Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 228

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 225Archive 226Archive 227Archive 228Archive 229Archive 230→Archive 235

Anyone who wants to be an admin....

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

I for one have done all of that. In fact the vast majority of the things I have done over the last couple years are admin related and I still will never be allowed access to the tools. I won't be allowed to help out at CCI, see deleted content, help delete trash bock vandals or protect articles and I'm tred of spending my time submitting these things to admins when I can't be trusted. Let them find it themselves if they don't trust me. Sadly I have a growing list of uncorrected vandalism, several of which from the same user and at least 30 templates that need to be fixed for various problems. Not to mention the long backlogs at multiple venues. So the oversimplified statement above is just kidding the reader. IF they want to be an admin they need to do some of those but stay away from ANI, AN and keep their heads down, don't question the admins and never try and stand up against them until after you get the tools. If you care more for the project than managing your wikicareer you will not get access to the toolset. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Err, so you say, I can't comment unless you log in as who you are and see what you're talking about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No not at all, you can comment all you want just as I can. I just don't agree that ultra simplified explanation you gave is nearly enough to help someone get the tools that's all. Maybe back on 2005-2008 time frame it worked. But now it doesn't. Although I agree it should. I would also add that I no longer care about getting access to the tools. I am investing my time elsewhere since it wasn't wanted here. I just comment occasionally now but this project and this community lost me as a contributor in the traditional sense. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
If you're a new editor, I suggest you create an account. GiantSnowman 14:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not a new editor, I was here for years and had a lot of edits across a wide range of areas but there is no need to login anymore. There is nothing (except vote) that I can't do as an IP if I need too. Even as far as credibility goes I don't care about that either. People can believe what I say or not, it makes little difference to me at this point. This isn't really about me though. Its about fixing the broken RFA process. If it really bothers you to know though my username is mentioned in the previous discussion. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 14:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that your "If you care more for the project than managing your wikicareer you will not get access to the toolset." shows understanding and wisdom, at least for folks who's caring about the project involves going near contentious articles and contentious situations. RFA questions should cause a CLOSE look and analysis of how the person handled themselves in tough situations, not just what the name-callers said or whether they avoided them. North8000 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
*cough* Kumioko *cough* Just a hunch.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Lol Ding ding ding. See, no need to login at all. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
It is disrespectful and extremely unhelpful to editors unfamiliar with your prolix style to deliberately fail to identify yourself, use multiple IPs and then use your registered ID all on the same discussion page. Leaky Caldron 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Frankly, tough shit. I gave up caring about what people here think of me and its no more disrespectful or unhelpful than how I was treated as an editor. Same for many of the comments by others here who either miscategorize the problems or attempt to discredit them. It doesn't matter that I was an editor. Now I an IP and I don't intend to use my username again. So regardless of whether its bad form or not, it is what it is. That doesn't change the problems with RFA it doesn't change the problems with abusive admins and it certainly doesn't change the problems with too much work for too few admins. So if its ok with you and the other nitpickers here, why don't we get back on the topic of discussing problems with RFA and less about how that Asshole Kumioko keeps coming back and talking about fixing all the broken shit related to RFA that no one else seems to care about. Sure we have a lot of folks with comments about how they would like to fix it, but at the end of the day, that's all it is, talk. No action and no desire for action. For what its worth though, the reason you are seeing multiple IP's is because I have different computers (work and home) and the power went out here in my area which caused my router to reset. Not that any of that is relevant to this discussion. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I am meticulous in never knowingly responding to your tediously long polemics on RfA. The truth is you behave in this way because you failed to gain sufficient support to achieve the status you believe you deserve. You have done everything you can since your failed second attempt in August last year to repeat the same mantra in every venue possible. You might think it helps; I don't. Leaky Caldron 18:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok fine and I'm sure you think the project is a lot better off now that I'm not editing. As I said before I don't really care what you or anyone else believe. So why don't we just move on and get back on topic. BTW that was my 4th attempt. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
August 2012 was your second RfA [1]. Leaky Caldron 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh that one. I apologize. I thought you were talking about August 2013. My 4th and final attempt. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, do let's get back on topic. The topic was the idea of admin hopefuls doing content work. Now how did we get distracted from that? Oh, yes ... --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And you wonder why I don't want to log in. Give me one good reason why I should even bother logging in. So I can vote? So I can get credit for my edits? So Leaky can ignore the discussions? There is no reason to log in to participate in a discussion that isn't going to result in anything anyway. Here we are, 2 weeks into November and we have only had 1 RFA that isn't going to pass and I am apparently the only one that sees that as a problem? Really? 108.45.104.69 (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
No you are not the only one who sees the lack of new admins as a problem. I am aware of many who see this as a problem. We differ sharply in our proposed solutions, but I believe more accept it as a problem than not. Progress is indeed lamentably slow, but when I was first warning people about the drought there were many who thought it some sort of statistical fluctuation. The debate has moved on and no-one doubts that we have a declining number of admins, so we are making progress, just mind numbingly slowly. ϢereSpielChequers 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
My fear is that nothing will be done until the problem is irreversible or the WMF is forced to step in with some half cocked solution like Visual Editor that makes things worse. It may not happen in the next few months, but that day is steadily approaching as we lose several admins a month. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
@Kumioko: I don't wonder why you don't log in, and I'm not here to claim you should for any reason. Sorry if I offended you, but I feel something needs to be said: I have RFA on my watchlist and very often take a look in here to see what's going on, but I quickly run away again when I see the same people saying the very same things in long walls of text for the umpteenth time. I can only speak for myself, but I do wonder whether other people may also be chased off from contributing here by this repetitiousness, as I am. Please look again at your opening reply to the post that started this thread. It was about you and how you had tried that but didn't get the bit anyway and how much we've all lost by that. The original post was about people getting content experience -- highly relevant to at least three of the RFAs that have floundered in the past few weeks. Why are we discussing your past RFAs and whether you should log in or not, instead of that? --Stfg (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I was using myself as an example that the modest goals Casliber points to are wildly optimistic in todays editing/RFA environment. They haven't been that basic since at leas 2008. The reason I keep bringing myself into it is because frankly I have done just about everything there is to do here at some point. I have more admin experience than at least half the admins and probably more. The reason I don't get the tools are 1) because I am hypercritical about abusive admins and the RFA process and 2) because some people (mostly abusive admins or wanna be admins) think I am a jerk. The truth is I am generally only a jerk to those who are jerks first or those who have a history of Jerkiness. I generally get along with most editors, I just admittedly no longer feel compelled to be overly nice to those who aren't nice themselves. As for adminship I no longer care about it cause I am through here, but the RFA process still needs to be changed before it implodes. So in the end its not about me anyway but the general failures of the site and the community to promote people who can actually use the tools over those who hide in the corner and don't get involved. We have too many of those already. People may not like how I do things but they don't get involved themselves so IMO they can either step up or step aside. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I do not know about the first three runs, but, at least, in my perspective, the last time you have not got the tools because you decided to run right after an incivility block. Having a recent incivility block is in my opinion not the best admin profile.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fair, but its also fair to say that quite a few admins have gotten a block for incivility too. Some multiple times. There are several admins that have been blocked more than 5 times. They didn't lose the tools, so why would we prevent a long term contributor from having access to them for the same reason. It should also be noted that I requested that block. Me and that user have a pretty long history and I got tired of dealing with their crap. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
"a growing list of uncorrected vandalism, several of which from the same user"; actually I don't agree that any of those mainspace edits of mine were vandalism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 18/11

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

@Casliber: There's more to that first pillar than content creation - curation and maintenance play a large role as well. Even more so for admins: aside from editing fully protected pages and possibly restoring deleted content, the tools contribute nothing to content creation. In fact, the majority of the tools are used to stop or even reverse the creation of potentially worthy content. Not to mention that there are 4 other pillars [yes, okay, sorry for that sentence fragment]. IIRC, the most important attribute of administrators should be civility (4th pillar) and dispute resolution, not the ability to write. Anybody who wants to can do that. Not everybody who does that can, or should, become an admin.
@WereSpielChequers: Yes, the declining number of admins (and the inactivity of a large portion of that number) is a problem. However, as we've seen from the graphs, it corresponds reasonably well to a general decrease in wiki activity, so it's not as much of a problem as we may think.

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

That's interesting. I disagree with those who oppose RFAs just on the basis of two few articles created, or zero GAs and FAs. But I do think that admins need to have a good, broad understanding of, and competence in, the things that make this an encyclopedia rather than, say, a social networking site or an MMPORG. And I find it difficult to imagine how anyone can really get those skills without engaging with the content to a great degree. How well can a candidate understand what a content dispute is really all about, or what constitutes unacceptably close paraphrasing, or what is involved in seeking sources and creating text that uses them without plagiarizing them, or etc, etc, unless one has spent some time tackling these things? Casliber began with "go write some content. Or if you can't, ...", so there are ways other than original authorship to get that know-how. But imo it needs to be got somehow. --Stfg (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hah, silly bot tagged me as unsigned, removed. Anyways, it's true that there are other ways. My personal experience in content policy comes from AfD discussions and CSD tagging. I've read through some RfAs, and I think that the general voter community there doesn't agree that work in deletion is enough to get the requisite experience. I'd disagree. Ansh666 01:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
AFD and CSD can make for a pretty good background for an admin, but there are some common pitfalls. Some new page patrollers get carried away and become sloppy in their tagging, they tend to get opposes from those of us who assume that sloppy work in tagging would lead to sloppy deletion. Some patrollers just tag stuff for others to fix and haven't yet mastered categorisation or even referencing. My own very crude rule of thumb is that when you've got to the stage where you are removing more tags than you add then you are probably ready to be an admin. A more clearcut precedent is that nowadays adminship is only for those who have made some contribution to building the pedia not just defending it. We've had people repeatedly declined because despite doing over 100,000 edits they couldn't point to any content contributions, and we've had RFAs pass first time where the candidate had referenced a chunk of the unreferenced content left over from the days when referencing was less usual. ϢereSpielChequers 05:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Which raises the question, why do they need tools to add references? Anyone can do that if they had the time, patience, and resources. (I know, of course, there had to be other reasons, or it'd be snowing...) Ansh666 06:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There may be some admins who blindly delete CSDs without checking further. Actually, the only reason I still patrol is to patrol the patrollers, and the number of messages to editors about poor patrolling is quite significant. Perhaps it's time to set some criteria for competency to patrol pages after all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that having experience with AFD and CSD and the other related venues is a start but we should be careful not to put too much weight on the percentages or we give the impression that its better to vote on which way the article for X is going than to vote how you feel. Its easy to keep your stats high just by cruising through and finding some with a clear consensus result. Using my past edits as an example there are a lot of folks who don't think being a Medal of Honor recipient is inherently notable, I don't particularly care about having all the international football (soccer) players biographies or porn stars. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that piling on at the easy-to-read AFDs is a way to get percentages up, and that might have been an issue with some RFAs. Quality of a candidate's AFD nominations is probably a better measure of their judgement than accuracy of their !votes. CSD/AFD work is obviously very useful, but the reason I find it insufficient is that it's at the poorest end of the encyclopedia. Ways to work on better content include doing cleanup work, doing reviews, and servicing edit semi-protected requests, which is quite fun, brings some variety to the content one works on, and gets one considering various policy and guidline issues. --Stfg (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, many pile-on !voters (especially those who go through the trouble of citing others' legitimate reasons and explaining them) and !voters who tend to change their !votes are good at seeing consensus, as AfD isn't only about policy like CSD or PROD. When I used to browse the AfD logs (no time anymore, sadly), I'd pile-on-delete some of them because I was unable to close them even though there was a clear consensus for delete or speedy delete (though in the latter case, it's easier to just put up the speedy tag and let someone get it that way, then wait the full week and have it closed). Ansh666 22:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
@Ansh True you don't need the tools to add references. But the tools include setting Autopatrolled rights, and it would be odd to give that right to someone who'd never added reliably sourced material. There is also an admin only role in DYK promotion, I'm not familiar with the area, but I've seen that used as an argument not to grant adminship to candidates who haven't done some content creation. I've also seen the argument that since admins can block content creators, and this site is ultimately about creating an encyclopaedia, all new admins should have done some content creation. From my own experience I'd add that it is a core skill that any longterm editor needs to pick up, and as an admin you may get all sorts of queries, some you can swerve by saying I'm aware of that area but I've never touched it. But you really can't do that with referencing. ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
@IP Lots of RFA candidates have had blocks, providing they are 12 months stale you can usually reassure the community that you've learned that particular lesson (it's what q3 is for). If the community is sometimes prepared to block but not desysop an admin but not to appoint a new admin if they've had a recent block then I can see that as seeming anomalous. But think of it like taking a driving test, there are things like speeding that would fail you on a driving test but which an already qualified driver would not lose a license for. I wouldn't nominate a candidate who'd had a recent block, but unlike many RFA !voters I might Support if there was a good case made. Or you could just think of this as an area where the RFA crowd is harsher than Arbcom. In any event someone getting a once in a blue moon block is not a bar to adminship, but never being able to stay block free for a year is. PS if you hadn't realised that was the issue, why not login and just make sure you don't get blocked for a year? ϢereSpielChequers 14:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to change IP's on you, this is my work IP but its 108/Kumioko again. The fact is I just don't care that much amnymore about getting access to the tools or about what happens to the project and I frankly don't think most others really care about the project either. I used too, strongly, but the community has shown me that feeling was misplaced and unwanted. I think most folks, admins included just care about filling whatever topic area interests them and don't care about the bigger project or picture. Yes I am inferring they push POV. As for the block issue, I was so active on controversial topics I attract controversy, especially as adversarial as I am with some of the abusive admins that should have their tool access removed (and a couple higher than simple admin access), there is little chance of not getting blocked by one of them. Besides that, there is zero chance of me getting access to the tools at this point even if I went ten years block free. My point though is that if an admin isn't going to have their tools removed after multiple blocks, then to not give an editor the tools because of a block is hypocritical and isn't in the best interests of the project. If the event is enough for an editor to not get the tools, the admin should at least have the tools suspended for a period of time. I don't expect many to agree with this but that's how I feel. Expecially if its one of the admins who has a multitude of blocks, who I won't name here. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kumioko, I wouldn't describe it as hypocrisy, but I'd accept that the community can seem inconsistent even if the individuals usually aren't. Part of the problem is that RFA has become very difficult to pass, and part is that it seems to be human nature to expect people to be at their best when they submit to an exam. If some de facto requirements at RFA are too high for a large proportion of the existing admins to pass then some will consider that as evidence of RFA being broken, not of admins being hypocritical. However I'm struggling to think of a current admin who has had multiple recent blocks, maybe I've been avoiding the dramah boards too much, if I'm wrong I'd welcome an email naming any admin who has had more than one block this year. As for your chances of getting through RFA if you went ten years block free, I suspect you'd have made it through last time if you had been 12 months block free. If you log in, concentrate on writing the Encyclopaedia, and take some advice about the way you handle controversy, then I'd be surprised if after 18 months of productive block free activity there were many who fretted about anything as old as 2013 in a mid 2015 RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 12:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
A big part of the problem, as I have mentioned repeatedly is that admins aren't held to the same standard. The standard is considerably lower once editors get the tools. If an editor does something against policy any admin can act on it or any editor can submit them to ANI. They are frequently punished severely. For an admin though it requires a long and detailed case with Arbcom and the end result is almost always with dismissal. In the rare cases of a desysopping its almost always due to being associated to a case that wasn't even directly about them. So few even bother and by the time they do, it just amounts to a waste of time. The other alternative is they voluntarily give them up, which is rare(not counting desysopping due to inactivity). If the process doesn't treat all editors and admins equally and fairly, it doesn't work, that's the bottom line.
Lets look at completely different problem. Another example with a problem in the system can be seen with some of the admin RFA's from last year as further example of a problem with the system. Many passed with 100% support, a few passed with as many as 30 opposes. This can be seen in every year all the way back. So are the 30 wrong or the 100 that supported? In virtually every case the work they do is great with no problems. So either the 30 opposers were wrong, or the process needs to be changed.
I have argued from the beginning that change needs to take 2 parts. The tools need to be easier to get and' they need to be easier to take away if abused. One doesn't work without the other. I also don't agree that I would pass. I am too critical of the system and have pissed too many people off. That ship has sailed. I'm also not going to volunteer large amounts more of my time to a project where the majority doesn't want me here and that I personally see failing in the next couple years due to the cultural problems. Personally I cared a lot about the project, but all I got was insulted and told I couldn't be trusted. No one is going to participate in a volunteer project with that. I would also add that if an editor needs to wait 6 months to 18 months to submit an RFA after a block to stand a chance at getting the tools then an admin that gets blocked should have the tools suspended for some amount of time. Of course that would ensure that admins don't get blocked at all, which only further illustrates my point that the system as it is does not work.
I will send you an email a little later with some names and examples. I need to go finish cooking Thanksgiving dinner. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Firstly enjoy Thanksgiving. Secondly advice about 18 months was a cautious note from a seasoned nominator. My standards for supprting people are different to my estimate of what the community will accept. People have run with blocks as recent as 12 months or less, but they can make for fractious RFAs or ones that only barely pass. If there are admins out there who have kept the bit despite blocks then I really would be surprised if they are numerous. I'm not convinced that admins are judged to a lower standard than non-admins, I've certainly seen examples where I thought Arbcom or the community was being harsher because the person was an admin. But I accept that you may have seen things that looked differently to you - this is a big complex place. However I don't accept the argument that almost all Arbcom cases against admins get dismissed, I'd be surprised if it was even a majority, especially if you exclude the ones where people have so little confidence in their case that they try to go straight to Arbcom and skip the earlier steps. As for whether the opposers were wrong when an RFA passes, or indeed whether the supporters were wrong when one fails, proof of the pudding is when there is a desysop or a second RFA. I have seen people pass on a second attempt and go on to become successful admins, I like to think that justifies my support in their first unsuccessful RFA, I have also seen someone resign under a cloud or be desysopped when I was one of the handful who had opposed them. So to me what matters is not whether one !voted with consensus, but whether a year or more later one would with hindsight have !voted the same way. Also I think it important that we set a criteria for adminship but until we do there will be people disagreeing at RFA not just because they are unsure whether borderline candidates meet a criteria, but because they have different criteria as to what makes a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks you too. I'm not worried about me anymore. I've moved onto participating in Wikia projects where my help is wanted and appreciated. Several have made me an admin there because they need and want help from experienced editors. So I am going to help the projects where my help is wanted, not here where its obviously not. And I'm certainly not going to hide in the corner and play along ignoring obvious problems just because that's the only way to get the tools. If that's what it takes, then I don't need or want them. I'm barely editing anything outside an occasional discussion here anymore anyway and don't plan too. Even less so logged in. There's almost nothing I need or want to do I can't do as an IP. I just generally ignore the vandalism and other problems I see here now. Which are quite numerous BTW because it doesn't seem like there are enough people who are interested in these areas or know what to do. Again with the admins thing, most don't get blocked when they should because the bar is set lower for admins in general. Yes there are certainly a few exceptions and outliers but they are infrequent at best That's part of my point. They are allowed to do things that would get a normal editor blocked or banned and nothing is done. They are the exception I agree but its that small minority that's a contributing factor to the ruin of this project. What happens if you get an ounce of gas in a truckload of milk? The whole truckload gets thrown away. Same thing here. The fact is that the majority of active admins where made admins back in the 2006-2008 timeframe when it was easier to get. And their still here. That has a lot of meaning, but if it doesn't make sense then I cant explain it. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the wikigeneration gulf emerging, I wrote about it for the signpost over three years ago, and the gulf has widened dramatically since then. But different people learn different things from that gulf, to me and others it is a sign that RFA has broken, and it is only because the admins who were appointed in 2003/07 have continued in such numbers that we are still able to do the deletions, blocks and other admin tasks that this site requires. Others seem to think that RFA isn't broken and that the anomaly is that we still rely on admins from the era when admins were appointed in large numbers. I suspect such people also believe that today's RFAs with their focus on edit count and the Q&A section are better at sorting potential good admins from potential bad admins than the RFAs of a few years ago where the emphasis was more on checking the candidate's contributions. I don't agree with that, and I don't share the vision of us having a minimum possible number of admins, where admins are specialists who perforce do little but admin stuff. To me the fewer the admins we have the bigger a deal adminship becomes, and the larger the proportion of an admins wiki time they spend on admin tasks the more detached they risk becoming from the other editors. I would rather have hundreds of admins from the era before RFA was broken and have them spend a minority of their wiki time doing admin stuff, than have a small number of admins who may have started editing at the same time as the current community, but have drifted away from them because they do little but admin tasks. ϢereSpielChequers 18:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I generally agree with all of that. But even if we were to flood the tools out to a bunch of the long term editors we would still need to be able to remove some. Removing them is still too hard to do. I also think that there are multiple reasons why RFA is failing and why Wikipedia in turn is failing and addressing any one of them will help, but not fix the problem. Certainly creating the roles of File mover, rollback and template editor helped but it was only necessary because we don't trust our editors. There are lots of potential admins (Going Batty, Liz, Maile and a pile of others) most don't want to run because the RFA process is such a nightmare. They don't want to go through it and I don't blame them. The other problem is we do have hundreds of admin from the era before it was broken and they are leaving at the cyclic rate. Every month we desysop a halfdozen or more for inactivity. Most of the remainder only edit every few months, just enough to keep from falling into inactivity. That leaves only a few admins to do the majority of the tasks that is the problem now. Too few using the tools and the wrong ones are being promoted. If only the ultraconservative editors can pass, or will even try, then thats what we are going to get. And those are not the ones who are going to participate in CCI at ANI, at AE or in the numerous other areas where help is needed. Not everyone who gets promoted should be and should lose the tools, that's just a fact of life. We shouldn't have the attitude that its better not to promote anyone than to promote a few bad ones. That's why we need to make it easier to get the tools and easier to take them away. But no one wants to hear what I have to say anymore so I'm just going to drop it. If whispered it, I've yelled it and I've typed it. No one cares and no one is willing to take the time or stake their reputations on it to fix the problem. The only way this is going to get fixed is if the RFA process fails to promote for a few months. Otherwise some are going to argue the process works and no effort will be done to fix it. Even then I am dubious that this community can pass any meaningful change. The only point of solidarity in recent history is when we told the WMF that Visual Editor was a mess and needed to be unenabled, even then we had to take matters into our own hands. The community doesn't care about the RFA process and neither does the WMF. Neither of those is likely to change anytime soon. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Closing irrelevant tangential discussion
I have to be blunt here. Conflating your own failure to gain sufficient community support in 4 RfA with the behaviour of one or more Admins and suggesting that what isn't gander for them should therefore mean goose for you is about as cock-eyed as it is possible to get without questioning whether one's head is up one's backside. Your constant inability to question your own poor judgement (and evident pride taken in such) and the attitude you display in coming back yet again with the same tired rhetoric simply reinforces my view that RfA is the best way we have of establishing the credentials of genuine, well-fitted candidates as opposed to those with a tendency for bauble collecting, the clueless or the inept. This page is supposed to be about RfA reform. Your particular case study is of no help and repeating it at every opportunity is verging on the disruptive. Leaky Caldron 15:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
As I said above I don't expect people to agree and I don't care if they do. I already know you and a number of others don't care for me and I honestly don't care about that either. But the fact is that a system where we allow one editor to keep a restricted access tool when they screw up (get blocked) and then prevent another editor from getting that tool for the exact same and often less of an infraction, is just plain stupid and shows the system doesn't work. The continued justifications by you and others that abusive admins should be allowed to keep a tool after they failed to show good judgement shows me that you don't know what you are talking about and your just trying to discredit what I am saying. The only poor judgement I showed was trying to resurrect a dead multitude of dead wikiprojects and brought upon myself an onslough of POV pushers and editors and admins with article ownership issues. I would also note that RFA frequently does not promote the right candidate, it promotes the conservative candidate who doesn't get involved. The back end gnome. Which in part is ok, because we need those too, but when the system all but requires that the user be ultra conservative to get access to the tools, then the project is heading for failure. Now I for one am getting tired of your constant ditractions so I recommend either contributing to the discussion or move on but quite distracting it with your bad faith assertions. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not and never have justified anything about abusive Admins, any more than I support inadequate RfAs. I just don't confuse the two. Leaky Caldron 16:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Well that is exactly what you are doing above by refuting my comments that the same standard should be applied to admins who get blocked as non admin editors who have a block and attempt an RFA. If the infraction is sufficient to prevent one from getting the tools then it is sufficient for the tools to be revoked, even if only temporarily. If the decision is that people cannot or should not resubmit for RFA within 6 months or one year from a block, then that duration should also apply to admins. By your gander and goose comments above you infer that is exactly what you prefer so excuse me if I misunderstood your intentions. I have my problems and I admit that but for the community to say they don't trust me after hundreds of thousands of edits and countless time spent trying to build up this cesspool when they allow abusive admins to run amok is just hypocritical. Now I am going to get in trouble for this but my wiki career is over anyway. When you have editors like Sandstein who run AE like a one man judge, jury and executioner; Rschen who is one of has one of the biggest article ownership issues related to USRoads articles around and Fram who is aboutthe most manipulative admin around and has done more damage to the project by eliminating editors he doesn't like; Then you have CBM who thinks he is always right but he doesn't edit much anymore except when he wants to hound editors he doesn't like....I can go on all day. There are many more. I found one admin who has been blocked 11 times and he still has the tools. My point is, that this place is chock full of admins who abuse the system and their tools and people let them get away with it but then tell others they can't have the tools because they are blunt and tell them how it is. Now, I have gotten to the point where I no longer care if Iget blocked , banned or if the servers shut down and Wikipedia falls into the history books. This site is dying because of gross mismanagement and its only a matter of time till it ends.138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to support Leaky caldron's point here. Kumioko, if you're leaving, please leave. You've made your point multiple times, it's clear. Let some water flow under the bridge, please. In a year, you may think differently about wanting to be involved on Wikipedia, and others may think differently about you, but right now it is indeed a confrontation between how you see your wiki-career and motivations and how they appear to others. You are in other words demonstrating that Leaky caldron's right: one of the things about RfA that do work is that people who don't have the confidence of the community don't get the tools, and that prevents problems later (it is indeed hard to remove an admin, providing they keep editing); the way that works is that stuff that admins get away with is an impediment to getting made an admin. That's how an approvals process works. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok for the last time, you 2 clowns have had your fun now lets get back on topic. Its obvious to me that no one else is going to step in here and end this uneeded tangent which only illustrates my point that we need more admins who are going to take action and less that are going to ignore obvious trolling. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The topic is over. You have just clearly demonstrated by this reply that whatever you experience is, you are just not suitable to become administrator. RfA worked very well by letting you fail. Period.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I was prepared to walk away from this but now I feel like I need to reply. You and Leaky completely derailed that entire conversation by pointing fingers at me. All I was trying to do was to get back to the discussion but you 2 just insisted that you wanted to keep insulting me. The only thing my reply shows is that over the years my tolerance for allowing editors like the 2 of you to insult me without saying something has been eroded. If you do not want me to respond with how I feel, then stop instigating the discussion with unnecessarily provocative comments that you and I both know are intentionally trying to provoke a response from me. As I said above I don't really give a shit if you agree or disgaree with me or think I should or should not be an admin. I DO NOT CARE. But your provocative comment tells me that you have absolutely no business having access to the tools either. Now if you don't have anything better to do I would suggest checking out peer review, they are always looking for help or maybe CCI, their about 2 years behind. And BTW I am much more likely to continue to comment if you continue to insult me. If you want me to leave, stop responding with insults. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Another break seems needed

  • I didn't speak up on this issue because I'm an outlier who got the tools almost entirely for content work, but I think that was a good piece of advice; lack of substantive content work has been a big issue in several recent RfAs that I've seen. (And the result has in large part hinged on how good a case the candidate has made in response to it.) Adding references to an article is indeed a good way to establish content-creation cred if a person doesn't feel comfortable creating new articles - I do a lot of attempted saving of AfD'd articles, and we could use others who do that, especially since the references usually bring additional information with them. Harder but an excellent demonstration of admin suitability in my mind is to summarize the information when an article has had copyright-violating material added; that way we get to keep the information. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In which case a slight tweak to Wikipedia:Guide_to_requests_for_adminship#What_RfA_contributors_look_for_and_hope_to_see is all that is needed. (we must assume that this, and other RfA guides, are as a minimum, read by all candidates. Although looking at some of the RfA that is evidently not the case). Leaky Caldron 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Slightly tweaked, I had thought it was obvious, but in hindsight it wasn't obvious to those who don't add referenced material. Though I agree that not every candidate reads it, but I hope it persuades some to delay until they are likely to pass. ϢereSpielChequers 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ansh666

You said:

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

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

I think the advice on content is on point.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've made some changes. I doubt that a candidate without a GA could get 100% support, but as long as RFA still promotes admins who haven't written a GA or FA we shouldn't advise candidates that they are compulsory. A candidate who does many minor additions that are well referenced can still pass RFA, the content test that makes the difference between passing and failing is whether they understand reliable sourcing. ϢereSpielChequers 04:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
@Ansh. I've seen candidates pass who specialise in New Page patrol or in AFD work. These are great venues to demonstrate skills in content creation, knowing which articles are worth rescuing and how to do so is useful. When candidates who work in those areas fail it is usually because they have not yet reached an acceptable level of accuracy to be trusted with the deletion button. Either that or they haven't yet moved on from tagging problems for more experienced editors to fix to actually fixing problems. ϢereSpielChequers 04:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • If anybody wants to hear my two cents to this, I feel RfA has gotten overly picky. The reason why it was successful in the past is because it was a simple concept on a then, simple encyclopedia, were everyone said adminship is no big deal. As the encyclopedia got bigger, so did the expectations, and that is the problem. Logically, as something gets bigger, more people are needed to maintain it, but the concepts are still the same. Adminship has hardly gone through any changes over the years, so why should expectations? In reality, the tool comes down to trust and general familiarity with the site and it's policies. Will the user abuse the tools? Will he learn from his mistakes? Does he know policy well enough not to make major ones? Everything on this site is reversible, meaning damage can be easily fixed. That's why I'm one to easily support a candidate. Naturally though, that would never happen here. I do have ideas on mind that could possibly accommodate this large encyclopedia but I never felt like proposing it since all the other ideas get shot down in 0.0 seconds. If anybody wants to hear them, I'll be happy to file an RfC for input on them.—cyberpower ChatOffline 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I wish it were true that "Everything on this site is reversible, meaning damage can be easily fixed." Unfortunately, there are some things that happen that are not reversible: the harm to an editor from a misconceived block, an excessively bossy or patronising remark from an admin, a user dragged into defending their new articles from dodgy PRODs and AFDs made without prior discussion. Harm to the encyclopedia can be reversed; harrm to editors, especially new ones, less so. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
By everything, I meant physically on Wikipedia. Bad blocks, WP:BITEy behavior, is per my above statement what should be assessed. Does the candidate know what damage these tools can cause if misused? Does s/he learn from his/her mistake? Is s/he civil? Has s/he demonstrated a trustworthy attitude? Everything else shouldn't be assessed. I see people assessing based on their username, how many articles were written, how many FA's the helped create, the slightest fart about a candidate that was minor being blown out of proportion in a long-winded oppose that makes it sound convincing to others cause "me too" and "per this guy" opposes, causing the RfA to potentially fail. I've seen it happen repeatedly and I feel bad for those candidates. It's a reason why I stopped participating in RfAs, and now likely won't be an admin myself. I have a somewhat controversial history myself, especially with the recent Cyberbot II issue, where my judgement was impaired due to my RL stress. That can easily be blown out of proportion and likely give my a 0% support in an RfA, completely ignoring the fact that I went on a break to destress and come back refreshed. I would like to at some point submit an RfC that I am somewhat hopeful of getting support for, but I won't do it know since RfA since to have turned up more admins recently.—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree that RfA voters have become more picky, and I would like to see some stats to prove this claim. The one thing that stands out is that most of the voters are highly transient and the pool of regular voters is small. That said, stats will prove that there has been an increase in voter participation over the years, and that 100+ supports are no longer anything getting excited about. With that increase in voters, there is also an increase in the ones who do little or no research, are fans or detractors, or are so new they don't even understand what it's all about. At the end of the day, the bar gets set anew for each RfA depending entirely on who turns out to vote.
Let's not ignore that there are very basically two camps: those who want the bar lowered, and it is safe to assume that among them are possibly some admin hopefuls, and those who would like the highest standards applied in order to prevent the the wrong people from being promoted who may cause the very issues people complain about. Talk of introducing easier methods of desysoping are all well and good, but prevention is probably better than cure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...Those are very good points. I used to think the bar should be lowered, but I no longer think that's an acceptable solution, as it may cause many other issues. I do have in idea in mind, that may work. It could potentially "fix" RfA a little to help turn out more results and more productivity. Sorry for repeating myself here. It also should address your prevention instead cure statement you made as well. I think I'm going to throw that RfC together now and start it when the time is right.—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

@Kudpung: Although I have tried to stay out of the conversation the last couple days I disagree voters aren't more picky. That's almost without debate. I don' care what any stats claim voters have absolutely become more picky eventhough we are seeing more people voting they are definately much more reliant on their personal voting standards (must have x edits, must have x FA's, must not have ever been blocked or whateever) most of which are completly meaningless. I do agree there are multiple camps on the admin issue and that I count myself in the former. That isn't due to my desire to be an admin but from the fact that it worked for so long and the fact that the vast majority of the admins we have now were in fact promoted under that old system. So to say now that the old system of trusting our editors didn't work, would be to say that a lot of the current admins don't cut the mustard. Adding to that the fact that most passing RFA's had some opposes and the vast majority of those opposes turned out to be wrong leads me to believe that there is little reason to not trust our long term editors. I do also think though that there are several admins who shouldn't be and we need to make it easier to remove the tools from users, not just make it easier to get the tools. The 2 really need to happen hand in hand. Now back to your reguarly scheduled programming. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
I am one of the first to agree that the there are some admins whose use of tools and/or behaviour would not stand up to scrutintiny at our current stabndards for adminship, and that perhaps there is not enough done to bring them to account. I think every admin is capable of making an occasional error of judgement but this needs to be considered in perspective. However, as we all know, such isssues when brought to book are treated mainly on one current problem only, and the community - and Arbcom - is loath to recognise or even discuss long-terms patterns. That's what we need to ,get resolved. I've seen the writing on the wall for at least three admins over the last couple of years, and lo and behold, they finally lost their tools, but in some cases, it took far too long. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
And I agree. Even as harsh as I am about admin abuses and the RFA process I completely agree that its a minority of a minority that is the problem. The problem is, as you so ably describe, is a lack of action on that minority. This is what causes the general admin corps to be looked upon in disdain and cause people, including me, to badmouth the admins in general. I would also like to think the new Arbcom will be better than the last but I don't see much to make me think that and in fact some of the candidates make me think it will be more of the same or worse if they get elected. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

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

I can only speak for myself, but I've been able to collaborate quite nicely with admins and non-admins alike on my latest project. Now it happens that on this, even though I'm the main writer I've had to use my admin tools to scrub a few things which really needed to be hidden from public view (years-old junk floating around in archives and such, even if there wasn't a formal policy on respecting privacy I think basic human decency would kick in), but otherwise it's had has had no bearing whatsoever on how the article has developed. I'm normally as involved in contentious issues as anyone, but I had no difficulty separating editor from admin; a few admins have trouble doing that, but they're the exceptions. Treating them as the norm makes it that much more difficult to address the real issue those people present. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Epipelagic, Over the years, thousands of editors have commented on this talk page. Discounting the ones who have not posted here in the past 12 months, that makes you the #20 most prolific contributor to this talk page. Instead of resorting to PA and basically repeating the same complaints about admis/adminship over and over again, if you feel so strongly about it (which I belive you do, though I don't see what personal axe you have to grind), why don't you do something about it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Gosh, are 19 editors currently more active on this page. What can that mean? Should I contribute more? If I have a "personal axe" it is fundamentally that I would like to see content builders treated decently. The better and harder working admins also get a raw deal, having to deal with flak that doesn't really originate with them. If the system worked rationally, users like Ansh above who seems competent and really wants to do deletions, would be allowed to do them instead of being brushed aside and left frustrated. Simple procedures would be in place to monitor his performance and remove his right if he performs badly. There is nothing complicated about this. The admin system is much too much under the control of legacy admins and admin wannabes. The wider community which build Wikipedia no longer has a say. As you must know Kudpung, there is very little content editors can do about this. The system has assigned so much power to itself that it now has Wikipedia in an iron grip and content editors have no power. "Being an admin is no big deal" is a sick joke, and the system is indulging the wrong people. I am merely pointing to the obvious. The one remaining shard of light is that the right to critique the system has yet to be completely extinguished. An editor can still attempt to articulate the real issues from to time on pages like this one, albeit with difficulty. It is critical this is done, not for the benefit of admins and admin wannabes, but for the benefit of other content editors. Occasionally one of these innocents stumbles on these pages. Unless some less innocent content editors who arrived here earlier can manage to secure small refuges of sanity and clarity on these pages, new innocents will be drowned by admin phantasmagoria about the magnificence of admin splendiferousness and the ghastliness of naughty content editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The detractors, trolls, and those who finally provoked WP:RFA2011 into submission, were simply shooting the messengers. They missed the vital point that the exercise was all about finding ways to attract more users to adminship of the calibre that you would be happy to work with. Instead of constantly soapboxing, why don't you lead all your downtrodden content builder into battle? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Battle? Good grief, there's too much dichotomising of admins and content creators as it is, without calling for a battle. Which is it - are the admins doing too much, including conspiring to oppress content creators, or too little (particularly vandal blocking/page protection/editing protected templates)? And which side would I be on? Less of the martial language, please. I really think seeing content creation and adminship as separate poles of activity is a large part of the problem and such metaphors make it worse. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC) ... Oh and trolls? <looks around; looks under the sofa for RfA2011 file> Where trolls? --Yngvadottir (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Royroydeb RfA closing

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

It might show consideration if you placed a message on their talk page explaining your decision. Leaky Caldron 19:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I sent the user an email right after I closed it. I figure, consider all of the pile on opposes (12 hours ago it was clear that this wasn't going to pass), I figured that the last thing that the candidate needed was another public forum for people to pile on at. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm leaving to go meet people for an early Thanksgiving dinner. If there is anything further that needs doing on the close, please do it for me and then let me know what it I that I needed to do. I'll check back this evening. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed it from the RfA page and updated the Recent RfAs thingy. Happy thanksgiving :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I formatted the close using {{subst:Finaltally}} (I think it's alright now for this situation). I also added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/R, while AutomaticStrikeout added it to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2013. See the instructions at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Promotions and RfX closures. Graham87 03:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin levels

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

Moxy with your dubious history, you are the very last person to be trusted with any tools.  Giano  19:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree, I think Moxy would be second to last. I would be last..;-) Kumioko 108.45.104.69 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no wish to communicate with Giano and wish he would take the advice of others and try to behave in a mature manner and disengage his odd behavior towards me. To Giano - I understand your still holding a grudge because I embarrassed you a few times - but I and everyone need you to conduct yourself in a mature manner please. To the matter at hand.... any thoughts? -- Moxy (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh don't worry about me, I'm unembarrassable. But funnily enough, I do have a thought. Quite a big though in fact: I'm wondering what 'past mistakes' you could possibly be apologising for on your first day at Wikipedia [2]  Giano  21:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This page is for RfA-related discussion. Please don't make things unnecessarily personal. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 22:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
OK; I won't.  Giano  22:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This just sounds like an overly complicated WP:PERM. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 23:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Correct like WP:PERM where there is not as much drama or walls of text as there is here. Very simple apply and wait for outcome...over having your life examined and pick apart over a few weeks by people who have no clue who you are. Leave it to admins - the ones we have already intrusted to make theses kinds of decision over disgruntled editors that dont have the communities interest at heart. -- Moxy (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The tools are very much connected in my experience (25k log actions here, 150k on Commons). If a page is being vandalized, you may have to block vandals and protect the page. If a spammer is putting up promo pages, you may have to delete the pages and block the spammer. Sockmasters often put up garbage pages, and vandalize pages, leading to blocks, deletions, and protections. You wouldn't want to be able to delete pages, but not stop them from being created, or protect a page and have to ask someone else to block a vandal, etc. INeverCry 00:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
A key tool, that should never have been distributed in the widespread and cavalier manner it has, is the ability to block able long term content builders. The discipline of able content builders is a serious move which should be handled with some skill by a panel of their peers. Instead, they are treated at the same level as vandals, and can be blocked at whim by a single loose cannon admin. There are huge numbers of these admins, many ill-equipped to make such judgements and many who have contributed far less to Wikipedia than the editors they are jerking about. That is just crazy, and the inevitable consequence is the rancour and resentment of admins we see today. This right should be withdrawn from all admins, and a panel elected by content builders should be appointed to function as a disciplinary board. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen some shitty blocks, but I can't imagine the formation or implementation of such a "diciplinary board" going at all smoothly. Perhaps we should end the prohibition of wheel-warring instead, and let good admins fight it out with the assholes. INeverCry 03:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
What we need to do is hold those admins doing the shitty blocks to task. If they show a pattern of poor decision making skills then the tools should be removed. This culture of continuing to allow bad admins to keep the tools and coming up with excuses why they shouldn't lose the tools needs to stop. It shouldn't take months or years of abuse and a multi-month arbitration determination to take the tools way from some asshole with a big head. If the conduct or action of the admin would result in a)an editor getting blocked or b)an editor not being able to get the tools because of it, then the tools should be removed. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes of course there are "huge numbers of these admins, many ill-equipped to make such judgements and many who have contributed far less to Wikipedia than the editors they are jerking about." That is one of the main problems. It is an objective statement which refers to many admins, not a "sweeping" statement which refers to all admins. Is there some part of it are you objecting to? If I am "repeating or paraphrasing ... perennial mantras" it is because they refer to things that need to be said here, and they need to be repeated and paraphrased until they have been properly heard and addressed. If RFA2011 was torpedoed it was because the core issues upsetting to content editors were systematically suppressed. The project seemed to be designed to further secure the position of admins. There is nothing to be gained by trawling over this out of date project. You are attacking me a lot lately Kudpung. I don't understand why we have to be at odds. You never say specifically what is upsetting you. Why not put that energy into addressing these issues and working towards resolving them with a more functional system? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Umm, Epi, haven't you worked out yet that Kudpung's angle here is to make it easier to become an admin? Sure. He *says* he's for "reform", but every single time someone raises an issue that would make it harder to become an admin, or easier to remove admin rights, we get one of a) objections, b) obfuscation, or c) filibuster. Given the chance, every conversation gets turned to his favourite topic. Once you know that, his responses become a lot easier to understand.101.118.28.147 (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt Kudpung really wants to make it easier to become an admin, though you could ask him. I think he wants to achieve enhanced security and dignity for admins. There's nothing wrong with that, but it has to be earned and balanced by also allowing some security and dignity for the able long term content builders who are the real powerhouse here. These people are not lesser people than admins, though at present they are certainly treated as though they are. It is this combination of admins and the WMF attempting to trash these users that is putting Wikipedia in peril. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You are fully aware that the project was designed specifically to find ways of getting the kind of admins on board that content editors would be happy to accept. The rest of what you say is a priori. You've repeated yourself often enough that people have taken notice and I'm aware that there are others who share your views. It's not up to me however, to do anything, I've done my bit (which you now admit was deliberately scuppered, and I can provide the diffs of the unprovoked attacks and PA from various 'participants'). As I've said above a couple of times, if you feel so strongly about the state of adminship, please consider doing something about it yourself such as initiating new projects that properly hear and address your concerns. If you have some ideas even if, for example, you were to feel that Wikipedia could get along without admins at all, then put them up for RfC - von nix kommt nix. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Kudpung, I think you have done excellent and courageous work from heartfelt motives attempting to get good quality admins elected via the current AfD system. I completely congratulate you for that. Up to a point I think you have succeeded (though we do seem to be appointing the most boring and unadventurous users on the block). But I also think you have been trying to prop up the wrong part of the admin structure. The current admin system is fatuous and failed, and no matter how much you tinker with and refine the process of electing admins, the grim fact remains that they are being elected as functionaries to a fatuous and failed system. All credit to you Kudpung for the valiant effort you have contributed up to this point. But please now redirect your energy in a direction that looks instead at the overall structure, and sets out to listen to dissent, to heal divisions, and to re-energise content building – ex nihilo creata est. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
"... to get good quality admins elected via the current AfD system". Wikipedia:Administrators for Deletion? Hmm --Stfg (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential partial solution

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

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2#Lower the bar for previous discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, actually the bar is not 80%, but 70%. Of course, users that get 70-72% of support would likely end up in a crat chat, but from 74% upwards you should be fine. — ΛΧΣ21 05:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The larger problem in RFA standards is editcountitis

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

I feel sure that you are alluding to this and I can understand your disappointment at its failure to gain consensus for promotion. As you say yourself: "Today we evaluate potential admins with a very critical eye that searches for personality and interaction flaws." Voters' comments, especially from those who do some real research before voting, can be very revealing and in this particular RfA even discounting the votes that were based purely and only on activity level, it still probably would not have made the threshold for a pass. As you know, most of those above 80% pass while most of those below 70% fail, but arriving at those numbers is determined not only by the voters who turn out to vote (and they are mostly a transient pool of editors), but also upon the actual criteria practiced by each individual participant. Thus the real 'bar' can be very different for each RfA. Active and/or well known editors are likely to attract a high turnout which in many ways is a plus for the process, but still does not exclude the eventually that an RfA can be somewhat of an un/popularity contest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Show me an error-free list of precisely 100 great admins, and I'll commit to doing 100 hours per week. Some may see that as a cheeky dig at admins as a whole, but my underlying point is that different people have different opinions on what makes a great admin.

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

There is absolutely no evidence that the OP's premise; "Edit count (and distribution) is our standard rule of thumb for evaluating RFA." is true. To be a standard rule of thumb it would imply that nothing else matters. There are dozens of other factors. Leaky Caldron 09:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
As an editor with well over 20,000 gnoming and vandalism cleanup edits, I'm really tired of being told that "I don't contribute" and that "my edits aren't real edits". For one thing that implies that my edits are themselves worthless or trivially easy to carry out (if you're doing it right, it takes effort to tell which button to press in Twinkle before you do so) and secondly that I make no other edits beside, even if you don't notice them behind the tens of thousands of supposed non-edits. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Who would we want as a candidate? Amongst other talents, someone demonstrating WP:COMPETENCE, someone with experience as a non-admin. Implying that whatever it was they were doing before, they've done a fair bit of it, have kept doing it and are reasonably happy with doing it. So why would such a person ever want to go near RfA?
The worse RfA is as an experience, the worse it will become. Only those who desperately want to become an admin will touch it and to quote (Douglas Adams, AFAIR) no one who wants such a role so badly should be allowed within a mile of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you're thinking of the Groucho Marx quote? "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept people like me as a member." isaacl (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
To me the biggest problem is the communities lack of trust in each other. When people come to an RFA they are looking for a reason to oppose, not to support. If there is any deviation in the candidates record, then they start building opposes, those opposes snowball and generally lead to a fail. It doesn't really matter to heavily how many edits a candidate has, if they keep their head down and don't get involved, they'll probably be ok. If they participate in controversial areas or do things that put them in the limelight, they stand a good chance of not getting the tools. It used to be that a large number of those getting the tools were technical, now its rare for a technical user to get the tools. Its generally the mediators and the folks can't edit the technical stuff, even though that is a crucial part of an admins responsibility. More emphasis is put on the ability to close an ANI thread or blocking a vandal than being able to maintain complex protected templates, edit the mediawiki pages or LUA modules or various other areas. It really boils down to a lack of faith in the editors here. Until that is resolved and people are willing to assume good faith like they did in the old days, nothing with RFA will change. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
It depends what kind of voters you are referring to. There are those who set about objective research into a candidiate and if they come up with sufficient grounds to oppose they will, There does appear to be a fraction among th community however who disapprove of admins and adminship in general, and they are the ones who will specifically be looking for reasons to oppose. I recall quite vividly an occasion when a particulary disingenuous vote was ironically made by an admin, who even more ironically has since been desysoped. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I think your partially right, but in general my observation has been that most people who come to RFA to vote on a candidate have an unrealistic goal of the perfect candidate. The system as is favors those who don't get invoved, that's just how I feel and the impression I have gotten from seeing it in action over the years. Those who get the tools these days are generally very casual editors who edit a couple times a week and fly under the radar. Those who are very active and those who prefer to work in technical areas rather than vandalfighting or teh for deletion venues tend to not get the tools. I just don't think that's a healthy process. People are going to make mistakes and if the Wikipedia community is so stringent that a single mistake amount hundreds or thousands of good edits is enough to fail the RFA then they need to do some serious self reflection. Especially when many of the admins (like the one you me mention) are doing on a daily basis the exact things that these candidates are failing RFA over. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's a different take on it

I stumbled on User:NoSeptember/Your RfA and was interested to note the emphasis on not giving up. This expectation seems to have reversed itself: I see candidates being encouraged to fold when things start to go badly, as if it's imposing on the community for them to stick it out. At least twice, I've finally had time to review a candidate's contributions and formulate my opinion, only to find they withdrew in the meantime. I don't want to increase stress on candidates: RfA's are almost certainly more of an ordeal now than when that was written, and every one's different (as are the candidates, who are after all volunteers; I don't think I agree with the "immaturity" point). But there's a kernel of truth in NoSeptember's statement that supports will continue to come in, including from people won over by the candidate's demeanor. It takes a while to research someone. Even those who place heavy emphasis on questions often wait for responses to more than the set three. It also takes a while for people who don't have RfA watchlisted to realize someone's running. (IIRC there have been not eleventh, but twelfth-hour votes on some recent RfAs, that came in when they'd run the full 7 days and were in process of closure.) I suspect this time factor and the increasing tendency for candidates to withdraw have played a role in the constantly changing names at RfA that Kudpung remarks on: after my RfA I tried to pay it forward by participating in the process, but I got discouraged after being too late yet again, and stopped, figuring my opinion wasn't going to matter much. Also ... encouraging someone to quit carries the implication that they're taking up the community's time; if we want to be more welcoming to candidates in order to attract more, I think that's a message we should be wary of sending. This is kind of the obverse of the issue of edit counts, since if the candidate sticks with it, they may be able to alleviate concerns over numbers, distribution, use of automated tools, and so forth. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Although I partially agree I also have seen editors leave after a failed RFA. RFA's tend to be brutal and people frequantly attack the candidates. Admins included frequently leave comments that are not only derogatory but innappropriate and are unnecessarily antagonistic. Its even more irritating to the candidates when they see the admins doing the same things being brought up in oppose votes. So part of any reform to the RFA process needs to be making it easier to remove the tools from abusive admins. I've said it many times, the tools need to be easier to get and easier to take away. Once we do these 2 things then you will see all these backlogs start to reduce and edits will pick up. If it takes 3 years and 100, 000 edits to prove thy worth, then most people won't bother. Most people won't work in a place where they can never get, and excuse the poor term, promoted. If they can't be trusted for wanting to do more and volunteer their time, then they will leave. We need to give them the chance to help out but be ready to remove the tools if necessary if they start to abuse them. There is a lot of knowledge on this project and people who want to help, we are wasting that talent. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Some of the very worst voter behaviour I have ever seen on an RfA was from an admin. He's been desysoped since, but it took a long time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That has always been a problem with the system. Its too hard to remove the tools from abusive admins. Yes it has been removed from a few after a long time and significant effort. There are a number of others who still have the tools and should have had them removed, some long ago. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The biggest problem in RfA reform

For the last several years, literally dozens of editors, both with and without accounts, have been talking excessively about how the RfA process is broken and that it needs to be fixed. For a while I participated heavily in these discussions, but then I got a bit preoccupied with more important things in life and had to back out. Several solutions have been proposed, many of which actually sound good and have received favorable acceptance from the community. Unfortunately, none of these proposals have actually been attempted.

Granted, we've made some fairly decent headway in identifying the major problems. We've even implemented a couple minor improvements over the years. But what we haven't done is implement a more permanent solution. After several years of tossing around ideas, you'd think at least one major idea would have made it to the large-scale experimentation process. But to my knowledge, this hasn't happened yet, and put bluntly that's quite sad on our part.

I see it this way: We're not getting anywhere because hardly anybody is truly motivated enough to actually move a proposal to the experimentation phase. Sure, a lot of us have true concern for the future of this process; after reading through the hundreds of threads made about reform, that becomes really clear. But if you stop and think about it, RfA will never affect any of our real world lives, and that's why nobody has been dedicated enough to actually get a potential solution going on a large scale. Naturally, real life should come first in all circumstances. RfA isn't a real world concern for any of us. Nobody places RfA reform on the top of their life's priority list, and they probably shouldn't, but with how many editors are involved in these discussions, I think we could get a good proposal going if everyone would stop debating over which problem is bigger or which solution is better and start working together. I'm not saying that nothing will ever go through, but if we don't get a good group of completely dedicated editors soon, things could get even uglier. We will never find a solution that satisfies everybody; some people are just going to have to be willing to settle. What we should do is get together all major proposals that have been put forth and have a consensus vote. Whichever proposal has the highest percentage of support should be the first one the community tries to implement. If that proposal doesn't end up working, we move to the second one (or have another vote, whichever the community prefers). We have to be willing to get our hands dirty here.

End the debate now and let's actually give a proposal a serious try. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 07:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Utah, forgive me, but I think you just said we could solve all this is only people would think and act differently. It's a bit utopian. How in practical terms would you propose to move on from WP:RFA2011 and WP:RFA2012? --Stfg (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Im going to answer your question Stfg, as if Utah had a ready answer I dont think they'd have posted so much half baked thinking. Sorry if that is overly blunt Utah, congrats for posting the core of a workable solution. Your idea's well worth some attention.
Perhaps the most self-defeating part of Utah's suggestion is the idea that "RfA isn't a real world concern for any of us." This cuts away at the very motivation they rightly highlight as needed for successful reform.
Increasingly, Digital natives don't recognize the old fashioned distinction between the Internet & real world. Even if one assumes all editors are locked into the old school view, Wikipedia would be a special case. Our encyclopedia is a public good, similar to free roads, clean air and pubic parks. Our articles are read by hundreds of millions across the globe. Some readers may be indifferent, but many, especially in the emerging economies, greatly appreciate this resource. Wikipedia is one of the most valuable man made creations ever. Unless one take the eccentric view that the state of RfA is irrelevant to the wider health of the project, then concerns over RfA do deserve to rank along side real world priorities. Lack of motivation isn't the reason for our failure to reform.
The foremost reason reform attempts always crash is the vocal minority who won't accept the premise that RfA is broken. A secondary reason is pro reformers being overly deferential to these objectors, letting them control the agenda and taking seriously demands for irrefutable "evidence" that the decline in active admins is a genuine problem.
Another reason is the excess of half baked proposals, often by editors who seem to think they just need to post a big idea and then somehow the community will be inspired to do the hard work of implementing it. Each failed proposal increased cynicism about the possibility of reform. Too many single editors seem to take ideas straight to this board with out sounding them out with others. This is not to say we need something as large and unwieldy as the 2011 RfA reform project - that was a step too far in the other direction. For non hierarchical communities, successful proposals often come from small focused working groups, who present to the wider community once their approach is sufficiently (but not excessively) refined. Starting with small groups guards against efforts being derailed in the vulnerable early stages.
There'd be many ways to form such working groups. To offer some practical specifics, if I still had a strong believe that RfA reform was needed, I'd proceed as follows. Write up a brief plan for how to structure reform efforts. Message WSC to see if he'd be interested in spending 20 mins discussing a reform attempt. Assuming he is, sit down with him at tomorrow’s London meet up, and work together (possibly with other interested Wikipedia from the meetup) in a spirit of collaboration, where no one is too attached to their own ideas, so that we produce a plan that reflects genuine consensus (albeit from a v small groups). In the days to follow, recruit a half a dozen or so additional editors, hand picked as likely to be sympathetic, by means of talk page messages and emails. Ideally this should include an expert in structuring RfCs like say Beeblebrox (but only if he proves to be broadly in favor of the reform plan. ) After a few more days behind the scenes work refining our approach, advertise a set of proposals from RfA talk to find the most popular. After a week or so, present the 3 most well supported proposals on Village pump. At this point it will be important to let anti-Reform editors present the case for the status quo, without allowing them to take over the discussion. At the end of the village pump debate/vote, the most supported proposal would be implemented if it has over 80% support, of if it had between 50 - 80%, it would be down to crat discretion. Even if crats reject any change, it could still lead to action by the Foundation.
Any editor willing to drive RfA in a well planned way like this would have a chance of effecting reform. I'd do it myself, only after years of seeing admins impose unwarranted blocks on good content building editors Im no longer sure a larger admin corps is desirable or of what sort of reform we need. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, your bluntness is something that I can respect (that goes for Stfg too). I suppose my post was fairly half-baked, and I apologize if I came across that way. I wrote this when I was tired. I'm just a bit frustrated that after so long, nothing has been tried. That's all. Anyway, I think the best thing for the community to do right now is be bold and put something forward, even if some people don't think it should be done. As I said before, it's impossible to satisfy everybody. My life's getting busier by the day, but I'm more than willing to set aside some time to help out. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 14:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Feyd, I'm more than happy to spend twenty minutes discussing RFA reform, London meetups are not of course equally accessible, but I can also do Skype if people want and would be happy to take part in a Skype chat if someone else does the technical hosting. Andrew Lih might be willing to make a Wikipedia Weekly episode of it which would make it open, give us a neutral chair and much more of a public record than you get from a meetup. In the meantime I've done a partial update to User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform and I still think that some of the ideas there could be implemented, though I'm not greatly confident that any will before we reach the point where we can't effectively run the site without appointing a large batch of poorly scrutinised admins. However I'm currently more focussed on seeing how we can reduce our need for admins. Unbundling certain types of U1 and G7 deletions, defaulting unpatrolled new articles to NoIndex and reducing edit warring are all ideas that I think the community might accept, which are worthwhile in their own right and are all things that I've supported and which could separately or in combination avert the day when we have insufficient admins. Of course my own ambition for RFA continues to be that we return to the day when this was a self governing community where all civil, clueful community members were admins or could see themselves soon becoming ones if they so wished. Sadly that current seems far out of reach, but there don't seem to be any other models out there as to how the community could operate. Perhaps it would help is someone who believes in the idea of admins becoming a scarce, detached group with little time to do non-admin things were to flesh out their vision as to how the community could operate longterm with an unreformed RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 14:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Just one error: "This is not to say we need something as large and unwieldy as the 2011 RfA reform project - that was a step too far in the other direction. For non hierarchical communities, successful proposals often come from small focused working groups, who present to the wider community once their approach is sufficiently (but not excessively) refined. Starting with small groups guards against efforts being derailed in the vulnerable early stages.": this is precisely what RFA2011 was: a small focused working group. Admittedly about 40 people put their names on the project list but most of the work, discussion, and research was carried out by a maximum of about 6 users. If it appears to be large and unwieldly, it's simply because they did so much work. The rest of the comments from others were largely derailed by detractors who had nothing objective to say, and who simply interjected with off-topic criticims - like they do here very often .It doesn't matter where you try to discuss admin reform on-Wiki, those people will follow you around the site and derail any intelligent discussions; and if you want to do anything concrete offline you will be accused of running a cabal. Perhaps something could be organised for for Wikimania 2014. Perhaps somthing like that could be prepared offline without fear of retribution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes I should have said as large and unwieldy as the 2011 project became. I remember when you started it; I was excited and expected it to deliver. I just stayed out as it seemed the thing to do as Id previously led a failed reform attempt back in Sept 2009. When the next working group gets going it should probably set a much shorter timeline. Unless you plan something that might benefit from advance prep like involving Wikimedia, say 10 days from formation to presenting on Village pump, or perhaps 3 weeks if you chose to have an intermediate presentation / more open idea gathering exercise like a RfC from this talk page. Doing at least some of the prep work offline does seem almost essential, and as you and WSC say, including some skype sessions or even a face to face at Wikimedia could be a great way to develop something that reflects multiple views. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
What appalling dribble, Kudpung. The 2011 RfA "reform" project failed because the project displayed not a skerrick of interest in anything like genuine reform. It was aimed purely at further securing admin privileges. If anything arose approaching "intelligent discussion" aimed at genuine reform it was immediately suppressed. No possibility was allowed in that farce of a project to address any real issues concerning the crippling imbalance of power between the people who build the encyclopaedia and those who wield draconian powers over them. If you contest that view, then it is up to you to show us where the project delivered, in any way at all, in relieving or even acknowledging unjust pressures on content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That isn't my memory of that project. Can you give us an example of that project proposing a "further securing of admin privileges"? ϢereSpielChequers 01:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The project was wholly focused on securing existing admin privileges by propping up the RfA process and suppressing any attempts to discuss how damaging the admin structure itself is to content building. Can you give us an example where the project did anything other than that? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, dude. Did you not pay any attention to what I told you further up the page?101.115.65.123 (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Instead of tossing out Russell's teapot-esque arguments about RFA2011's goals, how about some actual links to back that assertion up? Hall of Jade (お話しになります) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit summaries

To whomsoever it may concern - please, when removing RfAs from this page, link to them in your edit summary. It is a massive pain in the butt to have to scrape through page history to get to a recently-closed RfA after seeing a closure notice in your watchlist. Thank you! — Scott • talk 13:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Huh? They don't get removed from this page - this is the talk page and they get removed from the 'flip side' of this page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Normally we can find them easily through the "Latest RfXs" box on both this page and the project page. But for some reason the recent RfA by JamesMoose aka BigPimpinBrah is not displayed there. Is it because of the mid-discussion change of username? --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
That table is only of use if you catch it while the RfX you're interested in is still listed. It may not even have been added properly, as you mention; or the RfX you're interested in seeing may have been an anomalous one that got removed swiftly and so was never put in the table. A practice of invariably linking to RfXs in edit summaries would provide a fast route to any closed RfX from the page (yes Cas, the page - not here, its talk page)'s history. — Scott • talk 15:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Catching the outcome of a recently closed RfX is probably easier from the table than from the edit summaries, where you'd have to either be cruising the page's history or catch it go by in your watchlist, but of course as you say, it relies on the table being updated. I encourage closers (or lurkers) to update the table with all closed RfX requests, even the swiftly closed ones. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
You can always check:
Successful requests for adminship
Unsuccessful requests for adminship
Liz Read! Talk! 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Solution: 30,000' view

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

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

Solution: 20,000' view including implementation

Phase 1

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

Phase 2

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

Phase 3

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

COI note

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

By North8000

Discussion

I am guessing the above was written by User:North8000?

As for the "split" I've tried that several times, in several ways. I haven't despaired of it yet, though it's funny that I try one way, and feedback is to try another way, then I try an rfc that new way and the feedback is to try the way we tried in the first place : )

I do think that the user-right and responsibility breakdown at WP:MOD is probably the best place to split, but implementation seems to be difficult since (among other things) there are those who fear what may result for them if such an option is implemented. Adminship for some is apparently territorial. And also worth noting that everyone has an opinion, so if a proposal would appear to stand in the way of someone else's proposal, that "someone else" will kneejerk "vote" against.

And of course the whole question of "granting", when dealing with deleted content. So to be implemented it would need to be a discussion like RfA, where the community vetts the candidate. This was apparently revisited recently concerning whether the arbcom election met that requirement in regards to CU and OS.

Enough time has gone by that I may try another rfc in the near future, but I have a few other things I'd like to catch up on first : ) - jc37 17:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I posted it....had "North" in the title but forgot to sign. I thought of another more incremental step towards the above. That would be to define the qualities / credentials for #2, (I'm thinking immense experience and understanding of how Wikipediia works, very strong and careful approach to analysis, fairness, unemotional impartiality, impartiality, a kind person, etc.) some mechanism to review and "bestow" that certification (no tool changes required, it could even be a project page or something) and informally those folks with be most trusted for the really difficult situations. Then, if works, something like the above transition could happen later.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Updating the counts

Why does nobody ever do it right? I don't mean to be grouchy, honestly, but I'm always having to finish the job. So can I politely remind people of what needs to be done when updating the counts after closing an RFA? For example, for a successful RFA...

  1. Add a new line for the candidate at Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship/2013 (or whatever year it is), adding a new month header if necessary.
  2. Update the number of successful candidacies in the month header.
  3. Update the total number of successful candidacies for the year-to-date at the top.
  4. Head over to Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2013 and update the number of successful candidacies for the month there too.

Number 1 always gets done, but almost nobody ever manages to do all of the other three.

Thanking you kindly, GrumpyBoing (aka -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC))

I'm pretty sure I did do that for Callanecc's RFA. Nobody ever speaks up when it's done correctly. Anyway - just fix it instead of grousing about it. Andrevan@ 00:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
@Boing! said Zebedee:. I can answer this but its going to sound a bit snarky. The reason it isn't being done right, is the same reason many other things aren't getting done. It is a somewhat technical task to do, remembering to do all 4 of those tasks and frankly, the RFA system largely stopped promoting technical editors to admins years ago. Now, in order to be an admin, you have to be a mediator...technical skillz not required. Most admins admit freely that they don't have technical skills yet its exclusively admins that have access to the restricted pages (with the exception of the Template editors now having some ability). That is a problem no matter how you look at it. Most of the technical admins have had the tools since 2006 when Wikipedia was apparently doing things horribly wrong and it was easier to become an admin. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
But you don't need to be an admin, or even logged in in order to edit either of those pages. Nor do you need templating skills, I'm sure I've updated those table before now. That isn't to say we don't need more admins and especially technical ones, of course we do. But backlogs of actions that don't require use of the tools are not evidence for that. ϢereSpielChequers 01:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
True but updating the "admin" numbers is an inherently administrative task that should and is generally done by admins and bureaucrats. If they aren't doing it correctly that only validates my assertions that we need more technical admins. Another perfect example is the protected templates. Prior to the new right all people had to do is do the change in the sandbox and notify an admin to implement. Easy enough right. But yet when the template editor right was created dozens of fixes were done by technical editors, most of which have applied to and been denied admin rights. Some of these changes were fixes to problems that have been on the template for a long time, a couple for over a year. Its the same thing here. Many editors won't touch it if it looks administrative and they don't have the tools. They may not make a fuss about that like I do, but the end result is the same. The communities failure to trust its longterm contributors is costing the project from improving. Some agree with me on that and some don't but the actions reflected by creating userights for Rollbacker, template editor and file mover all prove that the community will help if they are allowed too. 108.45.104.69 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi folks, Sorry if I came across as grousing - I did the "GrumpBoing" thing as an attempt at injecting humour into what was meant as a polite reminder, but that doesn't always work in this text-only medium. And Andrevan, you're right that nobody ever speaks up when it's done correctly - I should know, cos it's often me who does it ;-) I'm happy to fix it up from time to time, but come on guys, not every time! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
    Reading your edit summaries, it's not only here that you're coming across a bit strong: "Do it properly", "Why does nobody ever do this properly?!" If you don't want to tidy up these lists, feel free not to do so. They aren't really that important, which is probably why they aren't a major focus of the closing bcrat's attention (certainly not to the extent of cross checking another list that may not be up to date anyway). If you do want to do this task, please do so with good grace. We're all volunteers here... WJBscribe (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
    Aye, fair enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that my good friend Δ would give us a functioning script to automate this utterly mundane task within 48 hours of being asked if he were around, more certain that a functioning script is the best approach to mitigate the occurrence of short closures, and most certain that Δ would be around if able. If only I would remember to stay in my place. Kumbaya my Kobayashi Maru—John Cline (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately Arbcom et al ran Δ from this site like so many others...Kumioko (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
KumiokoCleanStart, I know I wouldn't be the first to suggest that your incessant rhetoric about how broken our RfA system is, by virtue of the fact you haven't passed one yet, is becoming tiresome. I can't stop you from beating this drum over and over and over, but can you please possibly consider restricting it to discussions to which it is actually pertinent? Comments like the ones you've flooded this particular discussion with have become ever-present on this page and it's becoming impossible to have a rational discussion about anything without you derailing it into a conversation about how unfair it is that the community hasn't given you the mop yet. I'm sorry, I honestly don't mean to cause offence, but I don't think it helps either your cause or everyone else's productivity to make this point ad nauseam as you do. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 00:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Believe it or not I am completely beyond caring if I get the tools. That does not change the fact that RFA is broken, backlogs continue to grow, Arbcom is straying farther off mandate, admins are becoming more abusive and increasing the gap between admins and editors and editors, particularly IP's are treated with contempt. Your right, several have told me to let it go, to move on and to just go away. But that won't fix the problems. BTW I am not the only one who sees these problems. Most of these have been admitted by many including Jimbo but all of them fail to do anything about it They all claim they are powerless to act. As I have stated elsewhere though I a going to stop commenting after the first of the year. Think of it like a resolution. Not because people don't believe there is a problem, not because they don't care what I have to say about it, but because at this point I honestly believe that no one cares enough about the project to fix it and that is going to be the projects undoing. I don't have any sympathy for those backlogs anymore because I and others want to help but we're not wanted. They want editors who will stay in their corner and not push the system or try to improve it. You can make edits but don't question the Adminarchy, that is unacceptable. Kumioko (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's just file a bot for this and see what the people at WP:BAG do. This honestly seems like a routine, tedious, administrative, and technical task better left to an automated counter. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

writer

Eamon Kelly was born in Dublin in 1963 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukekelly2009 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you want Wikipedia:Requested articles. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A perfect example of the RFA problem

The current RFA for Acather96 is a perfect example of the inconsistency and failure of the RFA process. Although Acather96 is a good person they have zero need for the tools, no demonstrated technical capability to use them, no Featured content work and has just come back from a long break. The main reason they seem to be applying for the tools is because they are getting bored with regular editing. This RFA seems to be a landslide support but yet all the failures of this candidate have derailed dozens RFA's, many in the last few months. A few examples, this month New Age Retro Hippie 3 failed because they didn't have enough experience at AFD, XFD or activity in the last couple years, all apply to the current candidate; several have been derailed since this summer for lacking content building experience including Lugia2453 where several supporters of the current RFA opposed; etc, etc. A couple even state openly they don't meet "all or some of their criteria". It seems to appear that pure luck is what passes an RFA these days rather than a demonstrated need and capability to use the tools and a fair amount of hypocrisy is present on the case of the voters opposing other candidates and then supporting this one for the very same reasons. Kumioko (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is not unreasonable for an editor to apply to be an admin even if they have "zero need for the tools". They might have had their fill of regular editing and want to do a new job that will be useful to the encyclopedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC).
I could agree with that if the editor had some demonstrated experience in admin areas, and I should clarify that the current RFA is only one example of a larger problem and I am not targeted that editor specifically. When editors support one candidate as they are but then oppose others for reasons that the currently supported candidate clearly doesn't have, it proves that the current process isn't working. Kumioko (talk) 23:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Some people support or oppose based purely on their 'gut feelings' of a candidate, or the candidate's personability. I think most Wikipedians' intuitions have been spot on. -- Ϫ 00:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
That may be true but I still don't think this user has demonstrated a need for the tools or the technical ability to use them. It looks to me like another of those editors who will get the tools and not use them. Its unfortunate that these days the only ones who can pass are the ones who don't get involved in admin areas prior to getting the tools. That is not how the process should work. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kumioko, if you've got a point to make, head across the road to the RfA in question and !vote. I don't think it's particularly fair to begin what is essentially a bashing thread against a candidate whose RfA is currently running. And this from an editor who has consistently criticised the hostile atmosphere surrounding RfA. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
You might want to take another look Basalisk because I did vote oppose. I also stated clearly that this isnt about this individual. Its in reference to the fact that several of the people who have supported this candidate opposed others for the very shortcomings this editor has stated or less. It gives the impression (and not too subtlely I might add) that getting the tools is less about what you know and more about staying below the radar until you get them. I would also clarify that I told the individual on their talk page it wasn't peronsal towards them and I waited until the RFA was essentially locked into a win before i started the thread. Now I know that you don't care about reforming RFA and just want me to go away, andI plan to do that in about 3 days, soo drop you droll about how this is only about my not getting access to the tools, its not and never has been. That's just PR from editors who don't like me getting the better of you. How about you step up and do something to make this process better since I am doing so badly at it. Also I honestly don't think anyone else really wants this process to change, after all it worked well enough to get them access to the tools so to say it isn't working would also be to say they didn't get the tools fairly right. I mean its not like we dont have enough adminsn to do all the tasks, we certainly don't have any backlogs of admin tasks and we didn't have to create 3 new roles over the years (rollback filemover and Template editor) to compensate for the lack of admins. Nope, I am just dreaming all of that. So please, please put your time where your mouth is and help improve this process. Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Well what I'm implying is that your !vote is sufficient, there isn't any need for yet another barrage on the talk page to follow it up. Telling someone "it's not personal" doesn't make any difference to how personal a criticism feels. If you go up to someone and say "you're a fucking asshole, nothing personal" it doesn't magically become impersonal. I just think the last thing someone needs when he's running the gauntlet of RfA is to be made the thinly-veiled subject of a critical piece on the talk page. Boring garden-variety straw man at the end there too, accusing me of being "against RfA reform" on the basis that I'm against the language you use to address it - "you're against [my idea] x so you're clearly also against [what everyone else supports] y". And please don't tell us yet again that you're leaving. I'd like you to stay, if you're going to leave so be it, but please stop saying you're going to leave if you're not Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I would have liked to stay too but I am of no use to this project. I can't participate in the areas want to participate in so there isn't any point in staying. The editing environment has become toxic and the site has become a joke to most of the word outside its editors for a variety of reasons. Even longtime supporters and funding providers are cutting ties. I used to have a lot of passion for the project and pride in being an editor here and more and more I am embarrassed to tell people I edit Wikipedia, the encyclopedia very few can edit and those that do are severely restricted. Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm finding that the nature of running an RfA at this particular time coincides with abnormal editing routines, i.e. I'm personally unlikely to be scheduling in the amount of research I'd normally expect to undertake. The same may be the case for others. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm guilty of having done less research this time than I normally would. It would be surprising if we're the only two. Maybe there should be a moratorium on launching RfAs between, say, 14 December and 28 December. If in future years an RfA is launched when it will run over the festive season, I may just ABF and oppose on principle ;) --Stfg (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I personally find it disappointing and annoying that the ones who get the tools are the ones who really don't need them and show no signs of using them. Those that do meddle in admin areas are shot down because the mentality is they have shown they could do the tasks without the tools. Or they have participated in those areas long enough to make some enemies. Its meaningless to me any more I have taken the hint, that's why I only comment in discussions now. Soon enough not even that. But if I were other editors like Wikid and Cyberpower who routinely do admin stuff and keep getting told no only to hand the tools out to others who have no demonstrated need or knowledge of the tools I would feel pretty insulted. Too many admin tasks rely on non admins helping out and the admins forget that. Kumioko (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
@Trevj: Surely that isn't cheating, is it? Maybe the running of that RfA was just a coincidence and not a previously planned delay in launching a RfA. Epicgenius (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting cheating... just that it could've perhaps been more thoughtfully timed. Of course, there are no rules regarding the timing, and candidates need to consider their own availability to promptly answer questions. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 07:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There were more than 80 participants, and though it ended over Christmas the busiest time in most RFAs is the first couple of days which were clearly not in the holiday season. As this was the only RFA running from the 21st to the 24th I would consider that it had more scrutiny than many of our current admins had in their RFAs. However as this is not the first time that the holiday issue has come up, perhaps those for whom it is an issue could list the days that should be disregarded when calculating the length of RFAs and propose an RFC to extend all RFAs from 7 days to "7 days ignoring Diwali, Good Friday, New Years Day, Christmas Day and April the 1st". I'm not sure if I'd agree with you, but I've no objection to people trying to change policy via RFC, whilst I do find it distasteful to see people try to change policy by objecting to people who follow it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that you necessarily need to have FAs, or have participated in AfDs and XfDs or whatnot to be an admin. Some admins just get the tools for a single purpose (for example, Trappist the monk got admin tools solely so they can edit protected templates). Other admins just apply for adminship so they can have bundled user rights, not necessarily so that they can do admin tasks. Besides, the admins who don't use the tools now may use them later. Just because these admins have no need for the tools now does not mean that they will not use them at all, ever. Who knows, Acather96 may end up making thousands of page protections, page deletions, blocks, pagemoves, etc. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Rereading Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Acather96 and especially his answers to q1 and q2 there are some obvious differences between his RFA and certain ones that failed. His q1 answer illustrated a use of the tools for which he was qualified - no surprise that he already has 273 logged admin actions and his q2 answer demonstrated that he has content creation under his belt. There are some editors who want to see FAs, but the consensus at RFA seems to be that the content creation test is that you need to have demonstrated the ability to add content cited to reliable sources. I've seen RFAs that failed for several common reasons, but Acather96 avoided all of them, not because of lack of scrutiny but because he was a qualified candidate who avoided certain pitfalls. ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Having voted on almost all RfAs over the past few years and closely studied dozens of older ones, I notice that trends in voting appear to come and go in waves. The past year or so appears to have placed rather more emphasis on participation in GA and FA. While solid content contribution and ideally some immaculate creations beyond stubs is essential to have demonstrated that those who wish to police pages should know how to produce them, a correct and useful participation in admin related areas is just as important and possibly even more so. These are also the areas where voters should do their own research rather than piling on with support or oppose votes 'as per' other participants who may well have got their voting rationales quite wrong. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that fashions in the question section come and go, but the content creation threshold seems to have been fairly stable for some years. FAs and GAs are of course an autopass for the content creation test, but the threshold for support is much lower, and going back to Kumioko's three examples at the start of this thread, neither of the two who failed had demonstrated an ability to add reliably sourced information to the Wiki, whilst the candidate who succeeded had passed that test. We do sometimes get opposes for lack of an FA, but I'm not aware of any RFA ever where that alone has sufficed to fail a candidate. We also have a consistent test re need for the tools, here I'm sometimes on the losing side as I hold the view that if we can persuade a qualified member of the community to carry the mop they will perforce find themselves using those extra buttons, and perhaps more cautiously than some. However I wouldn't nominate a candidate unless they could credibly convince the community with their Q1 answer, and if a candidate's answer to Q1 fails to make a sufficient case to pass their RFA I may not even bother assessing them sufficiently to !vote. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The robust success of Acather96's RfA only serves to remind how completely bogus "no need for the tools" is. — Scott • talk 13:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It also shows that if you don't make waves, go with the system and keep your head down you'll get the tools, but if you try and make this project better you stand no chance. That's not the environment most people want to participate in and a key reason why I left. The only reason I am commenting now is because someone sent me an email and asked me to comment because my name was mentioned. The arguments that WereSpielChequers presents that the examples I gave would not make good admins are completely false and only reinforce the current attitude that technical editors have no respect here. Not everyone is going to make FAs (especially since the process heavily favors British speech over American) but because for many of us that's not what they are interested in. Likewise, many don't want to code templates and do stats work. But that's no reason to hold them back and tell them they can be trusted with the ability to block. That argument is a complete fallacy and fundamental problem why the Wikipedia editing environment has turned into such a disgrace and an embarrassment. For all of the comments and bullshit being written on this page about how you all want to change this process not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Wikipedia a better place, just business as usual because that what allows you to maintain control. You all should be ashamed! The lack of trust in the editors in this community is disgraceful. Kumioko (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"... not one editor on this page except me has any interests in making Wikipedia a better place, just business as usual ..."[citation needed] doesn't make this place better either! -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe not but no one here is doing anything at all to prove that statement wrong and no one can deny that I tried for years to make it better at the cost of my own reputation. Because it mattered to me to make it better. But instead, because the people in power want to keep it and hold the project back by not allowing editors to contribute we end up with a toxic editing environment where too few people can help out and the project continues to suffer. Then, we split off tools and create new roles like Template editor on the premise of helping the project when in reality the only reason was because there is no trust left in this community and a strong lack of desire to allow technical editors to do what interests them somehow hoping that they will change their inclination and start creating FA's or helping at ANI, CCI or some other admin area without the ability to even be able to help because they don't have access to the tools. Then we only give access to the tools to people who are ultra conservative and won't rock the boat. Then we allow other "admins" who should have had the tools stripped long ago, like Sandstein, bullies like Rschen or editors who don't do anything at all like Guerrilero other than some make believe governing body to continue to have access to tools they abuse continuously or don't use at all. Then we wonder why we have months long backlogs in some areas. Gee I wonder. The question here shouldn't be why is Kumioko being such a jerk. The question should be, what did the community do, to turn a contributor who was once deeply committed to the project and who devoted countless hours to it, to a point where they no longer have any respect for the project at all. Its the same core reason why editor retention in general is a problem here and why fewer and fewer editors join our ranks, a complete lack of trust towards editors who have repeatedly shown devotion to the project only to have the community tell them to fuck off, were better off having backlogs than having your help..your not trusted. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO one piece of the answer remains obvious. Decide on qualities useful for admin and structure the RFA process to nudge it towards more discussion / evaluation regarding those points. That would make the criteria far less random/wrong. North8000 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think your partially correct but what really needs to happen is we need to get back to a point where adminship is no big deal. We need to give the tools out to people who need/will use them and remove them from those who are abusing them. Both need to make it easy. This we can trust the community to promote but not to recognize a bad admin BS needs to stop. I admins are abusing the tools, they need to have the tools removed, at least temporarily. If they aren't using them, remove them. If the ability to block is that important we shouldn't leave it on a dormant account for a year before removing it. If its really that important (and I personally believe that argument is merely an excuse to justify keeping power in the hands of a few) then it should be removed after 30 days and then if they come back they can have it back. No muss no fuss. Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Kumioko, I didn't say the two candidates had failed would necessarily make bad admins, and I certainly didn't say they needed an FA. I just pointed out that one of the community's expectations is that a candidate need to have demonstrated the ability to have added reliably sourced content, and that was one key difference between Acather96 and the other two. I'd be happy to see either of them come back here in the next few months with that resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
@Scott, I know it was asserted in this thread that Acather96 was an example of a candidate who could have been opposed for "no need for the tools". But if you read his answer to Q1 answer in his RFA you'll see a very strong case as to why he needed the tools and was ready for them, hence no-one should be surprised that he has already done hundreds of loggged actions in his first couple of weeks as an admin. I don't personally agree with the "no need for the tools" argument, and I'm sure I've seen it torpedo an RFA in the last few months. But Acather96 was in no danger of failing tfor that reason. ϢereSpielChequers 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Malformed and misguided self nomination

Fyi... Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rudra john cena - The user has not translc'ed the review page, but is advertising it on his user page. --AdmrBoltz 20:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

So advise the editor :-) ES&L 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. Haven't been at RfA for quite sometime :) --AdmrBoltz 22:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Under the General Comments section under Kevin's RFA, it's written, "Edit summary usage for Kevin can be found here. On clicking, the link show's it's dead. The replaceable link is this. Anyone for any help on how to fix this problem for this RFA as well as other future RFA's? Thanks! Ethically (Yours) 07:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless someone else knows otherwise, this has fixed it. I previewed its use in a draft RfA and the Example User link worked for me, as did the link for another user when using the template in preview mode. This change appears uncontroversial, given the change in Toolserver links. Acalamari 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering how long it was going to take for someone to fix that! Now lets see how long it takes to fix the other problem with the RFA template(s)? Kumioko (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
@KumiokoCleanStart: Which problem would that be? If you let me know what it is, I'll see if I can't fix it for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I have always had a lot of respect for you MR. S and I have always thought you were one of the better admins on this site so don't take this personally but I am done doing the work for other people. I did it for years and all I got was insulted and told I couldn't be trusted so if I can't be trusted then it doesn't need to get done. Also, just as an FYI, I locked that account so regardless of whatever else happens that Username has been abandoned. Here is a partial hint though for old time sake...there is more than one RFA related template. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
No "hints", please. Either let me know what needs fixing, or don't. Anything else is just a waste of time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

@138.162.8.57: @Mr. Stradivarius: - I've gone through all the templates in Category:Templates related to requests for adminship and checked the links, I fixed a few problems but nothing major. {{RfA talk}} needed a link update, Huji's tool on {{RfA toolbox}} was a deadlink and I removed it, this tool I left on the same template as it stated it was currently unavailable, but it might come back later. The error Kumioko was probably referring to was on {{RfA/sandbox}}, which was identical to the above and I've now fixed. One link needed updating on {{Rfal}}. Whilst it was very childish of Kumioko to just offer hints and tips, I'd at least thank him for reminding us that we need to give the RfX templates a little spring clean every now and then! Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Great catch @Acather96:, the one I was talking about was the broken link in RFA tools. I didn't even know about the other 2 you found so although you might think it was childish, the project benefited from you reviewing the templates. For what its worth, its also childish for the community to tell an editor who devoted years to the project they aren't trusted and that their edits must be reviewed by an admin to be implemented but then have the admins doing the change admit they wouldn't know if they were correct or not. Its childish to allow admins to abuse the system and generally hold them to a lessor standard of etiquette but then treat editors like second class citizens in the site. There are tons of childish things going on within this site, but my decision to not do the work because the community doesn't trust the work I do, after doing it for years, isn't particularly childish. If there was more trust in this community I would still be a high output contributor and would have made that change to the RFA template back in July when I found it...along with a dozen others with other templates and the myriad of vandalism that still sits on articles in my watchlist (I assume, because I locked my account so now I can't see it). And while were on the topic of changing things someone should probably update the message genereated when users are restricted from creating a new account. There is a link still pointing to the Toolserver. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • You know what, I think it is absolutely laughable that an editor who has spent 18 months widely disparaging the project and many of its contributors has the bare-faced hypocrisy to declare themselves "gone" but who, in this section alone, has contributed using 2 usernames and 2 of his many unregistered IPs (to the absolute confusion of any editor who doesn't actually realise who it is). It is the epitome of intentionally confusing & bad faith editing and needs to be dealt with. Leaky Caldron 17:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • First let me address that I only used one username, I did in fact use 2 different IP's though. One is from my home and one is from my work. I will also admit that the work one can get a little confusing because its a variable proxy so it changes occassionally. So yes I admit it is somewhat confusing. It is not however done to intentionally confuse nor is it bad faith. The fact is, if this community wasn't so distrusting of its users I would still be editing. If this community did something about the admin abuse that is going on in the site, I would still be editing. But because neither of the 2 are true I have no need for a username. I frankly am finding it quite enlightening editing as an IP. As a longterm experienced editor I am getting to see how IP's are treated. I am seeing the broken error messages and the obvious desire by some in the community to disallow IP anonymous editing. Aside from that, I don't really care what you do, block me or don't, if I want to edit, its not going to stop me and you'll just wsate more time and resources than letting me edit. That is unless you want to block the entire Navy and Verizon Fios networks. The truth is I look at it this way, as long as admins are allowed to violate policy and abuse editors with no remourse or repercussions, then there is nothing holding me to one account. There is no policy that says I have to login nor that I do it only from one IP. So really, other than being a little confusing, I'm not even breaking a policy whereas admins due that all the time. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Many of your contributions are wholly non-constructive, borderline trolling which, per policy, is disruptive. Shame there is not an Admin. with the balls to block your IP addresses. I personally couldn't care less who's network it is. You are happy to use it to hold the community over a barrel and put up with your repeated, nonsensical, vexatious diatribes. The community didn't want you as an Admin., that's all. Get over it and get a life. Leaky Caldron 18:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Just a thought, but perhaps if you and others put as much effort into advocating that admins be held accountable for their mistakes and that they not be held to a lower standard, then Wikipedia would be a better place to edit. We all know that there are abusive admins on this site but no one has the balls you mentioned earier to do anything about them either. The Arbcom doesn't, the bureaucrats don't, the WMF doesn't, and you and your peers don't either. Sure you like to complain about my complaints, but that's just because you don't care enough about the project to advocate something be done about it. If I have to go down in flames to get the project unscrewed so that people on this site are treated equally again and not based on some extra tool they have, then so be it. But no one can say I didn't try and just because you don't like what I am saying doesn't make it trolling. It just means you don't like the message. So get back to work editing and quite bitching at me for trying to do something to improve this cess pool. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You are way off track with that nonsense. There are many, many Admins. I have held to account for shoddy work and poor behaviour, whether locally, or at AN/I, RfB & Arbcom. Leaky Caldron 18:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Not really but you are right, there are a lot of admins, a little over 1400. Of those only about 500 have edited in the last 6 months, of that only about 100 are more than semi active and over that its only about 10 - 15 that I would consider abusive. So that really is a small minority. But what happens when you put rat poison in soup? It spoils the soup. So it doesn't take manyt bad admins to have a profound, negative effect on the project. Your also righ that sometimes they get sent to ANI an Arbcom but the first problem here is that seldom does anything. Their told not to do it for the 10 or 12th time and that's that. Secondly Arbcom is a nightmare process that few will endure. So by the time the admin is submitted to Arbcom, for them to generally just do nothing and end the case after spending a month, a lot of damage has been done and credibility in the project lost. Admins aren't perfect and no one expects them to be, not even me. But when we see a pattern of misconduct and everyone in the project who sees it just lets it go (and I know you know of some cases) then that's a problem. I did it too, I ignored it for years and for that I was a "good editor", now that I am trying to put an end to that stupidity I am the monster. Well I would rather be the monster that tries to fix the problem than the subservient stooge that ignored it and let the problem get worse. I did that for a long time, if I would have stepped up sooner and not ignored it, maybe the problem wouldn't be so bad now. When we can get back to an environment of trusting our editors again and the admin tools are easier to get and easier to take away (notice I think it needs to be both, not one or the other) or the tools are broken up (or both), then this project will start getting popular again. Unless we show our editors that we trust them, and to be clear most we can, contrary to popular belief, then this site will continue to be a joke as we protect more content and ban more editors. Not every editor need to be able to block or delete nor do they want too, but there is a generally complete lack of trust in this site that didn't used to be here. It used to be AGF until given a reason not too, now its assume bad faith until shown otherwise because we have let abusive admins get it to that point. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Coding error on the page?

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, a table of nominations shows up in this revision but this edit made it disappear; does someone know why? Chris857 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what you're referring to. But the RFA has been closed/removed and the table of nominations is present on the page. Going back to view the previous revision, it looks like the table is still there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

SNOW/NOTNOW RfA

A rather unusual situation has transpired over the past five days, as we've had four consecutive RfA closed without a single support vote cast in any of them. Furthermore, of the 15 unsuccessful RfA closed this year, 10 of them have had zero support votes (including 6 of 7 this month). By contrast, we hadn't really had any RfA of this kind at this time last year. Does anyone have any idea why we are seeing an increase of RfA filed by obviously under-experienced users? Northern Antarctica (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well-meaning editors aware of the so-called RFA 'problem' trying to 'solve' it? GiantSnowman 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
User:Abir Rahman Saif was pure vandalism by a trolling blocked sock and should be expunged from the RfA record. As for the rest, no idea. A statistical blip? Bauble collectors? It is no hardship to deal with them promptly. Leaky Caldron 20:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Because they look at the current admins and say "Damn, they must let anyone be an admin."--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a theory. The majority of editors who are experienced enough to run know better than to do so. Those that are getting approved are those that are mostly quite keep to themselves types that do gnomish edits and stay out of the way. So the reason we are seeing a lot of obviously underexperienced editors attempting is because they haven't been here long enough to know that RFA is a broken and unpleasant process. I would also like to suggest that we not automatically assume these individuals to be "Hat collectors" or "baible collectors". Can we not just as well assume good faith and think they just want to help the project? Also...what cube lurker said! 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think the only editor who would sign up for an RfA these days is either someone who knows that they are a shoe-in and they'll get elected in a landslide or an a editor who has never participated in an RfA before. Going through an RfA if you are borderline or iffy is like getting a proctology exam only instead of lasting a few minutes, it lasts for a week. No sensible editor who has read through an unsuccessful RfA would ever sign up unless they have sterling nominators with unimpeachable credentials. Why put yourself into a meat grinder if it is all for naught? Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Have you considered the possibility that the remaining experienced users are so appalled by the antics and lack of clue of some admins that they wouldn't dream of being associated with adminship? --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Come on, folks! The recent rash of ridiculously unprepared users incompetently nominating themselves for adminship has nothing to do with any of your pet peeves. Most of them can't tell who is and isn't an admin anyhow. The recent ones are simply too inexperienced to realize that "administrator" is not just a cool title handed out to every newbie who asks for it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Huh? the first time I mention a particular topic and it suddenly becomes one of my "pet peeves". Jump to conclusions much? --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly...who cares why there happened to be a slew of these? Does it really matter? No, it does not. Not in the wider scheme of things. Intothatdarkness 21:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Since when has that ever been a reason not to discuss something on a talk page at Wikipedia?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I know it's never a reason. I just felt like pointing it out. Intothatdarkness 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When it is a complete and utter waste of time? Leaky Caldron 21:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, these SNOW/NOTNOW RfA are the waste of time. Finding a way to prevent them from happening regularly is not a complete and utter waste of time. Northern Antarctica (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
But would finding a way to prevent them waste more time than they themselves waste? It's a serious question.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Then again, it might be easily fixed. I seem to recall that there used to be some kind of notice that was displayed to users who were creating an RfA that was supposed to discourage this kind of thing. At some the point, I think the notice was altered as an experiment. Maybe the experiment has gone long enough. Northern Antarctica (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you referring to Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That might be it. There was a discussion about it somewhere (I think on this page), but I can't find the discussion. Northern Antarctica (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
That's the one created/discussed in October 2009. I've no idea if there's been any substantial discussion since then. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 02:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, does it really matter? Templates and notices can be ignored, and any sort of minimum metric will be denounced by both the "admin is no big deal" faction (since anyone should be able to be an admin) and the "adminship is a big deal" faction (because the bar will still be too low). Intothatdarkness 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well I think that it is these endless and tiresome discussions, frequently created by the OP, that waste more editor time and generate more heat than light than a handful of premature/foolish/troll-ish RfA (delete as appropriate) which can, and usually are, shut down without incident or drama. Why you honestly believe that everything in the world of RfA needs to be perfectly formed I really do not understand. It is no different to mainspace, people make mistakes other people fix the mistakes. Sometimes a discussion is required, usually it just gets fixed. Apart from giving those who enjoy pouring over statistical oddities something to theorise over these RfA are nothing but chaf to be brushed away into the nether regions of wiki-space. Leaky Caldron 10:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Have we really reached a point where someone can't even make an observation and ask a question? Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Citation needed(see below) for By contrast, we hadn't really had any RfA of this kind at this time last year — we didn't have the table above listing recent RfXs this time a year ago so unless people were very attentive to the RfA page the SNOWs and NOTNOWs could come and go without many people noticing. If you've been through the page history and worked out that this is indeed the case then fine, but a statistician would recognise this as a typical Poisson process whereby the occasional clump of observations in time is not unexpected and needs no explanation. Also I agree with LC above, it may even be of benefit to the project if we discouraged FORUMy posts here like this one or "we haven't had an RfA in two weeks, the sky is falling", "three consecutive RfAs have passed, things are on the up" — I expect any statistical analysis would out all these observations as noise. benmoore 11:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok I'll bite. Median for the last 3 years: 4 NOTNOW/SNOWs per month, number in each of the last two months: 4. Caveat: distribution is non-uniform over the three years. benmoore 10:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2013? -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Ha oh yeah, but do we religiously record every RfA there, even if it's only transcluded a few hours? benmoore 13:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I think there have been a couple exceptions but almost all are accounted for. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, they ought to all be recorded (at least recently) because the closing instructions note that summaries should be added on such pages. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 14:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This big bunch of Not now/Snow/Withdrawn RfAs is extremely weird and unusual. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 18:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the big stop sign should be put back at the top of the edit notice? I'm concerned that the last few have drawn some dismissive Opposes. It would be kinder if we could head them off before they post it. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Maybe add a some text with what is expected from candidates so that users not familiar with RfA are informed of their "readiness" before throwing themselves into a Not now/Snow close? — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 03:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
So you are not familiar with the existing landing page for candidates, which, if I have clicked the correct links from Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate#To_nominate_yourself itself containing numerous advice and warnings, ends up here [3]. How much more hand-holding advice, preparation and warnings are needed? Candidates for serious roles need to be serious in order to be taken seriously. Flippant applications from the ill-prepared and in some cases purely disruptive will always ignore warning signs, regardless how big the stop sign. Leaky Caldron 11:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit notice. Until 10 April 2013 it looked like this. The animated graphic was replaced with a static stop-hand sign, which was commented out with this edit on 21 August. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
You are not seriously suggesting that a flashing hand acts as a realistic deterrent to the determinedly obtuse or disruptively incompetent, are you? Leaky Caldron 14:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe he said that the hand was commented out altogether. Since that time, the SNOW/NOTNOW RfA have increased, at least since the start of this year. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's also been a while since the graphic was commented out/removed. But I don't think it can hurt to reinstate it (flashing or not), since I think such an affront would be kinder than the kind of experience these last few candidates have had. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Which specific RfA comments are you concerned about? Leaky Caldron 17:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Does it indicate that? Wouldn't we need the standard deviation to be sure? And some reason to even think there's a normal distribution over time which, given the overall downward trend, seems unlikely to me.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, the graphic shows that the last month with 4 four SNOW/NOTNOW RfA - prior to this month and last - was April of 2012. I'd agree that this doesn't appear to be a normal distribution. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, it's a Poisson distributed variable theoretically, if you follow the link to github you'll see I fitted one and it's a reasonable fit, even given the small number of points. The right density graph (violin plot) shows the distributions of each over the three years and both numbers sit squarely in a big chunk of density. Pulling out observations like the two consecutive months thing is sketchy, with any random variable you can cherry pick patterns which seem significant in themselves (especially given confirmation bias) but statistically are not. benmoore 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm neither being random or cherry picking. Two years is a long time and this hadn't happened in nearly two years. A few months ago, the stop sign got commented out of the edit notice. Coincidence? I'd say 'no'. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
At least 2 of the RfAs were from blocked sockpuppets. Are you suggesting that a STOP sign would have deterred them? Leaky Caldron 18:03, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of being random, I was talking about random variables (I try to avoid blue linking terms as it can be interpreted as condescending by users who already understand the concepts). Luckily we have the data and can answer "coincidence?" with analysis rather than gut-feeling. benmoore 18:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. A lot of those math concepts are a bit over my head (and I appreciate your trying not to be rude). At any rate, there is data showing a years-long declining trend at RfA (User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month). Therefore, I think this increase is quite possibly related to the stop sign removal and the sign should probably be put back. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
My stats only show successful RFAs, and yes they do show a dramatic decline from 2008 to 2012 with 2013 being marginally better than 2012, so it may have finally bottomed out. But the only stats I've been collecting on failed RFAs are the annual totals. Failed RFAs are variable for many reasons and I've not tried to analyse them, however my concern with putting up stop signs and so forth to deter newbies from running is that they may also be deterring potentially good candidates. One of the problems at RFA is that those who run often don't run until they are so over qualified that it becomes a near unanimous inauguration. If such candidates ran a little earlier in their careers we would have more admins. So if you want to stop editors with less than 500 edits from running my suggestion is that we set a rule that you need 500 edits and 6 months tenure to run and have some code created to stop transclusions to the RFA page by anyone with less than 500 edits and 6 months tenure. You could probably go to a higher total without excluding anyone who could succeed, but I doubt if you need to as people with more than 500 edits and 6 months have probably got the experience to know whether or not they might succeed. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

WOWIndian RfA

I noticed this RfA, which seems to have been transcluded incorrectly WOWIndian RfA. Could somebody please investigate? JMHamo (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe they've been talked out of running, so best to just leave it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries, I just didn't see it listed as "NOTNOW or SNOW" in the latest RfXs table, so that's why I mentioned it up here... JMHamo (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Other Wiki's Bureaucratship

Hello all,

I was wondering if here is the proper place to ask for bureaucratship for CKB Wiki? I want to ask for bureaucratship rights for CKB wiki, so do I need to create the request page here or in CKB wiki?

Best, Broosk (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

ckb is too small for local bureaucrats right now, but stewards can handle anything that needs a bureaucrat. If you want temporary adminship, you can request it at ckb:ویکیپیدیا:داواکردنی مافی بەڕێوبەرایەتی, and then file a request at m:SRP one week later for a steward to grant the right. --Rschen7754 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I actually read somewhere on Wikimedia that small communities does not require Bureaucrats, but when it will be the proper time to have bureaucrats?

Thanks for your help. --Broosk (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At least 15 established users supporting the request, in my opinion. --Rschen7754 23:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

JonaQwer RFA

On a similar note I just patrolled Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JonaQwer and commented and transcluded it, but on seconds thoughts maybe this wasn't the right thing to do? It looks like I stuck my nose into a process I know nothing about so if someone could please correct me if if I've blundered that'd be grand. benzband (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's probably not a good idea to transclude an RfA for someone else unless they want you to. I think someone could safely close that one as SNOW/NOTNOW. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be closed because it never should have been live ... all !votes should be struck. We have no knowledge if this was ever planned to go "live" DP 21:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
True. At any rate, someone should do something to make it clear that it's not still open. I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Why in God's name would you transclude it without being asked to? That's the biggest disservice you could ever do to an editor DP 21:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed the transclusion before you did that, and have attempted to discuss at their talkpage. However, I did notice that they announced on their talkpage that they're running ... DP 21:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
It's also announced on their userpage. Northern Antarctica (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, disservice or not I'm sure this was done with the best of intentions. And if an editor cannot figure out how to transclude an RfA, they're probably not ready yet to attempt a candidacy. -- Atama頭 19:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Disservice or not, he sent me a whale for my sincere attempts to prevent him from making an ass of himself. DP 20:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Just goes to show you, no good deed goes unpunished. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well thankyou kind editors and I am sorry for the bother I caused. (Also @DP: if anyone deserves a whale it is myself...! ;) benzband (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm...the real drama may have just begun! DP 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I have thought about it and will come back for over a year or so with 2000 edits (atleast). Thanks for the people who supported me and, well, thanks for the people who gave me some... tips. JonaQwer (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Replace RfA with paid upgrade

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Many sites nowadays are requiring payment for premium access, and Wikipedia should be no different. Therefore, I propose that the existing RfA process be replaced with a simpler system where users can make a donation to the foundation to upgrade their accounts to be admins, with no discrimination towards newer editors. There are no downsides that I can see: this would get rid of the broken RfA process as well as raise funds for the WMF. Thoughts? ~huesatlum 04:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How much $$ are we talking? — Status (talk · contribs) 04:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Nah, RfA is the initiation process everyone has to go through, though it doesn't give you certainty that you will be iniciated. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Great idea! I can only see one problem. Given the current discussion on paid editing, it is very important that the whole process be kept super secret. I am happy to take charge of an anonymous Paypal account where users can send as much money as they like with the promise that they can be an admin. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut up and take my money! ansh666 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Shut up, I don't have any money. NFLisAwesome (ZappaOMati's alternate account) 14:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In-Wiki Payments

In addition to the above idea, which I fully support, I believe the introduction of in-wiki payments would be a great way to boost income while keeping Wikipedia content top-quality. Proposed additions:

  • Adding an infobox costs $1.50.
  • First file upload is free; each additional file costs $.99 for first megabyte + additional $.50 per extra megabyte.
  • Using styling (bolding, italics, font properties, etc.) will be part of the Wikipedia Glamour Bundle, which can be enabled for one month for $5.00.
  • First 10 articles on a user's watchlist are free; each additional article will cost $.10.
  • Reverting an edit costs $.50.
    • Revoking the three-revert-rule would allow for a steady supply of income as the most conflicted users will never stop reverting each other (at least, until their banks go empty).

By asking users to pay for their contributions, vandalism will be virtually non-existent, quality will be top-notch, and Wikipedia would have a new source of funding. Cheers, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

So an average of $2000 per image, going by the usual format cameras use nowadays? sounds fair - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Another money-maker WP could have is a virtual swear jar...every curse word used in a personal attack costs the editor $1. Or would $5 provide more incentive? Liz Read! Talk! 20:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Or a pedantic twit jar. Or something that requires a flat fee of $500 for every wiki-lawyering attempt...Intothatdarkness 21:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd have been wikibankrupt long ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
LOLOL fak u. Dang it, now I'm in debt! ZappaOMati 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New RfA needs closing

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hooperag which is obviously a non-starter (besides being so new, we don't normally want Admins who state they will defy our polices, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#Request for Respect of our Religion and our Prophet. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't transcluded, so I would presume it isn't actually open to be closed (if you see what I mean). QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep. –xenotalk 14:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I left them a note at User talk:Hooperag#RfA. We can see if they reply and what their intentions were. Mkdwtalk 16:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Where should I add replies to concerns?

Dear RfA experts: A couple of concerns were raised in the "Support" section of my RfA. The instructions say that it is okay to respond. Should I add my responses under the concerns, or nearer the top under "general discussion", or somewhere else? Or not at all? —Anne Delong (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne Delong From what I've seen these go under the individual concern as an indented bullet point. I've also read that there shouldn't be too many comments nor should they be overly long.  Philg88 ♦talk 13:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Philg88. I just made a couple of brief clarifications. I assumed that I shouldn't change the answers to previous questions after people had voted based on them. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it only leads to more questions as to your motives.  Philg88 ♦talk 14:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
What questions? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC).
Why questions are much more likely; like: "why did you change your answer", for example.—John Cline (talk) 04:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Good job

Just wanted to comment on the good job in attracting people to this process over the past month.-- Moxy (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Automated counter

The automated !vote counter for the current RfA doesn't seem to be working for the RfA subpage. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad job

I just wanted to comment on the epic failure of the RFA process. You ruined it, and now you must watch and die as the vandals take over for lack of new admins. You made your bed, and you must sleep in it! No viable admin candidates in the last two weeks! Woohoo! I hope RFA goes the way of Editor Review and is marked historical forever, and then Wikipedia will die! P.S. I know Majorly's real name, but I ain't tellin'. Copacetic Kovacevic (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yet in 16 days we saw two candidates with unanimous support so really we're talking about 2 days that broke the process. Also I cannot help but feel that in granting the tools an editor with 269 edits the "RFA process" would be broken to a much greater degree. I'll leave it at that since I like my trolls lean and not well fed. Mkdwtalk 20:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at a village pump

There's a discussion here that will be of interest to many who watch this page: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 13#Pre-RfA opinion page. A mass mailing was sent out to active administrators today, advertising it, so I thought it would be a good idea to also point to it here, where non-admins interested in the issue will see it if they haven't already. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Striking votes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have an ongoing concern about the indenting/striking of oppose !votes at RfA. In my opinion, it is not acceptable to do this purely on suspicion of sockpuppetry. (If sockpuppetry is confirmed by checkuser, of course the !vote should be struck.) In the case of blatant trolling, it is also reasonable to strike a !vote. However I do not believe that "Oppose per anothereditor" constitutes blatant trolling.

I am happy for any bureaucrat to indent/strike a !vote. They are entrusted by the community to judge the consensus, and they will ignore inappropriate !votes in the final tally. However I am not happy to see editors, even administrators, striking !votes based on their own interpretations of what constitutes "trolling". I have raised my concern at Floquenbeam's talk page. It is unfortunate that there is no guidance about this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • For what it is worth, I had a CU on IRC right after the vote was cast, and 5 minutes later it had confirmed as a sock. I started the SPI and the CU posted the linkage before it was struck. Whether or not the person who struck the comment knew this or not, I have no idea, but they were caught as a sock before the striking. If Floq struck the vote, it is likely they already saw the CU. As far as I know, you don't strike unless it is known to be a sock (the case here), or the vote itself is trolling or disruptive enough to earn a block. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I think only Floquenbeam can shed light on how much information they had when they indented the comment but I tend to agree that the comment was rightly indented but only on the grounds of sock puppetry. Perhaps more details on the rationale of why would also be a helpful addition. "Oppose per another editor" by itself certainly wouldn't constitute trolling for me, but when factoring in their contributions, I think trolling was a very realistic conclusion. The editor has 19 edits of which 14 were to their user page. The final edit seems to make very little sense and possibly constitutes as vandalism. Another comment at a talk page asking if a mobile service provider "sucks" puts into question how they were able to find and properly !vote on an RFA. Somewhat suspect. I'm not saying I fully support the move but I certainly understand the rationale and recognize there is a legitimate argument behind the action. Mkdwtalk 19:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I was not aware of the CU results when I indented and struck the vote (I didn't even see that had happened until the next day, when Axl left a note on my talk page). I had, instead, done what Mkdw just did, and looked at the user's contributions. After that, I struck a vote by an obvious returning troll. I had just kind of assumed that common sense would apply to an RFA page; since I've been around long enough to know better than that, I apologize for my inexplicable optimism. By all means, someone please restore the vote so a crat can turn around, fill out Form G54a-1, and strike it correctly themselves. I further suggest a 30 day RFC on how we can change the wording of some policy somewhere to prevent this from ever happening again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Your sarcastic retort is unwelcome. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I kinda liked it myself.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It would seem to me, regardless of who should strike out or what our precedent is (admittedly I've been out of the loop), that the situation is a textbook IAR case. What's done is done; let's just AGF and move on. bibliomaniac15 20:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

  • In general, nobody should be striking or removing "per so-and-so" votes from a good faith user, but clearly in this case Floq's instincts were correct. I agree with Bibliomaniac that there's really not much value in using this case to change or reinforce any sort of precedent. 28bytes (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • If a bureaucrat is clever enough to recognize that a vote is inappropriate, they are clever enough to recognize that a vote was struck inappropriately. Much more compelling is the fact that many experienced editors watch RfAs and would disagree with a strike if they thought it warranted. @Axl: Please do not waste the time and energy of good editors by raising pointless objections—it's pointless because there is no trend towards inappropriate striking, and the vote has no effect on the outcome, and the strike was confirmed to be correct soon afterwards. Johnuniq (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_228&oldid=1142513613"