is strictly a matter of opinion by those bothering to state one. The biggest wiki-based problem I see on a meta level at RfA is that it works in complete opposition to most other actions we take. WP usually works on the basis of that which exists, exists for a reason, and those who seek change have the burden of proof in support of change (WP:BRD, WP:AfD, et al)). RfA is one of the few places where the underlying premise is that change is the default position - i.e. "User:so-and-so is trustworthy and should be made an admin" and those opposed to the change are subject to the burden of evidence. While I completely support the idea of content creation as a necessary requirement for Admins (nobody should be trusted with the delete button unless they have created content!), I also understand that there is no general definition that will ever meet all needs. As we become more specialized, the role has definitely become too large for the generality in the current definition of the role, both software-based and community defined. There are a great number of editors that I would trust to edit protected pages for reasons like grammar, punctuation, and even NPOV (aka gnomes) who I still do not wish to have access to the delete button. Protected templates are a great example. There are editors with incredible experience in that kind of wiki programming who should be able to edit even our most highly visible templates without concern. Currently, they need to have access to the delete and block functions in order to do that. While they show competence in a specific (and highly needed) area, I do not know that the level of trust necessarily carries over into other admin areas. I believe that splitting the admin tools is an eventuality we must face, but until we get to that point, I don't know how we allow that much power to be concentrated into that few hands without continually running into legitimate opposition. We either need to allow many more users to be admins in order to reduce the amount of power/prestige of the position, or properly divide the tools in a manner that allows purely administrative functions to be separate from editorial ones. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think those are excellent criteria and really, demonstration of all those in a candidate encapsulates the notion of "trust". !Supports and !opposes can revolve around the evidence in a candidate's editing history which demonstrates or refutes each of those qualities and would help to focus discussion. There remains the vexed question of "not enough article work". To the extent that some of the content-auditing processes can be fairly brutal themselves, achieving audited content would demonstrate criteria 4 and 5. Beyond that I would be interested to know what those who insist on a certain level of article work feel is being demonstrated. Commitment to the encyclopedia? That can be done in many ways other than article writing. So what more is there? Franamax (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, at least, it is about empathy for those who actually create. It is demoralizing to have one's work nominated for deletion, let alone actually deleted. Those with access to the delete button must have "skin in the game" to completely understand the work involved in content creation, and that can never be demonstrated through gnomish, administrative, or especially deletion tagging work. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can grasp that. For my own part, I think I gained that empathy by realizing that I was just never going to be a great article writer, which gave me a ton of respect for those who are. I tried to compensate for that with copy-editing, adding sources and sentences - things that would qualify as gnomish work. That left me with nothing really solid to show as a demonstration of that empathy, but it was there nevertheless. I would think also that deletion tagging combined with rescue of new articles that could go either way would be a similar demonstration. I think it's important to try to bridge the gap between the "article writers" and the "doesn't matter" groups so that there can be demonstration of that empathy (which I agree is an important quality in an admin) without necessarily requiring GA's and FA's or X number of articles created. Franamax (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The "not enough article work" is indeed vexed, and I'm not sure there could ever be a one-size-fits-all solution to it. I know how much effort goes into writing GAs and FAs, and I understand that not everyone is confident that their writing is up to it, even though it may be. What I take exception to though are those admin candidates who proudly say that they have no interest in writing, all they want to do is whack vandals/delete articles/write abuse filters/whatever. My personal criterion is the relative number of edits to article space vs projects spaces like this one, or user talk pages, especially the candidate's own. I'm less concerned about the raw number of edits, although I do think that it would be common sense to state a clear lower limit ("if your first posting to wikipedia will be this RfA then it is unlikely to be successful"); ideally I like to see 50% or more of a candidate's edits to articles. Whether they're big edits or small ones they show an appreciation of what wikipedia is about: writing an encyclopedia, not policing one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

With the usual caveats about gaming and numerical targets and editors who sandbox their new articles then copy rather than move them to mainspace, I personally agree with what you're saying. Is there a nice anodyne way of saying that so that it could be added to the criterion list above? "Commitment to content improvement"? Obviously this will always be avaluated subjectively, as will #3 above - but that's OK, so long as it can be discussed and elaborated on in a focussed way. I do like the idea of a "checklist" as both supporters and opposers can be questioned equally on how well they have assessed the candidate against the criteria. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, such a list could help immensely with candidates who unknowingly walk into a situation they're not ready for, and nominators who should know better. It's an up-front notice that you will be evaluated on all these aspects, so you better be sure you have it all covered. Franamax (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "Demonstrated commitment to content improvement"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Personally I'd like to drop #5 from the list, else I'll never get that promotion.</joke>) Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with including that. The wording you suggest "demonstrated commitment" is good: as I read it, it doesn't require FAs or GAs or a minimum %ge of article space contributions, just a demonstrated understanding of why we're here. In my view it could include copyright cleanup work or article rescue. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But you'd still be in there as one of the "NOT LIKE THIS" exemplars. ;) I really like this concept, hoping to see some more views on it... Franamax (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. It could even be spelled out in the job description that "demonstrated commitment" includes things like copyright cleanup and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about the "broad range of administrative tools" in #1. I certainly understand the rationale about this (no need for anyone to tell it to me!), but I note that there have been candidates who state that they are particularly interested in particular areas, not all, and I don't really think that there is community consensus that a successful candidate must have prior experience across the broad range. I remember plenty of !votes stating that candidates can learn other areas as they go along etc. Maybe delete "broad range of"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe rethink the wisdom of handing out such a broad range of tools that in truth no administrator is properly qualified to use. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording of 1 is fudged a bit to recognise that no candidate will be experienced across the board: the question is whether we trust their competence to go outside their specialised areas when that inevitably happens. In the rare instances that a candidate asks for the tools to only do a narrow range of tasks and guarantees not to do others, supporters could invoke IAR (which is what they essentially do now).--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Switching over to a discussion of unbundling the tools will almost certainly doom this effort, although I tend to agree with you Malleus. For me, the criterion would be satisfied if, for instance, when asked about the spam blacklist the candidate said "here's basically what it does, I have no plans to ever touch it". It's fine for a candidate to indicate detailed knowledge of the areas they wish to act in most, but they should be examined on, especially, knowledge of blocking policy whether they indicate an interest in it or not. That is certainly the most sensitive of tools and if it stays part of the package, capability to use it needs to be assessed. Knowing how the MediaWiki space works - well, you should know what it is, and know enough to stay away from it unless you're really sure you want to change it. Again though, it will always be a subjective judgement on whether the candidate has sufficient familiarity with the available tools and spaces. If the candidate wants to work in general areas, they need to demonstrate knowledge of all those areas. If they want to work in one area, they need to demonstrate expertise in that area and give a convincing account of how well they know their limitations in other areas. Franamax (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree. What I'm concerned about is I don't want to see someone using the current proposed wording to say "oppose, because the candidate hasn't done (fill in the blank with an obscure area of administrative work)". I just see it as wording that can and will be gamed back and forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Broad range" doesn't mean every single administrative tool, or even necessarily most of them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus, it's too vague. How many are enough to be broad? One? Two? Half? Most? All? What precisely does "broad" mean here? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Moot now, I'm glad to see the draft below has taken care of that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Working knowledge of the broad range of administrative tools and sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied"? E/C'd, I have to catch up. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started a very rough working draft here. Please feel free to tool around with it, annotate it with comments, or whatever. I'm well aware that nothing substantive ever gets up on this talk page, but it's worth continuing to move things forward at least while there seem to be a few editors here who support the idea in principle. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this process is going in the right way. A good starting point from Mkativerata's fine post. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help there is a load of stuff I have been gathering here. Warning: there's a lot of it! Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of good material in there-- almost too much! I'd like to see some of the other "RFA regulars" put together a chart of their "hits and misses" like User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#How I voted, and compare percentages (how often did you support candidates that passed, and oppose candidates that didn't). Your point about the "quality of voting" has been my main concern, as well as the quality of candidates put forward by "regulars"-- how about a chart showing percentage where regulars agreed with the community consensus on those promoted and those not? I also saw a typo in there somewhere (to much instead of too much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine is here, but it is slightly outdated. I can go back and add any recent ones I may have missed. And I could add percentages. Useight (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow down :)

Whoa ! I'm very sorry to see what happened to Giftiger; I didn't know him well, but I did have good experiences with him. But I'm very glad to see such productive work here! I've been watching the brainstorming, waiting to weigh in. I've got a lot to add, but don't want to interfere yet with the brainstorming process, except to say ... please, please, don't start putting up mockups and "voting" yet! That's a sure-fire way to not gain consensus before you launch an idea. Let more ideas come forward first! I don't think you're yet to a stage where you can put something in front of the community in an RFC (which *will* be needed eventually), or have had enough input, or have yet a product that the 'crats can use to judge if consensus is shown by !voters that a candidate meets criteria. No voting yet, and I think you've got a ways to go before you put forwards drafts. Has anyone reviewed, say, six months worth of RFAs to be sure you've covered all oppose rationales? Has anyone considered the idea that we have at FAC of "actionable" opposes vs. non-actionable? We would ask the 'crats to consider "actionable" opposes per the criteria-- are you sure you've got them all? Those are just some starter ideas, but moving too fast on a major reform like this is a sure way to help it fail. This is cool stuff! But slow down to assure success and get broader feedback and input. Go, Malleus-- I'm sorry that it took the unfortunate loss of Giftiger to motivate this, but like at FAC, if you have criteria, ill-prepared candidates hopefully won't be put forward. I see some pitfalls, but don't want to bring them forward while such good brainstorming is happening. An RFC will eventually be needed, and slow and steady wins the race. I hope this might eventually head the direction where the crats' job would be to judge if consensus is shown for promotion based on the criteria, so perhaps consider Template:FAC-instructions and WP:WIAFA in terms of whether you've covered any similarities that might be warranted here, and how the criteria might be grouped to reflect different kinds of editors. We do have some excellent, specialized "technical" admins who aren't content contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking for an hour or two about asking you to get involved Sandy, so feel free to pour a bit of your brain in too. :) What got me thinking about asking you for an opinion was the writer/gnome so-called "divide" and how to bridge that with some relatively objective criteria. As far as I'm concerned, you're ideas are eminently welcome - and no, this sure ain't ready for prime-time yet. :) Franamax (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, y'all carry on ... I don't want to interfere with the good flow going here with my nitpicky, technical ideas. But before you start launching drafts and mock-ups, then I'll weigh in with some of the issues that I see from my experience as FAC delegate, which is a job similar to what we'd be asking the crats to do under the proposed new format. I just didn't want y'all to launch things until you've had a lot of feedback and input-- if people start Supporting, then others who have nitpicks will start Opposing. Carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree - we're in workshop mode at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But it's just about the first time I've ever seen anything productive on this page; you've made a good start. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Remember that we'd be asking the 'crats to judge actionable opposes and throughly reviewed supports to show consensus that criteria is met. Review old RFAs, WP:ADMIN, FAC instructions, anything else helpful that will firm up the "actionable" part and move RFA away from a popularity vote. Using the example of FAC, if valid actionable opposes show that criteria isn't met, the delegate can close. Is that how we want the 'crats to operate? (It's how I'd like to see it, but what about the broader community? I'd like to see RFA focus on criteria being met instead of ILIKEHIM.) Glad to see so many fine minds working collaboratively on perhaps our first-ever chance at RFA reform ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My current thinking is that it would be a little different to FAC. The FA criteria are much more measurable: if you've used dodgy sources or have rubbish prose, it's identifiable without too much grey area. The RFA criteria would need to be a bit more fuzzy, and therefore subject to consensus on matters such as "does the editor demonstrate a commitment to content improvement". So I conceive of the criteria as guiding the consensus process rather than being bright-line standards against which the 'crat determines the outcome. Crats would, however, now have a greater responsibility to "weigh" votes because the community has set clear standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I agree with Mk on where the outcome could lie, I think the initial effort should just be to get an essay up and running that could be referenced in RFA discussions, as in "Oppose. Fails criterion #3 because of [this]" and "Support. Why not? / Have you considered the weaknesses in points #4 & 2?". As an organic thing it could grow and become part of the culture of RFA. As a top-down "let's vote on this today and it will become the rule", I'm less optimistic. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I should unwatch, since it's too hard for me to sit on my fingers, which I really should do! No, Franamax, moving too fast on a major reform will tank it. Keep the good flow going, keep brainstorming and refining the concept, review everything, consider everything, and don't let Supports and Opposes take hold yet to stall the good discussion here. No premature launch :) What we've seen over and over at WT:FAC is that it's better to get everything out on the table first, with free-flowing discussion, before you start formalizing things heading towards an RFC-- that helps people feel more invested, and helps avoid pitfalls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, your input is more important than you think. However, your comments generally echo sentiments that I and others have echoed in long since archived parts of this page. if anything, however, out of the last few weeks, there seems to have crystalised a vague consensus that a major part of the mischief is the multiple pile-on, trick, and irrelevant so called 'optional' questions. The irony is, that those who discuss making RfA a less distasteful experience, appear to be sometimes the very ones who relish composing questions that are designed to faze even the most mop-deserving candidate into submission. Kudpung (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the userpage you linked above, but I disagree on the question issue. I almost always find the questions helpful, and think (as you mention on your subpage) that the quality of !voting here is the biggest problem, which is why I'd like to see a move towards criteria-based Supports and Opposes. We are promoting admins based on votes from users who might not be a good representative sample of voters who know what qualities a good admin should have. (At FAC, if an article gets a lot of drive-by, marginal supports, from reviewers who have never before shown up at FAC, I can let the FAC run longer until reviewers knowledgeable about the criteria take a look-- and then they usually find problems. On the issue of "too many questions", the equivalent from my FAC experience is, never stifle a discussion, because we don't know where it might lead, and the best interest of the article is a process that gets everything out on the table-- the delegate, or the 'crats in this case, can decide what's useful, that is "actionable". That's their job :) I also enjoyed reviewing your RFA record. You're a !voter with clue-- evidence Ling.Nut. I never expected him to pass RFA, because he had recently engaged (too) passionately in a kerfuffle, but he would have been a good admin, and wouldn't have let his passion for the Project interfere with his use of the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More :) As FAC delegate, I can exercise some discretion that the 'crats don't have. I'd like to see them have more ability in that direction-- beyond the marginal percentage range. The FAC examples don't necessarily apply at RFA, but for example, some of the options I have: if a discussion is rambling and taking over the page, I can move it to talk, to allow the discussion to continue but "space" for other items to be reviewed. If a discussion becomes so jumbled, or new issues have come to light, or the article has been substantially changed while at FAC, so that whether the article meets criteria becomes obscured, I can restart the FAC, effectively "erasing" all previous declarations for a fresh look. I can let a FAC run as long as necessary to be sure an article meets criteria before it's promoted. I can ping topic experts to make sure those knowledgeable in the area have reviewed, and I can also ping non-topic reviewers to make sure the article is digestible for laypersons or those not familiar with the topic. If something is unaddressed, I can let the FAC run longer until it is. We have nothing equivalent to any of this at RFA, and yet, FAs can be demoted if I "goof", while admins are rarely desysopped-- we have a straight-up vote from editors who may know nothing about desirable qualities in admins. More importantly, at RFA, we're making decisions about Wiki's most valuable asset-- real people. They all deserve a fair hearing-- more important than an article at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your last two sentences sum it up perfectly. Kudpung (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And not only that, but I suspect that at FAC who says what does matter. If a person with a proven tract record, firm understanding of the English language, history of making positive improvements at FAC makes a comment, that single persons comments could make or break and FAC---even if that comment came at the tail end of the FAC. Whereas at RFA, you generally have a good idea if the RfA is going to pass within a few hours of its opening. If it gets 20 supports and no opposes, there is almost no reason to dig into the character's history because the odds are that it will pass. Even if there is a legit reason to oppose, once the ball starts down the hill it is hard to change course.

At the same time, FAC's have an advantage that RFA candidates don't. An FAC can undergo a significant makeover in a short period of time. If somebody comes and says, "This clearly doesn't meet our expectations on how articles should be referenced." Somebody else could completely redo the references overnight and get that issue addressed. If somebody says, "John doesn't have any significant experience in content creation," that could take a few months to change.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really true. RFAs often change substantially if a real, serious issue is raised. People don't just vote and never come back (at least, most don't). You should always oppose if there is good reason to; just because it is going one way or the other, frequent supporters like myself are extremely willing to be persuaded otherwise with evidence. If you never say it, we'll never know.

Your first point goes back to my idea I suggested here, which has certainly been suggested before: elect an RFA committee - a group of experience, knowledgable and fair RFA voters who will be the only ones to approve or deny adminship. Sandy says that she generally takes experienced reviewers supports/opposes more seriously than a newbie to FAC, only because of the track record they have. It was pointed out in a recent RFA that many supporters were very new to the process, and may have just been piling on. We need to stop this from happening, and RFA needs to not be a popularity contest. Thus, a group of people with a good track record of voting for and nominating candidates would be a good idea, and they can of course hear from everyone else, but only they would get the final decision. AD 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our ideas are basically the same: we already have such a group (the crats). We just need to empower them with more criteria-based discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucrat group would be fine but there are many more knowledgable voters/nominators about who aren't bureaucrats (or even admins), so I'd prefer to elect a new committee, which we'd change every 6 months or year - also I'm not sure all the bureaucrats are up to scratch with RFA processes. I'm suggesting we remove all the voting, and allow only comments which the elected group can take into account. The committee would also do research themselves, and listen to what everyone else says. It would be a bit like arbcom, but for deciding adminship. AD 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very much in favour of it, especially if it means doing away with all the trick and stupid questions that have no other purpose but to faze and humiliate even the most mop deserving candidates. The result would be an increase in the number of mature, experienced candidates applying for office. Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We've already elected 'crats, we trust them to do this job, we don't need more bureaucracy (which always makes things worse and leads to paralysis), we don't need more elections (which will have the same pile-on problems that we now have at RFA), changing every six months leads to all kinds of problems, and if we attempt too much here, the reform attempt will tank. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to partially agree with Sandy here. Moving the selection process to another group will merely shift the problem to the selection of that group. I also disagree in that I feel there must be non-admins on any such panel in order for it to be a legitimate representation of the community (most of whom are not administrators). While it is completely within policy for a non-admin to become a crat, none are at this time. Shifting the debate from the selection of admins to the selection of the admin selection committee isn't the answer. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we elected them. Some in 2004. Some haven't even used the bcrat tools since then. I agree the proposal will tank if we add too much, but it's going to tank anyway because no one will agree on what is suitable criteria. I don't think yearly elections are too much hassle, and while we'd have to vote to elect them, it would remove the popularity contest aspect of being an admin.

You're suggesting we don't elect a committee because it would move the problems there; yet, at the same time, we'd be continuing the problems at RFA on a much more regular basis. The criteria would be vague enough for people to interpret their own way, and most people generally vote thoughtfully already. It's the minority who pile on to support their friends, or without examining hard enough, that are the problem. Creating criteria, which no one will agree on (how are we going to get these criteria, by a vote?), won't solve the problem. Rather, if we demand people vote with lengthy rationales to some criteria, we'll end up with people not bothering to vote at all, and that's a bad thing. AD 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aiken drum, reading through these discussions, it strike me that you're being quite negative, which doesn't advance discussion in productive ways. In the brainstorming phase, negativity doesn't help: positive discussion does. And having uninformed people refrain from uninformed voting is not a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes across that way; I'm only speaking from experience :) And yeah, I totally agree with you about uninformed voters - hence the need for a committee. AD 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't tackle major reform by doing too much at once. I suggest it would help if you stay focused on the matter at hand, which is criteria, and defer your other suggestions. Otherwise, this attempt is doomed to failure. Until/unless criteria are adopted and a problem is shown with the 'crats implementation of a new scheme, the idea of replacing the 'crats is dead in the water and a distraction here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but imo criteria isn't the way to go. I'll disengage for now. AD 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If criteria isn't the way to go, it will be defeated in an eventual RFC. I'm just asking that you let the proposal advance so it can be put forward to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Range of experience

Sandy makes a good point about specialized admins who would not necessarily pass the criteria as written, and the developed essay needs to reflect that. I can think of two examples at least: I rarely get involved in RFAs but one where I !supported was an admin from de:wiki whose sole interest was in working on the global spam blacklist. In that case I had sufficient trust that I would overlook almost everything else, as it seemed a clear benefit to the project. And yet there were lots of !opposes for lack of content creation; and I won't use their name, just their initials of Newyorkbrad, whose articlespace edits stay remarkably low to this day, but (with the inevitable dissenters) I don't think anyone would wish to see excluded by these criteria. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the "broad range of tools"/specialised admin debate is unresolvable (and there are many degrees on the spectrum of that debate), so we should be wary of framing the criteria in a way that could be read to lean either way. On another point -- there's currently a really productive discussion going on in my userspace. I don't want to assert, or appear to assert, any kind of ownership over it, and it's an obscure forum for the discussion, so perhaps we should think about moving it to a suitable project page?--Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable about "Experience relevant to the range of administrative tools" as I fear some will interpret that as requiring experience relevant to the full range of admin tools. You also risk having people try and game the system by doing a bit of AIV work, a bit of UAA, some protection requests, some CSD noms etc. I'd prefer something more along the lines of "diverse editing, but a record of sticking with some areas beyond just doing the minimum for RFA". Based on my experience of RFAs over recent years I'd suggest you also might want to cover:

1. Tenure. I'm happy with 6 months, I think that consensus at RFA now expects 12, and some want more. I could live with either a criteria that said that you can't run with less than 6 months editing experience, or an "admin criteria" that said admins were expected to have twelve months experience. But would the minority who want to see rather more than twelve months be happy if their !votes were given little weight discarded unless they made a rationale as to why a specific candidate needed longer than the usual twelve months?
2. Edits. Arguably you could dispense with edit count if you had a bunch of other criteria, but in practice there is a threshold below which people simply won't consider a candidate (and for some that threshold is manual edits - automated don't count or can even count against you). There's also a trend to oppose based on percentage of automated edits. Oppose over X% automated may sometimes be code for "after discounting the 50% automated edits I don't see enough manual ones", but I've never understood the argument that a candidate is a lesser editor because as well as their 15,000 manual edits they have 45,000 Huggle ones. I think it is time that percentage automated was added to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions
3. Former accounts. There is an expectation at RFA that contradicts cleanstart. I recommend to my nominees that they make a statement such as Lear's Fool did. With candidates who have former accounts that they aren't prepared to publicly disclose things get more complex, but I would hope we would still be willing to support someone whose former account was given a clean bill of health by an Arb.
4. Age. This doesn't greatly bother me, though it does bother some and it is probably the true reason for some opposes. I can't see us agreeing how to handle requests from teenagers and adolescents, but I do think we need to be more open about this, if only so that editors who are female or over 18 realise that adminship is not as out of reach as they might think. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, there are always exceptions to the rules, especially regarding edit counts and tenure. This is why it is important that the criteria are kept vague so there is some room for interpretation. AD 12:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps changing from "the broad range" to "a broad range" would clarify that while some variety of experience is expected, no candidate is truly expected to have experience in every facet of the project. To me, even specialist admin candidates should have some experience in other areas. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WSC, we seem to agree on most things so let's see how this pans out taking your points one-by-one:

1. The time frame is less important, I think the amount of editing is a more reliable criterion - although 4 edits per day over the last six years would be a bit hard to swallow!
2. Automated edits are not contributory chunks of prose or high level decision making. I would say that at least the ratio of auto-to-manual edits should be considered. However, if an editor has made, say, at least 10,000 serious manual edits, another 50,000 Twinkles or Huggles on top of that doesn't matter.
3. I'm always suspicious of former accounts. I have a nasty suspicious mind and tend to smell socks and skeletons in the closet. Yes we have some reformed vandals, socks, and plagiarists, but some have also taken a nose dive from the highest echelons of Wiki responsibility.
4. Age does matter. I've been subject to incivility and PA because of my age, and it was generally by defrocked, teenage admins.

That said, if anyone is interested, I have an accumulation of personal notes and analysis about RfA criteria and outcomes here. Warning: there's a lot of it, but FWIW you're all welcome to it. --Kudpung (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, we are already disagreeing about the criteria. Which is why we need to elect people whose opinions are usually well-respected at RFA to do the job for us, and stop RFA from being a popularity contest. AD 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought about RFA in general: [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Dilbert. Very difficult to beat. Unless you're Gary Larson. Useight (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor point: at last check, the "broad range" language has been replaced by language that I think is less problematic.

More importantly, I think WSC's suggestions shine a light on something interesting about RfAs. I strongly prefer Mkativerata's approach, because it gets to the idea of trust based on capabilities. Although there's something attractively efficient about an almost algorithmic system of checking off a series of numbers, such a checklist is likely doomed to never have broad consensus: my "enough experience" may differ quantitatively from yours, even if we broadly agree qualitatively. And that may point to why some nominations fail, when the nominator feels the candidate passes a personal checklist, only to find other editors (rightly or wrongly) disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WSC, I think some of your points can be covered by individual !voters, with reference to the compact list of criteria Mk has set out. For instance Tenure and Edits: "Oppose. You haven't spent enough time here for me to evaluate your suitability under criteria #4 (stressful situations).", "Oppose. Insufficient number of edits in project space to evaluate against criteria #1 (where and how tools should be applied)". Age would (aside from legal concerns some express) involve the stressful situations criteria, as this is often where younger editors have problems (and don't assume I'm only talking about under-20's ;). Former accounts - well, that's a difficult one to pin to any of these criteria, and maybe so it should be. The point of this is to get the !voters taking a more structured approach to both supports and opposes, as in "I don't have a good feeling here, but how exactly can I quantify it?". That may get people digging around more into edit histories to support their feelings, or perhaps even changing their mind when they find their discomfort isn't supported by the record. Everyone will still be entitled to their own subjective assessments, it just gives a framework to work within. And of course someone can always declare IAC (ignore all criteria) and just say what they think, though at some point in the future they may find that such !votes carry less weight. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection if you can persuade the community to look at the candidate and their edits rather than set arbitrary thresholds on edit count and tenure. I'm just being clear as to what my perception is of some of the current expectations of the RFA community. That's why currently I have two sets of criteria that I operate by; a support criteria that involves assessing the candidate, avoiding certain red flags and deciding whether they'd make a good admin, And a nomination criteria that looks at people who I'd be willing to support and whether they have the edits tenure and so forth needed to get through RFA. As for some of the other issues: Maturity matters to all of us and age matters to some, of course bad history matters, the question is how old does the bad history need to be before you are willing to overlook it, and what are the unforgivable things? ϢereSpielChequers 04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's where the 'newbie' (ca. 2,000 - 6,000 edits and user for 6 months) candidates score well, they haven't been around long enough to have anything much worth a good scandal. The good gnomes and plodders with tens of thousands of good edits, good allround participation, clue, perhaps a PhD stashed secretly under their belt, and and a few decent creations, all get torn to shreds for an occasional snarky remark or a wrongly tagged CSD. There's hardly an experienced active admin around now who still doesn't make the odd mistake, and many of them who fuel a bit of drama didn't even have to jump through today's hoops. Kudpung (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With no current admins having started editing in 2010 I think I can confidently say that it is a long time since someone with 6 months tenure made admin, And I'm pretty sure that candidates with 2,000 - 3,500 edits score badly as well with perhaps one candidate in the last two years succeeding with fewer than 3,000 edits. But on the positive side, I don't think that the RFA crowd expect a perfect edit history, if as an opposer you point out errors that the candidate has made they need to be recent and either substantial or repeated errors for your oppose to sway the RFA. Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd, though they are less tolerant of mistakes in the question section. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree: we recently had an admin promoted (your nomination) who barely had eight months editing, about whom we know next to nothing because he had hardly engaged the encyclopedia, and that trend is escalating. I can't think of a better time than now for socks to get through RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

'Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd' Sorry WSC, but with all due respect I beg to differ. These isolated, and often very old, incidents appear to me to be exactly the chinks in a candidate's armour that the vultures, especially the regular posers of multiple, and controversial questions, look for. It's probably been noticed that I don't mention individual RfA debates (out of respect for the candidates) but there have indeed been instances where relatively inexperienced candidates have been given the bit because they hadn't been around long enough to have made any mistakes, or get involved in any polemic that the drama mongers could get their teeth into. One the other hand, those experienced old hands whose defeat has in some cases forced them to retire from the project, the mountains were made out of mole hills that represented probably less than 0.5% of the candidate's respectable number of perfectly sound edits, actions, and general behaviour. Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, if your concern is about candidates with a short tenure getting through RFA, then I'd point out that not that many years ago people were getting through RFA within 6 months of opening an account. Personally I'm unlikely to support a candidate who has less than 6 months experience, and I won't nominate anyone who has less than 12 because I'm aware that there is a significant group of editors who expect 12 months experience. Describing any of my recent nominees as having barely 8 months editing doesn't sound true to me. ϢereSpielChequers 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that RFAs past shortcomings were worse than its current ones isn't convincing-- just look at RFAs record. Look right here: December through August, and barely at that-- I don't consider several of those months as even registering on the radar screen. I hope he turns out to be a good admin; if not, I continue to say that those who have great influence in the community should use it wisely, and only put forward candidates they know through and through. I find it very hard to see how any of us can know that candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I agree that in August that candidate had barely 8 months editing, but I nominated them at the end of December, a month in which they had 500 edits by the time the stats were done for their RFA. I'm not averse to having edit count and tenure in the rule of thumb as to who is ready to be an admin, but when I suggested 6 months tenure should be a requirement there was a distinct lack of support. In my experience there is a significant minority at RFA who expect twelve months tenure, and a smaller minority who expect more. If someone makes a case as to why new admins should have 8, 12 or even 15 months tenure then I'm open to persuasion, otherwise I will continue with my current support criteria of 6 months and a nomination criteria of 12 months tenure until and unless I decide that the mood of RFA has shifted and that 9 or 15 months is the new de facto minima. As for the relevance of RFA's past shortcomings, you were the one who said "I can't think of a better time than now for socks to get through RFA", if you think that tenure or activity is a good way to identify socks, then my point that tenure and edit count requirements were much lower in the past is valid. I'm sure we all want to avoid certain individuals from returning and making admin, but I'm not convinced that insisting on a long tenure or lots of edits is the best way to screen out abusive socks. I'm hoping that our real problem people from the past would be spotted either by their lapsing into their old patterns of misbehaviour, or by experienced editors recognising a similarity between the editing of a new editor and the legitimate part of the editing of a banned user. I'd like to see something a little more sophisticated such as a change in policy re checkuser to allow random checkusering of us admins and information on banned users to be retained and used to screen admins. However when I've raised this in the past it has not had support. Though we disagree as to why the community is vulnerable to socks becoming admins, I do share your concern that we are vulnerable here. I think that there has been a shift in the RFA community's emphasis from looking at the candidate's edits towards looking at their views and general policy questions in the question section, and in my view this shift makes RFA much easier for socks to game. Personally I have no problem supporting or even nominating candidates who have disclosed "normal" views on Wiki policy or real life regardless of whether I share their views, providing I'm comfortable that they would edit in accordance with policy (I'm sure there are some views that I would oppose over, but for me normal encompasses a wide diversty, and I'm distinctly more tolerant of userboxes than some RFA !voters). As for the question section, I think it useful and occasionally use it myself, but it is many months since I've asked one without a diff that makes it relevant to that candidate. Sometimes I see questions where I wonder what the questioner saw in the candidate's edits to prompt that question (and I have a nagging suspicion that some people ask questions without having first checked out the candidate). ϢereSpielChequers 11:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On proxies

My impression of this discussion is that, as so often at RFA, it confuses discussion about proxies for things we want to measure with discussion about what we actually want to measure. Now what we actually want to measure (predict) is future behaviour, in relation to a broad range of Admin Stuff. Naturally, we use past experience as a proxy for that prediction, but some of these proxies are weaker than others.

What do we actually want to measure? Basically, we want people who (a) won't do ridiculous stuff like delete the Main Page (i.e. it's not some kind of super-determined vandal account) (b) will act reasonably and civilly in Doing Admin Stuff they are competent in (c) know what stuff they are not competent in, and act with appropriate caution in those areas (d) be receptive to community feedback on all fronts (e) have enough psychological stability not to have a meltdown of some kind under the pressure admins active qua admins almost always come under occasionally. Now I'm not saying that this particular a-e list should be definitive, but it seems to me a much better starting point than percentages of edit types for example, which is a very poor proxy for what we actually want to know. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That all seems rather muddled to me. You can't have a proxy for a prediction and you can't measure something that hasn't yet happened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well of course you can't measure what hasn't happened, that's why I said "(predict)". And whether you can technically have a proxy for a prediction or not, do you really think debating that is the most constructive possible response to my comments? Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells. Rd232 ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do, as this kind of muddled thinking appears to be endemic on this page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no muddle at all (my comments throw the key issue into focus), only needless (and probably inaccurate but please let's not waste more time on this non-issue) terminological nitpicking on your part. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "waste of time" is the interminable jerrymandering that happens every time a perfectly reasonable proposal is put forwards on this God-forsaken talk page. Objective criteria have been suggested for how to assess potential administrators, yet you try to steer the discussion into muddy waters in which it will undoubtedly sink. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RD232, yes, neatly put. I broadly agree with you, and would suggest percentage automated as probably the lest useful proxy currently in use. However the way in which we judge candidates and the standards we apply to them do vary sharply amongst the community, if only because there are few direct ways to measure some of those things. An active editor who has diplomatically dealt with trolls and personal attacks will usually do better than one with recent blocks; But the community will disagree as to what is an isolated incident and for how long a block log needs to be clean. I think that if we could get the RFA crowd to focus less on the question section and more on reviewing the candidate's edits then we would improve RFA. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could get people to improve the proxies they use? ϢereSpielChequers 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your last question: in the first instance, by trying to get people to be conscious that the things they're talking about are proxies, and therefore the need to think about how those relate to what is proxied both in general and in any given case. Of course people are aware in principle that they're proxies, but it seems too easily forgotten that it matters to stay conscious of it. A good start would be to encourage people write "Proxy X for this candidate is bla bla. This matters because..." If we had a person spec focussing on desired behaviour, something like my outline a-e above, that would be easier to do. To continue my rambling thought to its close: what's needed is a person spec, not a job spec, because adminship isn't a job with defined duties all of which need to be exercised well; it needs a person with the right qualities. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It needs a person who has demonstrated that they have the right qualities, whatever they may be considered to be. "Having" and "demonstrating" are not synonymous. More muddled thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on your part. The "proxied" is the having the quality, the proxy is whatever we can come up with that appears to demonstrate that quality. Do keep up. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I'm getting dangerously close to my stall speed, so probably best if you try to do without me here. I'm quite certain that you'll manage to talk this idea into the oblivion that houses all other suggestions for change whether I'm here or not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes, my secret's out. "If you have nothing to say, don't say anything" is often sound advice. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's surprising how often those offering advice are the last to take their own advice. Or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that I have something to say, and I said it, and you won't stop bad-faith carping. An independent observer might start to wonder, from your participation in this subthread whether you have some undisclosed beef with me, or else an agenda to prevent RFA reform. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An unprejudiced observer might come to the conclusion that I would very likely be the last person to oppose RfA reform, but that would of course exclude you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if they were only looking at this subthread, as I specified. Incidentally, whatever I did to you to get this attitude from you, I'm sorry. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rd, I must confess that I too am a little confused by your post. Your a-e list is basically the same as Mk's list (current version is here), just in a little more colloquial language. Or put another way, what do you disagree with on Mk's list? Eventually what we are measuring is trust, which ultimately is unquantifiable, i.e. not amenable to any good system of formal measurement. The point of the "checklist" is a) to let prospective admins know in advance what they will be evaluated against, in vague enough terms that they will find it very difficult to game; and b) to let !voters evaluate a complete stranger against a formal set of criteria, so they can satisfy themselves the candidate is worthy of support. Franamax (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my list was meant to be supplementary to explaining my core point about the difference between what we want to know, and what we can look at, and the problematic relationship between the two. However one difference I see between my list and Mks (besides point 6 of course) is expecting administrators to have sufficient self-knowledge and critical reflection to distinguish effectively between things they're competent in and things they're not, and to act appropriately. This is not incidental to my core point, since RFA voters believing a candidate has this (respons)ability helps bridge the gap between visible past non-admin behaviour and predicted future admin behaviour. That's kind of subsumed into Mk's point 1, in a way which loses the important message that admins are not expected to be (probably can't be) absolute masters of all things admin, but rather to exercise good judgement, including on their own relative lack of expertise. On the language point: formal language can more easily hide ambiguities, so particularly at the brainstorming stage, a dose of informality can be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For number 1, how about something like: "Understanding of the range of administrative tools, sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied, and recognition of the need to become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area." This might help balance the mention of "range" to offset some of the concerns about that word. It would also be measurable: an editor with will or won't have a record of jumping into new areas prematurely. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I actually have no problem with (non-admin) editors jumping into areas prematurely, that pretty much describes my entire first 3 months of editing. :) It's actually the ability to learn from those leaps that matters. And the italicized bit seems easy to game with a simple statement that "I would not get into that without knowing what I am doing" - so I'm not convinced the addition of the words moves the criterion any further ahead. Franamax (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax; there is far too much of a learning curve to say something like "become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area". It's about exercising appropriate caution, which often means, besides distinguishing easy cases in an area from hard ones, getting advice from more experienced editors/admins in relation to hard cases. Basically, the key thing is the ability and willingness to learn, and to identify learning requirements, and to exercise appropriate caution/humility at all times (even highly experienced admins are not infallible). Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(put into temporal order, why was that not an e/c?) Hence my addition of the preamble about "not expected to know it all by heart". I take your point about humility as a valuable quality, and knowing one's own limitations to me is a key indicator of suitability for the role. I think though that #1 does cover your concern in a way that can be adequately addressed through the questioning process. So taking as an example a question I saw once "when is it appropriate to add to the spam blacklist?", the "wrong" answer would be "I have no fucking clue and I don't care, I said in Q1 I wanted to do CSD's" and the answer that would satisfy #1 would be "I have no experience with this, but from reading up on it here are the general criteria. If I came across a specific concern I would proceed by posting to WT:SPAM and making my decision based on the feedback there" - or "When this happened before, I posted to WT:SPAM and this was the outcome". That to me satisfies the criterion and I think satisfies yours too as it gives an indication the newly-minted admin won't go nuts and start pressing buttons madly. Franamax (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One idea I have -- which may or may not help address Rd232's point -- is to have two versions of the capability statement. The first version would be "what is expected of administrators". It could belong on WP:ADMIN. The second version would be "what is expected of prospective administrators". It could belong on WP:RFA. The two would mirror each other as closely as possible: the purpose of the latter would be to best ensure that we promote admins who comply with the former. WP:ADMIN at the moment is about "what not to do", which seems insufficient. Just drafting and talking about these capabilities has helped focus my own mind on how I can be a better editor and admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That could be helpful, to emphasise that RFA candidates are not expected to be experienced admins. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would any rational person be expecting that admin candidates should be experienced admins? More and more muddled. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More and more useless carping. My remarks on the usefulness of clarifying this arise from observing behaviour at RFAs. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Malleus. Nobody has even seen the tools before they get them - every admin here has had to learn the practical side on the the job. All the pile-on and trick questions remain purely hypothetical, and as WSC says, focus should be drawn away from them, and in my opinion, they should be severely limited in scope and number. This entire thread on 'proxies' is certainly beyond my comprehension and is something I wouldn't need to know about for suggesting some basic improvements to RfA, such as first and foremost insisting on a set of guidelines/minimum maturity for the !voters. Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you don't understand proxies (unfortunately the Proxy (statistics) article won't really help you... if the only thing to come out of this subthread is someone addressing that article, it would be something!), but User:Kudpung/RfA criteria, whilst it includes some good points, also contains flaws which it probably wouldn't if you did. Rd232 ^talk 07:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• We had a good thing going; Merrily We Roll Along.

  Malleus and Rd, could you two just ignore each other? Personally, I understand the proxy issue-- we want measurable (to the extent possible) criteria that are attempting to measure the right thing. In my (FAC) terminology, that means we want to end up with *actionable* opposes. More importantly, we want unstifled discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Sandy. In 15 words, two brackets, and a full stop, you have explained to me what the entire, issue-clouding banter above is all about :) Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On organization

I'm a bit late to the table, but I see potential in the discussions, although I'm still unclear on where this proposal is headed. However, I've had a longstanding concern with the RfA process, and I see the draft of Mkativerata and some of the FAC concepts as having potential to address some problems; but I'd like to add something to the mix that I believe complements the ideas.

Our present RfA approach has many flaws, but one flaw is that it is horribly inefficient. We ask a 100 or so busy people to investigate an editor with 10,000 or so edits, and everyone is expected to look at whatever they please, without a hint of coordination. To use a football/soccer metaphor, it would be like telling the defensive team to stop the offense, and when the players ask what section of the field they should cover, you tell them "where-ever you'd like". A recipe for disaster.

Imagine an organized RfA. Assume the Mkativerata list has been vetted, and has six broad areas. Candidate throws a hat into the ring, and a hundred or so editors decide to review. However, instead of randomly poring through edits, they sign up for one of the six areas. First come, first served, but if 15 editors have already signed up for item A, you should pick another area. If you sign up for Commitment to content improvement, you'll scrutinize the candidates content edits from that point of view. If you sign up for ability to communicate with others editors, you'll spend more time on the talk pages. Each group summarizes their findings at the end of a week, then there is either a round of !voting by the community, or a decision by a committee.

I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement and tweaking, but I personally find it difficult to commit to !voting in RfA if I don't cover a lot of ground; I could participate in more RfAs if I only had to check one aspect of the candidate.

I wouldn't preclude anyone from acting as a free safety, to push the metaphor, if you are looking for content, and find a nasty mishandling of a stressful situations, you should report it, but I think we could do a better job if we divided up the task in a more organized way.--SPhilbrickT 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea, and quite similar to what happens at FAC: some editors review images, some review prose, some review sources. Perhaps some editors who participate in FAC more regularly than me can comment on whether it could be a useful approach to RfA. I doubt whether we'd want to formalise any division of labour, but perhaps we could just instruct 'crats to recognise that many supporters and opposes would focus only on one or two criteria, and that it is the 'crat's job to see that there is a consensus to promote taking into account all the criteria. So a support would say "Support on criteria 2", but it would be conditional on there being consensus on the other criteria. That approach would also help balance the task of supporters and opposes -- otherwise supporters would have to check all 6/7 criteria, where opposes could pick on one. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of CREEP, so I'd stay away from any process of assigning tasks, e.g. "you've been picked to check criteria B for candidate X", but if I showed up at an RfA, saw 20 editors had signed up for criteria B, but only 2 for criteria C, I'd know that spending time on criteria B was unlikely to shed any light while looking into criteria C would be a good use of time.--SPhilbrickT 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before but in my view has serious legs. The easiest way to do it is for individual !voters to say what they've checked, then other !voters can choose not to replicate the work of editors they have come to trust. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)