Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 240

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 235

←

Archive 238

→

Two proposed RfCs on the viewdeleted userright

Okay ... a lot of planning has gone into this, but I've found in the past that the more we talk about RfCs, the lower the chances of passing, so I'm just going to launch into this without much preamble, and we'll see how it goes. I'd like to start discussion here and get consensus on what to do, then move to a discussion at WP:VPP, then file an RfC over there. Hopefully it will pass, then we'll gather some data, then file a second RfC. In the end, what I'd like to see is this: I want the crats to have the option (after a crat chat) to give people who narrowly fail RfA the userright that lets them see deleted pages (called the "viewdeleted" right). Unbundling userrights in general is very well-trodden territory, and we know that the RfCs on viewdeleted have gone a different way than those on unbundling blocking, deleting, etc. There will always be a majority of voters who see real harm coming from letting non-admins block or delete, but no one has been worried that people will "go wild" with viewing deleted pages. People have other concerns ... and I agree with all this, actually:

By itself, having this userright does people very little good.
Letting more people see deleted pages causes potential legal problems for the Foundation.
People don't want to set up any new vetting process for any userright where the bar is anywhere near the same bar you'd have to clear to pass RfA. The thinking is that it's the RfA process itself that is most of the problem, so creating a new similar process and a new hurdle to clear would be the worst outcome imaginable.

When we talk about failures of the RfA process, some problems are important but theoretical (will we have enough admins? Is the bar too high or too low?), and other problems are more immediate and carry more of an emotional punch ... I'm talking about what happens when dedicated, earnest, intelligent Wikipedians narrowly fail an RfA. People get upset, people lose enthusiasm, people push back against RfA, people who could pass RfA stop preparing and give up.

I'm proposing two RfCs to help soften the blow, the next time it happens. By my count, narrow defeats have happened 5 or 6 times so far this year. The first RfC would be: do we want to give some subset of just these people the viewdeleted userright? (I'm only looking to include a subset of these 5 or 6, the ones who want to participate, who want to try RfA again some day, and who have stayed out of trouble since the last RfA. If we need a larger sample size, we can look at people who narrowly failed last year.) There are many things admins do that can't be done right by anyone else ... in fact, others can't even learn how to do it right, not by themselves ... because they can't see a critical part of the picture, the pages that were deleted. (For instance, for anti-spam and anti-attack-page work, admins sometimes change their messages and approach ... I know that I did ... depending on whether the offenders are repeat offenders, and you need to be able to see deleted pages for that.) If that RfC passes, then I propose we sit back and see what happens ... and if nothing good happens, then we stop right there. But if some of these guys take advantage of the fact that they can see deleted material to get more involved, and if admins and others reach out to these people to help get them up to speed, then I think we'll be in a position where the second RfC might be able to pass, the one where we give the crats discretion (after a crat chat) to grant the viewdeleted userright to any candidate who demonstrates over the course of a 7-day failed RfA that they have sufficient community trust to merit the viewdeleted userright. If that passes, then we want to make sure that people don't discuss granting this new userright during the RfA ... that's one of the things that RfC voters have consistently said they don't want, complicating any voting process with new things to think about, new bars to jump over. RfAs will hopefully have a link to a page that lets people know that, to make the call on viewdeleted, crats are instructed to ignore anything said during the RfA specifically about the candidate's suitability for the new userright, and instead to use past input from the Foundation (I have some idea what the Foundation has said and will say, btw), past input from these RfCs about where the community sets the bar for this new userright, and general discussion during the RfA about suitability for adminship to arrive at the decision whether to grant viewdeleted or not.

Okay, so now I can say what for me is the main point of all this. Failing an RfA can be overwhelming, and can feel like a loss for everyone involved ... the candidate, their supporters, and the whole RfA community. It's a bigger deal after narrow losses. The new userright would allow us to recast a failure as a partial win, for everyone: the candidate would receive a tangible sign that the community trusted them enough to grant them an important userright, one that will help them contribute to Wikipedia and pass a future RfA, and the RfA community gets credit for doing what we can to address the problem and soften the blow. Some opposers probably won't see this as a win, but I think most will, because it could lessen the regret over opposing.

And I'm betting that some will oppose these RfCs for exactly this reason: it makes opposing easier, and therefore more RfAs will fail. But we can compensate for that: crats are completely capable of figuring out if the new userright is having a negative impact on RfAs. Crudely put, I think the RfC should carry a specific instruction to the crats: if it appears that the new userright is tilting the scales so that fewer people are passing, you're authorized to compensate for this by discounting votes, on the grounds that it's unfair for a new, technical change at RfA to arbitrarily raise the bar for new candidates.

Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I would find the right useful, particularly for examining deleted pages to establish vandal patters for edit filters. I have never had a definite view on rights unbundling per se, accepting some of the arguments on both sides. This proposal has been well thought out, and deserves serious consideration.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

So if this were a thing I would have a special userright because I missed my RfA by a hair?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

What would be the proposed criteria for people to qualify for this right? Who are the people who need it but could not pass RFA? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Could be useful for me for ACC work.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyber and WSC: for part of the answer, I've pinged WhatAmIDoing to give us the WMF's perspective ... I think she's traveling, but not for long. For the other part, I didn't address those questions because it's not up to me, that's up to all of us to decide. So: Rich, for instance, wants to be able to see deleted pages. His RfA failed by a hair. My personal judgment, even going by nothing other than his RfA, is that he won't cause harm by looking at deleted pages, and if he thinks it would help him, I'm not going to argue, he probably knows what he needs. I don't have a problem with the fairness issue, if Rich can see deleted pages and others can't, because the RfA itself speaks to how much work he did to get where he is and how the community feels about him. But someone else might have an issue with Rich seeing deleted pages, and I have no problem with that ... that's the point of the RfCs, to work out where the consensus is.

Btw, I just got a comment on my talk page that I should come clean about canvassing ... except that I wasn't canvassing. I did post something neutrally worded, an hour or two after I posted here, on the talk pages of the 5 people who are most likely to fit the category of having RfAs this year that failed by a hair. Of course I notified them ... it would be wrong not to notify them, since they're the proposed subjects for this experiment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to be possible. The Foundation's position (expressed here and possibly somewhere more official I'm not aware of) is that people have to go through a process at least as strenuous as RfA in order to get the right to view deleted pages. Giving some failed RfA candidates the right to view deleted pages would go against this. I would certainly recommend asking their opinion before having any wider discussion of this proposal. Hut 8.5 19:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- At the moment, my preference would be just to ask you to trust me on this until WAID gets back. I'm satisfied, after discussions with the WMF people who would be making the call, that they'll be fine with it. If your motion is seconded, if anyone else wants to hear from the WMF before anyone says another word, I can get someone else from the WMF to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- And btw, since I've brought up my previous conversations with the WMF, this would be a good time to say: for people looking for the cabal here, there isn't one. I got no input when putting this together from the Foundation, from the RFA candidates, from others interested in RfA reform, or from anyone else (other than family). All I did here was to review previous RfCs, as I've been doing for many years, and I tried to draft something that avoided all of the objections that have been raised in the past. Of course, that didn't leave me with much ... I couldn't do anything here to tackle any major RfA reform questions. Still ... even this small effort might accomplish something, because there are a lot of people out there who don't think RfA voters as a group can, or are willing to, help fix problems, and if we can get a broad consensus on this among RfA voters, that might demonstrate that the doubters are wrong. (I'm convinced that perception is unfair, applied to RfA voters on the whole, but it's definitely out there.) If we're really lucky, the candidates who wind up with this userright will get more help and training than failed RfA candidates have gotten in the past, and they'll come back to RfA sooner than they otherwise would have, and pass. That would be a significant win, I think, but we won't know for a while, even if the RfCs pass. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I actually believe viewdeleted to be one of the most dangerous admin rights, and the one most worthy of restriction. Deletions, blocks, and protects are all reversible, and all of them are logged, so abuses of them are easy to monitor. Viewing a deleted page doesn't show in any log, and it's irreversible; once someone has seen a copy of deleted information (which may well have been deleted because there's a good reason to hide it from the public), you can't exactly remove their knowledge of it. Unfortunately, viewdeleted can't really be removed from the standard "admin set" of tools because it's highly useful for a wide range of administrative tasks (it's the one that restricts me most as a non-admin – I can request deletions with {{db}}, protections at WP:RFPP, and the like, but it'd be a huge waste of everyone's time to go off to WP:REFUND merely to determine if a WP:CSD#G4 deletion is correct or if a suspected spammer had made previous attempts to create pages that got immediately deleted). However, I really wouldn't like it being spread wider than the group of people who we already trust to perform general-purpose privileged tasks. --ais523 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Short reply: I respect your opinion, and I don't have a strong opinion on this myself. Longer reply on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that I would like to know beforehand for each candidate whether this is a vote for viewdeleted or administrator. For some I see this could be useful, but not so many AFD candidates say this is what they need. If viewdeleted is all that is wanted then I expect that they will pass much more easily. A RF-viewdeleted discussion could happen in the same was as for AFD, but just asking for this permission. But I would say as a consolation prize it is not that useful. I would apply different criteria to such a candidate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- I see two questions here. First: before we're all done here, we're going to have a hundred requests to change the question, because what I'm proposing is, let's face it, weak sauce. I'm asking for something that doesn't even qualify as an admin button for (currently) 5 people. All I can say is: everything else has been tried, many times. But hey ... consensus on these questions does change over time. I don't want my RfC to interfere with anyone else's. If anyone wants to start a discussion on another proposal, please do, and if that goes well, file an RfC.
- Second: it's true that viewdeleted is a pretty poor consolation prize, but in a way, that's the point. If we make the alternative any pushable admin button, then RfA voters are never going to accept the restriction that they can't discuss openly whether the candidate should be entitled to the button ... it's too important not to discuss. If they're told to keep quiet about suitability for a blocking or deleting button, then voters will start talking in code with winks and nods, and all we'll accomplish is to make the RfA more confusing and even somewhat deceptive. It has to be something that doesn't get people riled up, and historically, voters haven't been very excited about viewdelete, because having viewdelete doesn't give you any power over other editors, and that's what people really care about. OTOH, viewdelete has the advantage that it's actually helpful if you're trying to learn how to be an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  - In itself viewdeleted would be useful for particular nonadminstrators. Those that clerk at WP:REFUND could then give better advice or valid declines. People that nominate for G4 can see if the article is a duplicate. Some could see if a history restore is needed for attribution. Vandal patterns could be observed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The ability to view deleted content is the admin tool that requires the most trust. Often personally identifying information is deleted and not oversighted till later. What is more is that it can be abused without being noticed. We don't have any peer review on what deleted content is viewed, one could be collecting private information and we would have no way of knowing. I would not be comfortable letting anyone use that tool unless I trusted them enough to use any admin tool. HighInBC 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- That is why I think it needs to be considered as a separate request with community support, not a consolation prize for near passes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
- Perfectly reasonable. I'm not arguing "viewdeleted good, buttons bad", it's just that this question of which userright is the least toxic is a question I don't have the luxury of having an opinion on, because there are so many other opinions out there ... I just have to go with the flow, or nothing will get done. Countless RfCs have shown that what most voters care most about is actual admin buttons, and from their rationales, it's clear that this has something to do with a perception of fairness and not wanting people to have power over other people unless they're well-trained and it's absolutely necessary. We don't get those complaints with viewdeleted, we get different complaints, but there's a chance something can be done about those complaints. It wouldn't bother me at all if the consensus tilts largely in favor of your position, and this userright is handed out rarely, though I doubt "rarely" will become "never", because some candidates fail RfA over technical issues that have nothing to do with trustworthiness or dedication. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I was asked to take a look at this (as a "failed RfA") and so popped by. My question is if there is any way to separate deleted article content from other edeleted wikipedia content. I ask because I have often wanted to be able to recover deleted articles to work on or to move articles over a redirect - and have to delete to make way for move - and so having that ability as an unbundled right would be useful. (I originally asked for - and received - the file mover right, thinking that it also allowed file mover right... oh well...I occasionally use it anyway ) I actually share the concern that vandal deletions are a sensitive issue - particularly given that a CURRENT admin looked at a deleted file of mine during my RfA and then proceeded to post its contents in their entirety at an off-wiki site, so I know exactly the concern. (It was not sensitive content, luckily, merely an abandoned essay draft I no longer cared to pursue). Montanabw ^(talk) 21:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(Technical note: sadly, as of now, we're talking about 6 barely-failed RfAs this year rather than 5. I have notified this candidate, the same as the others.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments On a positive note, this proposal shows evidence of thinking outside the box and trying to find creative solutions to problems. I like the fact that, to some extent, it ameliorates two problems with one solution. Unfortunately, I see some flaws and I'm unable to be fully supportive.

Maybe I'll lose some people but I want to explain my concerns with Venn diagrams. I'm too lazy to draw them so you will have to imagine them in your head.

Let A= Set of editors with right to view deleted material (as a mnemonic, A means admins)
Let B= Set of editors who would find the right to view deleted material useful (no mnemonic)
Let C= Set of editors who recently ran for RfA and narrowly failed

Sets A and B have a lot of overlap but not perfect overlap. There are some admins who have the ability but haven't used it for quite some time and may never use it again. In contrast, there are some accomplished editors who would find the right useful but are not admins. E.g. OTRS agents trying to handle a permission statement for an image that has been deleted.

By definition, set A and C have no overlap.

The right to view deleted material is a right that deserves consideration for expansion beyond admins. I am very aware of the Foundations view on the subject, but think this is a hurdle that could be overcome if handled correctly.

If there were a lot of overlap between set B and set C, It might be a nice target case for a modest expansion of this user right. However, it isn't at all obvious to me that those who recently narrowly failed to pass the RfA hurdle are also likely to be doing things or want to do things where the user right would be helpful.(I'd be happy if someone presented some evidence to show I'm wrong because it would help me support this proposal).

I'd like us to seriously consider how to expand the view deleted material user right in a carefully considered way, but I'd prefer to target editors working in copyright areas or OTRS where the need is obvious. They may be other areas of work that are also candidates, but if I identify members of set B that are not currently members of set A, I fear that it would be mere happenstance that this group would coincide with Set C.--S Philbrick (Talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than create a new user right group, we should expand the existing researcher (view deleted titles) user group. Epic Genius (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is a good idea, and is worth looking into. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 19:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Strange... I can't help but feel as if we've had this discussion before. I could be wrong, but I think someone actually made ~~the same exact~~ a very similar proposal several months back, only to be unceremoniously shot down for creating "a solution in search of a problem." Kurtis ^(talk) 18:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your proposal was to set up something that wasn't RfA to ask the community whether a candidate was dedicated and trustworthy enough for the viewdeleted userright. The proposal was rejected because the voters felt that we already have RfA for asking exactly those questions ... which is my point, as well. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I misread your proposal. Fixed. But I stand by what I said at the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    - That's actually the biggest doubt in my mind, too. I don't want to file an RfC that fails; the harder you push something that doesn't want to move, the more dug-in people get on their positions. The smaller the request, the more likely the RfC will pass. Admin work isn't sitting in a chair and pushing buttons all day (like George Jetson, if anyone remembers him.) There's a lot of work and thought that goes into it, so if someone has both the ability to see deleted pages and that tangible sign of community trust, that might mean that they're more willing to help out with various kinds of admin-y work, which might help them pass a future RfA. It might work that way. Can I get a show of hands on this? If people don't think it will work out that way, I'm happy to accept advice from you guys on this, and in that case, we'll try to figure out what's the least offensive, and most useful, admin button that could be added to this package. Other things would have to be changed about the proposal, and we'd have to deal with the "no sub-admins" issue successfully before filing the RfC ... but if the consensus is that viewdeleted isn't sexy enough by itself, I'm willing to investigate other possibilities. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to warm up to this idea, but the pieces just don't hang together. You want to hand out a consolation prize for narrowly failing an RfA. So you suggest the user right that is both the least useful in ordinary editing and the most legally problematic, and also is unlogged, so there's no benefit in performance evaluation in a subsequent RfA and no good way to know if someone is abusing the right. But you don't want voters to use RfA as a place to discuss whether the candidate should get the consolation prize, and you also don't want candidates to use a full RfA as a way to get it. This proposal sounds like what it is, honestly. It's like that last funny-shaped, too-dense cookie you made mushing together all the last little scraps of dough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Opabinia. Sigh. If anyone else either sees it the same way, or thinks this view might take hold in the RfC, please say so. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Has this run out of steam? At some point I want to start a conversation at VPP. There are lots of questions to be answered (including whether we should do this at all) but the one I really don't want to put off is deciding between viewdeleted alone and viewdeleted plus some relatively inoffensive mini-admin-button. That has to get nailed down first. If we're done here, then ~~I'll ping people who have commented so far (note: not canvassing) and try to continue at least that discussion on my talk page.~~ I'll start a new section. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank and everyone else,

Admins aren't in my team's remit, but let's say that makes me the ideal WMF staffer to answer Dank's question, since I can give you straight answers without having to worry about any repercussions. ;-) Because of time constraints, the fact is that Legal is unlikely to comment on any proposal unless and until there is a firm, settled proposal and their assent or rejection is actually necessary. When you read this, you should remember that I haven't spoken to Legal about this, and they will feel free to disagree with me if I've gotten it wrong. I'm replying based on my general knowledge of their POV.

What I've understood here is a proposal that would be identical to the RFA process, which they've already approved (and therefore are unlikely to un-approve of). For those who fall in or near what I'll call the "crat discretion zone", this proposal adds a discussion by one of the most trusted groups of editors, and either grants the right or doesn't on that basis. Crats would presumably consider things like whether the person is interested in relevant issues (e.g., vandal fighting or copyvios rather than page moves) as well as general trustworthiness (but perhaps in a more "I trust you not to copy attack pages to other websites" way, rather than the "I trust you not to lose your temper and block the world" way).

In principle, there is no objection to having some people have access to viewdeleted without them having access to other buttons. Some of you may have seen phab:T113109#1691041, which says basically that. IMO there is at least a significant chance that Legal would accept this proposal, if the community wanted to do this. (Full disclaimers apply; also, the Devil's in the details.)

In response to a few comments above:

Hut, I don't believe that the WMF requires RFAs to be "strenuous". The RFA process must be one that demonstrates the local community's trust in the candidate. That could be done by any number of methods. I don't believe that they require the exact cutoff thresholds currently in use. They don't require a certain number of participants, or that newbies be excluded. There is certainly no requirement that RFAs be unpleasant. I'm not even certain that there is a requirement that RFAs be public.

I've never paid any attention to the details of the logging systems, but you all know that temporary web requests logs exist (because they need them for de-bugging). That includes all pages, including admins who are viewing deleted pages. IMO it would be appropriate for admins to assume that if they're using admin rights, even passively, that there is at least a temporary log of that action. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks kindly WAID. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of a consolation prize which the unsuccessful candidate may not need? Is the assumption that the participants in the RfA are clueless or wrong-headed so when they judged (by a small margin) that the candidate should not be trusted for admin, the participants were mistaken? Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Some candidates fail these days over the issue of trustworthiness; the crats have a good feel for these things, and they wouldn't give those candidates viewdeleted. But for most candidates, the close RfAs generally fail because adminning is a lot harder than it used to be, and voters are concerned the candidates won't make the right calls. For people who have been around RfA since roughly 2009, think back ... the requirements on the skillset needed have changed dramatically over the years, but what constitutes trustworthiness and dedication haven't changed a lot. In many of the near-miss RfAs these days, there's little evidence that the voters think the candidate isn't dedicated to Wikipedia or can't be trusted with private information. So the question isn't whether the voters are wrong; the question is why we're distorting the comments of the opposers to mean things that they're not saying. And ... before roughly 2009, the bar on trustworthiness and everything else was lower at RfA ... so can we trust the people who passed back then (including me) with the viewdeleted userright, or can't we? Where's the evidence that something horrible happened because we did trust them? - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO

OK - Kudpung, WormTT, Biblo-guy (actually there used to be a really cool Biblo admin). Anyway - I have a few thoughts:

1) NO reply to votes. I mean none. If someone wants to discuss a person's !vote - it goes on the talk page. period.

The bullshit that goes on with various replies to a person's !vote is not only counter-productive to the process - it's ... it's ... well it's not only bullshit - but it begs for WP:DE. Meh - what do I know? — Ched : ? 04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I demur in part - if a vote is made upon a misapprehension of fact, then discussion of the fact is reasonable. Discussions which reach "À chacun son goût" levels should be hatted, in general. Sound fair? Collect (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Biblo-guy"? Well, first of all, it's Biblio, and secondly, such an informal name as "guy" is completely inappropriate for my extremely intelligent, philosophical, dignified personage. ;) But seriously, I think it would be a good idea to move all discussion to the talk page. We can at least make the RfA pages look orderly, without discussions branching everywhere. --Biblioworm 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Pardon me for adding on to the banter, but I hope I'm the cool biblio admin. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course! - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Collect. A statement of purported fact which actually is wrong or a misinterpretation might have undeserved and unfortunate influence if it cannot be refuted on the main page where all !voters are more likely to see the refutation. Discussions on other matters or extended discussions about the fact or its significance past the initial statement and refutation should go to the talk page. If the question of whether the fact is correct or not carries on, perhaps a note that extended discussion about that point is on the talk page might be made for full disclosure. Otherwise, I support moving comments and discussions about votes and bases for votes to the talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

More people

I see the same faces having the same arguments at RfA. Since we have so few RfAs these days then perhaps they should be advertised in the site notice. This way we get an abundance of fresh eyes, get a more representative opinion from the community, and move forward with stale arguments.

RfA is probably the most important regular debate that Wikipedia has, I think it justifies some coverage. HighInBC 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with HighInBC wholeheartedly: we need a higher participation rate. Most recent successful RfAs have had about a hundred total participants, give or take, and that represents a small fraction of all active editors. Basic principles of good governance would suggest that a higher participation rate would be better for the project, the key being a higher participation rate coupled with informed participants. We have many active and informed editors who have rarely participated or have stopped participating. That said, when newbie participants see some of the comments made about candidates, many of them are going to be shocked -- and not in a good way -- and may be immediately turned off. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
To some degree, this might be useful (maybe as a watchlist notice, but not a site banner). But there is a danger in overcompensating the other way: we could wind up with a lot of clueless !votes that really wouldn't improve things at all. What we need is more input from editors who have actually thought about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Carefully wording the watchlist notice may help. Something about how important this is and a plea to examine the candidate's history (with links taking the newbie right to the candidate's history and to a couple of relevant policy pages). What we want is people who are Wikipedia newbies but who are intelligent and willing to put in at least some effort. A carefully wording notice will help that kind of user to participate productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Increasing participation is the best way to improve the process. I support this wholeheartedly. RO ^(talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I do think this would be an improvement, since we would get fresh opinions from lesser-known members of the community. I don't think this would completely fix RfA, but it would perhaps contribute. --Biblioworm 20:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't getting more people to participate in RfA require people to not find the process to be as awful as it is? Honestly RfA just has a reputation of being one of the worst things about Wikipedia when you get right down to it. GamerPro64 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) More people participating would mean input from a wider range of viewpoints, which is always a good thing. I also think there are a handful of people that attempt to either derail or push through candidates based on partisanship. The power of these cliques is diminished with great participation. Look at Liz's RfA for a good example of a concerted effort to derail that failed due to overwhelming participation. RO ^(talk) 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we're talking about getting more people to vote in RfAs. The candidate may find it stressful; the typical voter probably won't. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a lot of good ideas being floated on this page. This is one of the best ones. We should announce RfAs site-wide and encourage more voting participation so that we elect admins who best represent the community's needs. I think it would also have a side benefit of attracting more users to become admins.- Mr X 20:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrX. In fact, I would recommend that anyone who has a proposal to "fix RfA" learn a lesson from the hundreds of similar proposals that went down in flames and instead start with a proposal to increase RfA participation. I think that if we got a lot more more participants, some of them would look at some of the more problematic current participants and ask "why are you behaving this way?" --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I think proposals to "fix RfA" would still likely be needed. After all, although it's a good idea for the sake of getting a broader range of views, it's also taking a gamble. It might not have the effect intended. In fact, it might cause more problems if uninformed users fall for the faulty reasoning of a crafty, more experienced user who is determined to make the candidate fail. I support it just because I think it would be good for the wider community to be involved, not because I think it has a good chance of actually fixing the process. I will make sure to include this idea in the upcoming RfC, though. --Biblioworm 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep. While "more voters" may be a worthy goal in its own right, "more voters" won't necessarily get more people to run, nor will it necessarily make RfA more "pleasant". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing we put some minimum on it such as "all watchlists of accounts with more than 1000 edits" then it would be a way to get input from a broader group of people. It should also encourage more editors to think about running. Ϣere SpielChequers 03:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I too think that proposals to "fix RfA" would still likely be needed, but I also think that, based upon the last 200 or so proposals having a 100% failure rate, that more proposals that are doomed to failure are not a good use of our time. (200 is my rough estimate of how many serious proposals have been posted in various places since the last suggestion that passed, which was unbundling rollback) That being said, if we can get a lot more people involved that could be a game changer and make it so that reasonable proposals can pass, at least on a trial basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. I think it is embarrassing that we regularly have RfAs where less than 200 people comment (compare, say, the German Wikipedia), and a sitenotice or watchlist notice might help. —Kusma (t·c) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

- Comment: I think that wider, neutral notice is a good idea; RfA does have a group of "the usual suspect" who !vote and I wish there was a way to draw in a more balanced group individuals who are not RfA regulars but might be familiar (pro or con) with the actual candidate. Also, while a candidate is not supposed to canvass at all beyond posting notice at their user page, and supporters are similarly discouraged from such activity, opponents of the RfA appear freer to canvass for opinion-based !voting, certainly on their own talk pages, ( as [1]). I would suggest that an appropriate neutral notice template that can be placed - other than by the candidate - at certain areas (such as, for example, wikiprojects) would also be a good idea. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much like WereSpiel's suggestion about setting a minimum experience level for receiving the advertising. That would help to reduce the introduction of clueless !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Over the years at RfA in my experience most disruption is caused by long term users. Truly clueless new users are generally given the weight they deserve. HighInBC 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

One simple way to do that could be to advertise at T:CENT instead of the watchlist, although that gives a self-selected sample again. —Kusma (t·c) 11:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Going forward

I think that any form of advertising must not target specific people. It is very important that the selection of participants be neutral, and that we do not allow for a self-selection bias. I would like to judge consensus for the idea of putting active RfAs in the site notice here before going to MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice(or wherever these things are decided). Continued discussion is encouraged in the section above, people are also encouraged to challenge or question opinions they disagree with(it is called debating, no badgering). HighInBC 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support I strongly feel that if fresh eyes come to RfA they will quickly settle one way or another many of the perrenial disputes the usual crowd(me included) keep rehashing. Having a greater cross section of Wikipedia will give us fresh input on the community's view of administrators. It will reduce the amount of power minority views have to derail an RfA. Most importantly I hope it will replace the repetitive arguments at RfA discussions with fresh new ones. HighInBC 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Support: Wider notice to bring in people who are registered users though, not the regulars - but also does not draw in the totally clueless would be nice. Perhaps something in the Signpost noting current pending RfAs would draw that neutral group. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Partial (or complete?) oppose I see more harm than good in encouraging non-logged-in visitors who are much more likely than not to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's history and policies to participate in RfA. Advertisement forms such as site-notices and the like should, at a minimum, "target" only logged-in editors. I also favor more narrow targeting, such as targeting editors with over X edits and Y months of editing, but I'm flexible in that regard. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That can be done with parser functions, and as non-logged in people cannot vote that makes sense. HighInBC 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

My apologies It seems this is in fact already being discussed here: Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_I/RfC#D:_More_participants. I don't know how I missed it. This section seems redundant to the larger discussion there. HighInBC 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Participation at RfA has never been so high. The wrong kind of advertising may have the wrong effect: it might even bring more trolls from the peanut gallery and we have enough of those already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

- I invite everyone here who cares about the encyclopedia and the role of admins to parse my RfA for anything that can be instructive or helpful that goes beyond my own unique strengths and shortcomings. I think that my willingness to throw my hat into the ring (and my intent to try again sometime in 2016) has been of help to the project as a whole to illustrate both its strengths and weaknesses. I was cautioned before running that many failed RfA candidates put up the "retired" tag at the end, and I did not; but most wikipedians are not me; I got nuked, but I'm still standing! That may not be the case for others - my experiences may have scared off many good potential admins: how do you attract them and reassure them that, my experience notwithstanding, they don't actually have to endure off-wiki doxxing, on-wiki stalking, on- and off-wiki canvassing by opponents, character assassination by every troll they've ever pissed off, dogpiling by the uninformed, and the impossibility of defending oneself from false accusations lest one look as nuts as the accuser in question? Somewhere in there, something useful can be found that will improve the RfA experience for others. I hope... Montanabw ^(talk) 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If I may (and I say this with obvious goodwill, as I !voted for you at your RfA), everything that happened to you at your RfA was fairly predictable because unfortunately, as someone said above, you have rubbed a fair number of people the wrong way over a long time (and also in your case, the people you have rubbed the wrong way were not the best kind of enemies to have when it comes to something like this). So only the quantity was surprising, not the activities themselves (and you were somewhat warned beforehand by several brave souls willing to speak frankly; I don't think enough people had the heart to warn you as thoroughly as they might have). So the only part of what you mentioned that comes up in most RfAs (and in many cases none of it does) is some much milder form and much lesser amount of "character assassination by every troll they've ever pissed off" and "dogpiling by the uninformed"; although most trolls move on and don't participate in RfAs, and most of the "dogpiling by the uninformed" in your case was because you actually chose not to rebut the opposes that actually warranted rebutting, and the only time you did so was on the talk page where almost nobody saw it until far too late. That decision not to rebut seemed noble at the time (because after all people were accusing you of being contentious or argumentative), but it was your own choice and wasn't imposed on you by anything or anyone. I think there are a couple of lessons here: (1) If you've pissed a lot of people off and over a long period, you're going to have a tough time at RfA, especially if the people in question are belligerent, immature, or hold grudges. (2) It's actually often helpful to sometimes (at least briefly) judiciously rebut, on-thread, misinformation that crops up on one's RfA, and to sometimes rebut judiciously and briefly when the rebuttal does not equate to or appear as nitpicking or whining. (3) Failed RfAs are a test of character, and I'm happy to say that you came through with flying colors with your head held high. Given the kind of meltdowns we've seen by persons with non-venomous and not particularly contentious but failed (for whatever reason) RfAs, I think this is remarkable. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I have edited for nine years, I figured that I'd draw out people—it was the dogpiling that was troubling; of the oppose !votes, some had a legitimate complaint about my past behavior, others were, well... their actions speak for themselves. I don't know if rebuttal would have made much difference; I'm open to discussion about that point, though. I think that perhaps one simple RfA reform might be structural — a general "rebuttal" or "reply to comments" section for the candidate to address specific inquiries, misinformation or challenges, separate from the questions area. If you rebut on-thread, you a) may wind up saying the same thing multiple times to multiple people, so one stop shopping would be good, and b) Your rebuttal can become lost in a sea of text (might anyway, but a structure would be helpful). Montanabw ^(talk) 04:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I actually think the opposite: that there should be some kind of experience requirement to !vote in RfAs. In the recent one we had several !votes from people with fewer than 200 total edits. IMO they can't possibly know what adminship involves and how to evaluate someone for it. Unless, of course, they are socks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- (I suspect they're mostly socks or meatpuppets, just saying...may be worth analyzing how many are under 100, under 50...) ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 04:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it can be appealing for newish editors who find their way there. I'm far from sure that these would be predominately opposes though, as you are implying. I'm not against a 200 edit requirement btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

God knows the last thing we need is another damn "let's fix RfA proposal," but if we want to make it easier for newer and older editors to contribute to RfA, a few things might be useful:

Adding another section specifically for editors who have been involved in contact with the nominee over time, highlighting only their positive and/or negative interactions with the nominee. If they want to !vote, they place the votes in the same sections as everyone else's. And, if possible, have that section opened and closed for a week or two before the pure voting period begins.
Allow RfA's to take longer, or, at least, allow a designated period of, for example, two weeks, to give people to ask questions or make comments about the nominee, and maybe a few days or so for the nominee to respond. Then, basically, close down the discussion sections, although, of course, people might be permitting to add some observations in the RfA voting period, knowing that they aren't really likely to get any response.
If we really want to make it easier for newer editors, the easiest way to do that is to make it easier for them to see all the relevant data in one place. Also, personally, I might want something more restrictive than 200 edits, as I know at least a few long-term contributors who clearly by their actions aren't competent to read instructions at the top of some noticeboards and other pages. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

7 Days is plenty long enough for RFA. If we had a glut of candidates and needed more time to scrutinise them I could see some merit in extending things even though that would risk losing some candidates. But it is tumbleweeds at RFA, no need to go out of our way to make the system less candidate friendly. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Limited block button

Pinging User:WereSpielChequers (and acknowledging your work on this idea over the years). A recurring objection in the viewdeleted section above is that giving someone viewdeleted is pointless if they can't do anything with it. I don't agree, but I agree that many voters will disagree with me, that there has to be a bigger payoff than that. I'd like to suggest that we have another look at a limited-block button that lets people block and unblock certain new editors, say, those with fewer than 100 edits. The two relevant proposals of the last few years, neither of which achieved consensus, were Vandal fighter and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3#Limited block/unblock. Note that neither of those proposals involved RfA ... therefore, viewdeleted wasn't on the table, and arguably, that's one of the reasons the proposals failed. You don't want to hide a history of creating attack, hoax or spam pages from the person making the call on using the block button. Excluding viewdeleted is also a bad idea if we want these people to handle WP:UAA, one of the most backlogged pages, since the pages the new users created, the ones you need to see to help you make the call to block, are often deleted before you arrive at UAA to handle the request. (Some voters are going to say that handling UAA takes a lot of judgment and finesse. I worked UAA for years, and that simply isn't true. Almost all of the work can easily be done by anyone who's trustworthy and dedicated enough to merit viewdeleted and/or limited block.) The main reason some people have favored unbundling this limited button in the past is, if a new account is engaged in serial vandalism, hoaxing or spamming, damage can be done and Wikipedians sometimes get very upset if you don't stop it quickly. Any thoughts on combining limited blocking with viewdeleted (regardless of whether or how RfA is involved)? - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Btw, the link that sheds the most light is Vandal fighter. As you can see in the oppose section, many of the opposers are requiring RfA. So for some of them, I'm guessing the question would boil down to this (and I don't personally have a position, it's a hard question): is there such a thing as "basic, no-frills" vandal-blocking? What's the cost vs. benefit for making this job available to the handful of people each year who don't quite pass RfA and are approved for this job by a crat chat (that is, if they even want that job)? - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank, I intend to revive the vandalfighter proposal sometime, but have some stuff in real life to attend to. I am keen to keep it as simple and basic as possible to avoid it becoming an admin lite proposal. The vast majority of urgent but uncontentious blocks are for vandalism, and that is where I want to focus this userright. View deleted would be useful for a variety of editors, including regular RFA voters, but the combination of it not being logged, none of the uses for it being major or urgent, and of course the WMF sensitivities, presumably about viewing copyrighted material? Mean that I don't fancy the chances of any proposal to unbundle it. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

WAID just said above that it is logged, and that the WMF wouldn't be likely to be sensitive about it in this case. But I completely agree with your focus, that's an important direction to go, and best of luck, I hope you're successful. I'm attacking a different batch of problems. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I would support a more limited version of Vandal fighter, only allowing short-term blocks of IP vandals and perhaps of non-autoconfirmed vandals. These kinds of blocks do not require particularly complicated and nuanced judgement calls, and I think that this kind of a "Vandal fighter" status could be granted by any admin, without bothering the crats. I'd make the "Vandal fighter" status similar to rollback: easily granted and easily removed (again, by any admin), in case of misuse. Granting viewdeleted rights and the rights to short-term page protection seems more problematic to me, and looks like something that would require a higher level of confirmation than a quick decision by an admin or even a crat chat. Some deleted content contains sensitive info; the protection button can also easily be misused and misapplied, and protection is exactly the kind of area where a nontrivial judgement call is often required. In my experience with IP vandals, many of them will persist in trying to vandalize a particular page (or a group of pages) from the same IP address, but relatively few bother with the process of registering as a new user or a bunch of new users for the purposes of vandalizing, and fewer still try to vandalize from a bunch of different IP addresses (say created using a VPN server). Usually just blocking an IP vandal for something like 24-48 hours solves the problem. Thus, IMO, a user with a "Vandal fighter" status does not really need access to the protection button for most vandal-fighting situations. Creating this kind of a "vandal fighter" status would only help with AIV backlog and not with other admin-related backlogs, but it would require little bureaucracy and would still give many users a valuable admin-related record that can then help later, at a full RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- You realize that much of the time, the "AIV backlog" consists of reports which are unprocessed because they're not clear-cut vandalism, have been reported prematurely, or not vandalism at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  - I don't know about Wikipedia, but in most organizations, that would mean that you need more people in triage, to kick the problematic cases upstairs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
    - What HighInBC said below. AIV reports are often left alone to see what further activity occurs (just like RFPP reports). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that blocking vandals does not require nuanced judgement calls. You need to know the difference between bad faith vandalism and good faith editing test or simply someone with an unpopular view. Going through AIV reports I see requests for vandal blocks that should not be done all the time. I think that blocking new users requires a lot of judgement and can do a lot of damage is applied incorrectly. HighInBC 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Even when not scouring through WP:AIV's history, I see at least one inappropriate AIV report by a rollbacker/reviewer. Blocking is not easy. Esquivalience ^t 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Also, admins are answerable for their blocks, both to the blocked editor and others. This requires clarity and civility in interactions, especially when your actions are being challenged. I'm not against unbundling of the tools if precise guidelines are set up but I am against giving admins the ability to grant access to editors to these tools without wider community input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Block tool is very useful when a vandal fighter wants to block an IP address, after they vandalize after final warning, instantly, instead of reporting to AIV. Blockers should be able to block indefinitely but there should be very strict rules like block indefinitely only if the username is against the policy, if the account is vandlism only account. An experienced recent changes patroller will know how and when admin blocks users in different situations. Blockers can also help out in AIV and UAA. I have seen many instances where block tool would have been useful to stop further disruption to wikipedia. There are lot of experienced non-admins who will be able to use this tool for the benefit of wikipedia. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

They can work in SPI to block obvious socks and also in WP:ANEW. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Work in ANEW? Please, no. That board contains some of the toughest blocking situations around. The fact you even suggest that makes wonder if you really know the thought process that goes on before blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about users who are very experienced but don't have enough content creation or experience to pass RFA. We don't give them this right just like we give rollback right, do we? Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You don't need content creation to pass RFA. For better or for worse, I suppose I'm Exhibit A for this. And if you don't have enough experience, what are you doing with the block button? I don't understand your last sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant ' enough experience with article creation to pass RFA ', I don't think community will trust them with delete button without content creation. Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I do have some concerns as to who would get the limited blocking user right, as it is a fairly serious grant of power. While there are certainly times I'd have preferred to immediately block an obvious vandal instead of reporting it at WP:AIV, I think it's really useful to have a second pair of eyes look at less obvious cases. And what would the threshold be for this user right? It's relatively easy to rack up a hefty counter-vandalism edit count using Huggle or Twinkle, so maybe a mere edit count wouldn't be the right threshold. But what else is there to use? If "almost an admin except for lack of content creation" is the threshold, then analogously to RfAs, wouldn't there have to be a !voting procedure to determine the granting of this user right? /wia /talk 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

An RFC will be requested on candidate's talk page for 3 or more days. It will be closed by an uninvolved admin. If candidate doesn't get consensus, they will not get the right. A separate template will be created which will be placed on candidate's talk page, which will add the candidate name to a seperate category. Any user who want to get the right will need to create a new section on their talk page with the template requesting for comments. Is this good enough?

I feel that limited block right is not very useful because we can get vandals blocked very easily, it doesn't take much time. Why not give experienced users full block right and let them help more areas on wikipedia. Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

They can run a RFA if they want that. Again, content creation is not a barrier to a successful RFA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Support idea

Support, as long as they can be unblocked also. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I support a more limited "Vandal fighter" right than was proposed at the start of the year (i.e. just block/unblock of IPs and non-autoconfirmed, and probably limited to 31 hours, and leaving off the "Page Protector" part that the earlier proposal included – the latter should be a separate "unbundle" set). But it's the third hardest of the four obvious unbundles to get consensus for. (And figuring out the specific details – e.g. max blocking length – will be a chore in an of itself...) So I'm not sure if this is the right time to put this one forward – I'd advise waiting a few more months before letting this one fly... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Cautious support including UAA as suggested by Dank. We've seen good vandal fighters denied the mop (rightly, imho) because we don't think they have adequate experience to use the tools over the whole pedia. This would enable the best of these to work even more effectively in those areas where they are competent. I agree with IJBall just above that this should not include page protection. --Stfg (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Support my idea - Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose idea

Oppose. Slippery slope, obviously subject to abuse, very bad idea. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you opposing my idea or this whole thing? Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Blocking new users requires as much if not more experience and judgement as any other admin act. I see incorrect AIV reports asking for blocks all the time, from experienced users with rollback/reviewer and lots of trust. I don't believe that limiting to new users in any way mitigates the risk of allowing people to use the block tool. HighInBC 16:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I'd support this either, but there's a bit of a psychological difference between reporting a problem for someone else to look at, and actually acting on the problem yourself. If AIV never had any bad reports, that would be a near guarantee that reporting was too conservative and there were obvious vandals out there going unblocked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed – asking someone else (e.g. an Admin) to look at something to determine whether there should be blocking, doesn't imply that the same editor would "block" under the same circumstances (esp. if said editor felt they were "involved"). To give an example, I once brought a username to WP:UAA because I thought it was suspect but wasn't sure, and sure enough Diannaa (I think) refused any action on it at UAA – but that doesn't mean if you guys had given me the Block Button at that point that I would have "blocked on sight"! Quite the contrary, I would have done the exact same thing – gone to UAA for advice... I do find a disquieting lack of trust/"assume bad faith" of our longer-term or veteran editors in these discussions. Any of the "problems" outlined can generally be dealt with by: 1) setting the new unbundled "user rights" qualification criteria high enough, 2) imposing the same "WP:INVOLVED" rules on editors with these new rights as we do on Admins (and probably adding on something equivalent to WP:ADMINACCT to these rights as well), and 3) allowing Admins the ability to "yank" these new user rights quickly (as we already do with Rollback, AWB, etc.) if somebody with them gets out of hand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem is that rejecting an application or "yanking" a user right can be insulting and a cause of drama by itself. It's important that the result of increased backlog-clearing is worth the effort expended in doing the reviewing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
On the "rejecting an application" part, it depends how it's done – If it's via a "mini-RfA", then it could very well lead to hurt feelings. But it's an objective standard like "Right will only be granted to users with 50 valid reports to WP:AIV" (or something like that...), it's hard to imagine many getting bent out of shape by that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak oppose. This user right could be useful in certain cases of obvious vandalism, but in general I think the deleterious effects outweigh the salutary. Opening the floodgates for hundreds or thousands of users could get messy real fast. I could see users who have already tried and failed at RfA being granted this right, but what about those who haven't? Sure, a much more selective block power-granting procedure might avoid that particular problem, but then why not just go for the full administrator toolkit via the existing RfA process? Sounds like it could amount to a duplication of effort, and I'm just not sure about the viability of an RfA-lite for blocking powers. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Of the four kind of "obvious unbundles", the XfD Moderator will be the one obviously require a "mini-RfA" (that's straight from the WMF, I gather). The "Vandal Fighter" one, I'm on the fence about – I suspect the community would feel more comfortable with a "mini-RfA" for this one as well, because it involves blocking. Even if they don't, I suspect the qualification criteria to get "Vandal Fighter" will be quite high. Thus, I suspect the number who end up with this right is more likely to be in the low hundreds (like Template Editor or File Mover) than in the thousands (like Pending Changes Review, which has virtually no qualification criteria to be granted the right; or Rollbacker). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Neither of the linked previous discussions presents evidence that there is really a significant and sustained backlog of uncontroversial blocks waiting to be made, and a few people here have indicated they don't see that. Most of these "unbundling" proposals seem to be based on what might pass, not on what's actually needed. The first step should be to find out which admin tasks are suffering from lack of attention to urgent issues, and whether the reason for the backlog is really a lack of manpower. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the biggest backlogs that I think I've seen seem to be in the XfD area (e.g. TfD), which is the one area that is going to be especially problematic in terms of "unbundling". After that, WP:RM seems to get backlogged on occasion, which is an area that unbundling could potentially be achieved, if the technical issue of "being able to delete redirects but not articles" userright can be solved. Beyond that, while there aren't "persistent" backlogs, there are occasional backlogs (generally depending on the time of day and the day of the week) at AIV and RFPP, but that may have more to do with Admin distribution across timezones as much as anything... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, if XfD gets too backlogged we can reduce the backlog by changing the procedure so that experienced, vetted editors are allowed to close XfDs (or specific types of XfDs depending on their area of expertise) up to but not including the actual deletion, much like the way Wikipedia:Templates for discussion closes now. Article, user, project-discussion, or other "regular"-page closes as delete or delete-and-redirect? Blank or redirect it and have an admin clean up later. File close as delete? Upload a dummy file on top of it and let an admin clean up later. Category closes as delete? De-populate it and replace its content with "This category is pending deletion, do not use it." Portals, WikiProject pages, maintenance categories, and other "complex" things go down to deletion? Clean everything up and make a list of pages that need deleting. This will free admins up for "urgent" things like deleting a page where a page-move is needed. This "delayed-actual-deletion" process also has built-in safeguards: Any editor, even those not "approved" to close XfDs in this way, has the technical ability to undo a rogue-XFD-closer's actions and, by invoking WP:IAR without being yelled at if the XFD's actions were clearly rogue. In most cases the admin's job would be reduced to making sure the recent edits were made by someone on the "approved" list, which is a task perfectly suited to a bot (in which case the admin's role is to make sure the bot made the last edit and the edit summary said "bot verified things are okay" or something similar), and maybe a very brief sanity check to make sure the decision wasn't off-the-wall-obviously-wrong.

We could start this discussion today if we wanted to. While it wouldn't require any changes to editor's technical user-rights, a user-right to protect pages so they could be protected once blanked could be helpful (it would replace the "any editor can undo a rogue action" aspect with "any editor can complain about a rogue action before it's too late," which may be undesirable). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I do not see any evidence that this is needed, especially given the risk of this idea. If there is a vandal/warrior that is causing active and sustained harm to Wikipedia and no admin shows up at AIV/AN3, you can request a speedy block (!admin A vandal/warrior is causing active harm to Wikipedia and they need to be swiftly blocked) at the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. Takes no more than one minute; no risk whatsoever; and no need to make a separate user right that would complicate things further. Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose No one should have blocking power who has not been vetted and approved by the community. To the extent that there is a shortage in admins, the solution lies in recruiting competent editors willing to step up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ad Orientem. Blocking is a big deal. It's probably the most crucial tool in the bit, and it should not be unbundled. RO ^(talk) 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Some of the IP vandalism that comes up at AIV (i.e. schools, or obvious "Your Mum" type stuff) is very straightforward, but a lot actually isn't. Except in the cases just mentioned, I am a lot more careful blocking IPs because quite often they get reported to AIV for simple ignorance of Wikipedia policy, language issues, or even technical issues, such as the continuing problems with Visual Editor. Whether or not you agree with IP editing, some of those IPs are people who will go on to be productive editors, and we cannot run the risk of people throwing out blocks just because sometimes edits are sub-par. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Long page

This talk page, at 497,815 bytes), is curtly the second-longest page on Wikipedia; even though each section is archived 20 days after discussion ends. Any suggestions on how to make it shorter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I need a little more feedback on how interested people are in a limited block button. If there's more interested for that than viewdeleted, then there are options for limited viewdeleted that would supplement limited block and wouldn't raise as many eyebrows. Once I get that feedback, I have no objection to archiving all the stuff above that's mine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, I archived all of the threads from September so that got the size down to 406,685....not a lot, I'll admit. I wish people would see if there were existing threads they could participate on rather than starting new threads. Aspects of RfA reform, which is what this talk page is almost all about, tend to get recycled every few weeks.

By the way, Andy Mabbett, what is the longest page on Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I meant that this is the second-longest talk page; the longest is Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I never knew that Terminator and Terminator 2 were such controversial topics! HighInBC 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

"Any suggestions on how to make it shorter?" Ask people to stop raising repeated, hopeless suggestions to reform RFA. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

There is only one solution: before discussing anything, try to utilize this talk page's archives first. Esquivalience ^t 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

What I see is not so much "reform" but the same old shit being thrown at the same old wall, and when none of it sticks (not for the first time), bitching and moaning about "Why didn't even one stick?" and mutters about depriving people of the vote and altering consensus for this one issue alone and then, walking over to the wall and picking up the same shit and taking it back and going and doing it all over again and again (Einstein had something to say about this), with an apparent complete lack of understanding that the very repetition is making the whole place stink so bad that nothing will ever pass under present circumstances. To my mind, the way this topic is presently being approached is as time consuming and destructive as any matter that winds up at ArbCom. I would suggest closing all of these and a moratorium on anything but discussion for six months. Maybe some flowers will grow by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No evidence Einstein ever said that. NE Ent 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Any rebuttal to the other 99.94% of what I said?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about my threads, I'm available to talk any time, you know that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about anyone in particular. You have been more careful than almost anyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, when, to use your metaphor shit is flying around the prudent thing to do is get out of the way, and bitching and moaning is hardly new to Wikipedia:: . It's certainly not consuming much of my time since I'm not reading it because I don't expect it will come to fruition, but bitching and moaning about that just adds to the general bitching and moaning. Folks here are volunteers, and if they chose to attempt to crack the "Rfa nut," who am I (or you) to begrudge them what they spend their own time on? Not sure why it's perceived as "destructive,"; wouldn't simply giving up in despair be more destructive than trying? NE Ent 01:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Are those the only two alternatives? Really?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Those are the most likely ones; it is possible at some point the stars will align and one of the Rfa reform discussions will converge to consensus, which is why we're never going to declare a moratorium on discussion. NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

My fear is that the incessant discussion will exhaust the community's patience for years to come. There is a need for admin reform at a certain level, but most of the proposals lack elementary protections. And until we take time to learn lessons from past efforts (which has been suggested by some), there's really very little point. But yes, on it will go.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive stuff? NE Ent 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Einstein once said that if stuff needed to be archived, you should just do it and not wait for permission. Nathan^T 04:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Wehwalt's 22:55 is the most incisive post on the subject in years. Agree with every word (maybe not the Einstein bit ;) ). Leaky Caldron 09:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What usually happens in such cases is that a {{FAQ}} is created for the talk page which summarises the perennial topics and explains why they are not productive. I shall make a start on this by adding the template {{round in circles}}. Note that the page is certainly too large currently as my browser struggles to edit the entire thing. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've subpaged the Rfc; hopefully that will address the page length issue. I don't think the FAQ will be productive, as discussion about the FAQ will likely draw as much intention as the Rfc itself. NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

There should also be an editnotice; something like this:

Before commenting:

Note that RfA discussion is popular in the community; this page is one of the most frequented talk pages, and discussions here are usually informal and long.

As a result, many discussions and comments here are redundant. Before starting a discussion, please search talk page archives and previous RfA projects first.

Major and recent projects: WT:RFA/R (2007) · WP:RFA2011 (2011) · Wikipedia talk:Reflections on RfX (2015)

Other notes

Keep discussion germane to RfA; off-topic comments may be moved or collapsed.
While a bot archives inactive discussions; it only archives after 20 days. Editors are encouraged to archive inactive discussions before then if further activity is unlikely.
Please remain calm and civil, avoiding personal attacks and harassment.

- Esquivalience ^t 17:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

People like to spout off their opinions without reading stuff. So let's give them more stuff to read to tell them not to do it! ;)

I say let people gab. There is of course abundant evidence that endless chatter and repetitive RfCs do not actually do anything, but 95% of what's posted in RfA discussions ignores the existence of evidence anyway. The real value of these discussions isn't actually to change anything; it's to direct disputatious energy that might otherwise meddle in something else into a known productivity sink. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just a technical detail: green print on a red background is one of the very worst choices for accessibility. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This talk page is a soap opera. A talk page is not the proper venue for a formal RfC anyway. IMO, RfCs should be on a sub page of the topic area they address, such as, for example: Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC to unbundle to the blocking tool; it also makes such archived discussions so much easier to locate. But try getting people to understand all that . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add my admonship request. Freghttrain (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Freghttrain (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Freghttrain: This is seriously not a good idea on your part. An editor with only 10 edits so far will absolutely not gain the consensus of the community in an RfA. I doubt anyone will even transclude your request for you. I would urge you to withdraw this request, and come back in about a year's time after you have gained some experience. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

See WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW for a more detailed explanation. Adminship rights are almost universally granted to users who have invested significant time and effort in the project. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wisdom89: Re: "Adminship rights are almost universally granted to users who have invested significant time and effort in the project." If only that were even close to being true. Lots of people have invested significant time and effort to the project but along the way they either demonstrated that their judgment was lacking and fail RfA despite having learned from their mistakes, or they tick more than a few people off and fail RfA even if that RfA is years later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it was meant as a necessary, not as a sufficient condition. —Kusma (t·c) 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not the way it was written. "Adminship rights are almost never granted to users who have not invested significant time and effort in the project" would be the way to write it as a "necessary" condition. The way it was written gives false hope. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically correct given the original phrasing, but I feel you're being overly pedantic on a non-issue. To be completely honest, I don't quite care if the above user receives "false hope" regarding the RfA process. The bottom line is that the individual needs to amass the requisite experience before attempting again. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

@Freghttrain: I suggest that you request speedy deletion under G7 criteria for your RfA and RfB.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

And then there is this: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucrat/Freghttrain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've deleted both candidacies; neither stands any chance of passing at this time. Acalamari 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Identifying the issues with RfA

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Most

Which RfA (to date) received the most total votes? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

DHMO #3 received the most total votes with 401 (299 in support) per Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX --Stabila711 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC

A RfC has commenced on whether a limited unbundling of blocking for counter-vandalism should be tried for eight weeks, see Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Esquivalience ^t 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternative vandal blocker proposal

Proposed: a new user right, called "vandal blocker".

To obtain this new user right, candidates must go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through.
Vandal blockers can only block non-autoconfirmed users, and only for a period of 48 hours or less.
Vandal blockers can only unblock users that they themselves blocked.
Vandal blockers can view deleted edits made by non-autoconfirmed users only, and only edits deleted in the last seven days.

If this proposal becomes a policy change (many steps to go before that happens), we will request that the Wikimedia software be modified to enforce the above restrictions.

A policy will be created for the vandal blocking user right as follows:

Only unambiguous vandalism or spam may result in a vandal blocker block.
Deleted edits viewed by a vandal blocker may only be used to support blocking vandals, and may never be revealed to anyone who does not have the view deleted user right.
Any administrator may arbitrarily suspend the vandal blocking user right for up to seven days for any reason. Longer removals would require community discussion.

The basic idea here is to give certain trusted users the ability to make immediate short-term emergency blocks of unambiguous vandals while deferring to administrators regarding longer blocks, all the while limiting the damage that a vandal blocker can do. Making the vandal blocker go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through insures that the community trusts them to block (some) users and view (some) deleted messages.
This proposal also is a litmus test to see if the community will reject any sort of unbundling.
If this proposal gets sufficient support, I will create an actual policy proposal, modified after seeing the responses to this one.

Support? Oppose? Would support if only X. Y, and Z were fixed? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Can't administrators already do things like this? Wouldn't it be unnecessary for a user to have to go through this process? I mean your idea

“

to give certain trusted users the ability to make immediate short-term emergency blocks of unambiguous vandals

”

is something admins can do. What's the point of this? It sound like an under-powered admin to me. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The same "under-powered admin" argument was made when rollbacker was unbundled. The argument basically says that once a user right is assigned to administrators, it can never be unbundled, no matter how good the arguments for doing so are. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose respectfully. If someone is going to go through the same process as an RfA, then why not just just let it be an RfA? This seems like unnecessary bureaucratic creep. Again the answer to not enough admins, is more admins. Seriously, our time would be better spent looking for some decent editors, with a track record demonstrating that they have a clue with respect to guidelines and policies, that they possess common sense and a desire/willingness to help others, that they have at least some record in content creation and in some of the adminny things, and lastly no record of malicious behavior. Are we really that short of editors who can meet those standards? -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you say that you object to the unbundling of the tools, or would you say that you object to the RfA requirement? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Both. RfA should be for admins. And I don't think we need to be creating a lot of admin-lights. If we need more admins, and I concede that a compelling argument has been made to that effect, then let's recruit more admins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who would likely be a good admin (9 years, clean block log, 29,000 edits, WP:DRN volunteer mediator) I am unwilling to go through the hell that is RfA, nor do I believe that I would pass.

(To become an admin, stay away from all noticeboards, create content, and abandon whatever you are working on and move elsewhere whenever anyone disagrees with you. Do that for a year or two and you will pass your RfA with no problems. In other words, show that you have zero interest or experience in dealing with the kind of work admins are asked to do.)

All attempts to reform the system have gone down in flames. So how do you recruit admins in a way that hasn't been tried and failed many times already?

Also, what, specifically, is wrong with the idea of "admin-lights"? If doctors get by with "doctor-lights" (interns) working in hospitals, why can't we? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree with your second paragraph. Refrain from creating unnecessary drama when you participate on noticeboards and in disputes and make sure your points are rooted in policies and guidelines and you don't have to abandon anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I should have specified "one easy way to become an admin is..." and thrown in an "in my opinion". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tentative support of concept: If it is technically feasible. I keep thinking about my own RfA; my interest was to have tools that allowed content editing to go more smoothly and the ability to protect BLPs from trolling and User Pages from outing; dealing with the LTA, ANI, etc., was far lower on my to-do list. Vandal-blocking is very different from dealing with established users who create problems. A limit like this one, focusing on non-autoconfirmed users, would eliminate the bulk of the PITA (pain in the ---) edits and BLP violation problems that content editors run into on a daily basis. And for candidates such as myself, I think some of the concerns folks raised about use of the block button and access to revdel content would be allieviated. Montanabw ^(talk) 07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding eliminating the bulk of the PITA edits and BLP violation problems that content editors run into on a daily basis, I think that vandal blocker would be an excellent tool for prolific and trusted content creators who otherwise have no interest in doing the kind of things administrators normally do. I think that a fair number of them would be willing to go through the RfA process to get such a useful tool.

Also, you bring up BLP violations. Should I expand this to cover unambiguous BLP and/or copyright violations? Perhaps with an additional requirement that a single violation can be dealt with by reverting and that blocking is only for repeated and recent violations? I need to think about this some more. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, only if you want to torpedo your proposal. There are plenty of disputes as to what is a BLP violation. And sometimes (it's rare, I grant you) editors miss the added text is coming from a mirror or CC-BY-SA compatible source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Introducing more bureaucracy is rarely the right solution to a problem. Having an RfA like process is redundant. It _will_ suffer the same issues that RfA has, and then we have two of them to deal with. We can't fix RfA by doubling the problems. I'd much rather see a very limited block tool be given out liberally to anyone who has a certain set of criteria met; N thousands of edits, X months/years of clean block record. That sort of thing. No bureaucracy. Unilaterally revokable by any admin on misuse of tool. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have my doubts as to whether the community will accept even a limited ability to view deletions being handed out liberally without an RfA-like process, and I really doubt that the WMF legal team would ever allow such a thing. On the other hand, many have expressed the opinion that you really need to view at least some deleted content to do a proper job of blocking vandals. I would welcome comments from admins on the latter point. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think viewing deleted content should be part of the mix. I don't think it is necessary to be able to do so to understand if someone is blockable or not, and if it is required then a report to WP:AIV will do just fine. I don't think there should be anything stopping any editor in good standing, of reasonable experience, from stopping a IP/new account vandal from damaging the project. I think it should be auto-granted, and readily revokable if abused, or revokable on request of the person holding the privilege. When auto-granted, a posting to the editor's talk page explaining the new role should be sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are correct and viewing deleted content is not needed for vandal blockers, then I can modify the proposal so that any admin can grant the right, just as is done now with the rollbacker right.

Having never blocked anyone or viewed deleted content, I have no way of knowing whether viewing deleted content is needed for vandal blockers. Perhaps we can just assume that whatever admin deleted the content made a decision on whether to block the vandal, and thus conclude that vandal blockers only need to access publicly viewable information? I really have no way of knowing whether that would work. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: Isn't this the sort of thing that should be asked at the village pump? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Per Guy Macon, Hammersoft, and Ad Orientem. This would really create another broken and overly complicated process. RO ^(talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: Needless right; AIV handled by our current admins is fine right now. Also, given that nearly all RfA WP:NOTNOW candidacies are made by vandal fighters despite the multiple warnings about the seriousness of adminship, I don't have much faith in the responsible and trained use of a "vandal fighter" right. With great power comes not only great responsibility, but great integrity and sincerity. I do not trust the editors who genuinely want this right to have the mentality required for even limited blocking. Unless a convincing argument for this right comes forward, it will remain perennial.Esquivalience ^t 20:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only way of knowing if this right will work or not is to try it out by giving such a right to experienced, prolific vandal fighters (there are some that are apathetic or opposed to running for RfA). If it works and curbs the AIV "backlog" is wiped out from existence, than that itself could be a convincing argument. Esquivalience ^t 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Close but needs some changes. Autoconfirmed is a very low threshold, I would take it to 100 edits as very few vandalism only accounts ever get there. I would drop both the 48 hour limit to the blocks and the limitation on reasons for blocks. The norm for a vandalism only account is an indef block and if you limit these blocks to 48 hours you don't actually take much work off the remaining admins. Also I wouldn't put people through an RFA for this. It needs to be something that admins can award to people who are making accurate AIV reports. As for Esquivalence's point, I understand we've already had some gaps at AIV, and as the number of admins declines that can only get worse. AIV needs 24/7 coverage 365 days of the year and if we can't reform RFA we need to unbundle the block button. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose precisely per Ad Orientem, although the thought and effort that went into the proposal is appreciated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons as the above proposal. Blocking new users does not require less trust than the full set of admin tools. New users are our most important resource and they need to be treated with great care. HighInBC 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Autoconfirmed is not statically defined I can be autoconfirmed one minute then non-autoconfirmed the next minute when I turn on TOR, assuming I am IP-block-exempt. The proposal would need tweaking to account for this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Support general idea but it would only work if it really was significantly easier to get individuals to #Support or at least not #Oppose you if you were running for this restricted set of tools vs. the full bucket. I do have some issues with the specifics, but those can be hashed out later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose, block is the most sensitive tool an admin has because it is the easiest to piss an editor with. Giving it to someone as an "easier to get" alternative to full adminship just doesn't make any sense. Also, the RFA process is painful enough so we don't want people to go through it twice - first for "admin lite" then for "real sysop". Max Semenik (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Support but with some of the same reservations as WereSpielChequers. What contributes to backlogs at AIV is that many reports are not vandalism, or are already stale. It's important to catch vandals who are on a spree in order to reduce the amount of cleaning up needed. Opposition to this proposal based simply on 'It will create more bureaucracy' is not founded on any objective objective reasoning. Such a right will certainly not address the problems with RfA. It would however prepare us for such times when attrition reaches a level where the number of truly active admins is on the decline while vandalism is of course always going to increase steadily. Even any moves to improve the environment at RfA can only be made by introducing some additional rules to control the participation of the voters.

If requests for this were to be reviewed at WP:PERM it could be based on the endorsement of two (better three) admins, while a rejection could be made by any one admin, and as long as it is understood that PERM never was, is not, and never should become an RfA-style discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Just noting that the current votes are all failing; if that turns around, then the discussion should probably move to VPP. But we're fine here for now. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Support in concept I'd shorten the maximum block duration. Maybe 7 hours. That will put a serious crimp in a vandal spree. If they come back after 7 hours, reblock and then look for an admin, because it is more than a bored kid. I might even change the name, and call it a Time-Out, although no need for new mechanics. I'm intrigued by the limits on viewing deleted material. The Foundation is very concerned about this right, but these limitations might make it more palatable. I'd also consider a shorter time. Maybe only deletions by non-autoconfirmed users only in the last three days. Open to discussion about the length. I agree the process for approval should be identical, but I can imagine some would gain acceptance for this, even if there's concern about the full tool set.--S Philbrick (Talk) 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd Support adding this function, but why go through this with a voting process if we can obtain full sysop functions with the same process? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@VegasCasinoKid: is right. Why should a whole new process be created for this when admins can do the same? It all still is pointless. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment Guy Macon, as noted above, the first point of this proposal renders it redundant. For a proposal to succeed, it has to offer something different than we have now. Two suggestions: 1) Clarify the RFBR (Request for blocking right) process. For example, a five day community discussion focused only on the candidate's AIV reports and general demeanor. 2) Specify exactly who could be blocked and for what. Only new editors and IP's for blatant vandalism? If so, give some examples of what blatant vandalism is not (e.g., genre warring, adding unsourced info, socking, etc.) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good advice. I will work on getting that done tonight. Meanwhile, I still have an open question as to whether vandal blocking really needs the ability to read deleted material. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Yet another hopeless Hail Mary pass into the endzone of RFA reform. Leaky Caldron 17:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hail Mary, full of grace. RfA is a disgrace. Nominations come in apace, most falling flat on their face. Reforms come bold faced, and disappear without a trace. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (rapidly retreating!)

Of course it is hopeless. We all knew that coming in. Only a fool would think that one more RFA reform proposal has any chance after over a thousand previous proposals have failed. Meanwhile, the number of new admins gets smaller and smaller, old admins get burnt out and leave, and the number of pages and users grows larger and larger. I didn't post an RFA reform proposal because I imagined that it had a chance. I posted it because it was the right thing to do. Nice poem, BTW. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, but I thought we're losing contributors not gaining them. If we have less active editors now than before, don't we need fewer admins too? RO ^(talk) 19:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We used to be losing editors, and we are still losing admins. But the 2015 pattern is for an increase in the "core community" September 2015 had 15.3% more editors saving over 100 edits in mainspace than September 2014. Of course the need for admins is not closely linked to community size, we need sufficient admins to cover AIV 24/7 365 days of the year whether the typical admin spending an hour at AIV needs to dish out one block or five; And the number of vandals is more closely linked to the number of edits per day than the number of regulars few if any of whom will be vandals. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

@Guy; just to be clear, I had no intent of mocking you or your proposal in any respect. Rather, I was aiming for humor and humor alone. @Rationalobserver; recent active editors has increased some of late, but even a dead cat bounces. The WMF's fundraising efforts have noted a declining viewership as well. Wikipedia isn't what it was. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. This is just a variation on the Wikipedia:Vandal fighters proposal which failed (for a number of good reasons) in March of this year. See also the 30-day RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 120#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at those proposals, you will see that they failed largely because they did not contain a "To obtain this new user right, candidates must go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through" provision. This proposal, on the other hand, is failing largely because it does contain that provision. Same result, different reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

If that's the only important objection that you noticed in those discussions, you didn't read them very closely. Fundamentally, these proposals are flawed because short blocks of vandalism-only accounts don't result in reformed vandals; they just result in returning vandals with autoconfirmed accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Don't think it's worth changing the system and bringing in junior-grade admin-lites until there is a showing that there are many times you simply cannot get an admin by posting at AN/I or going on IRC. I don't see the need, and agree with other posters that even blocking for limited periods may turn off new editors, and I'd rather see the judgment made by experienced admins. Also do not feel any attempt has been made to ponder on previous failed RfCs. Just another toss at the wall.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The point of the vandal-blocker idea is that you wouldn't need to go through an RfA to get it. Also, there's no reason at all for them to be able to view deleted edits. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I'd like the record to reflect that I do see merit in this concept. Having been active on the AIV side of Wikipedia for quite some time, I see the constant backlog that occurs over on said noticeboard – whilst I'm loathed to whine about the pile-up that occurs on AIV as I know that administrators do have lives outside of the project: the fact of the matter is we don't have enough people at AIV throughout a given day to block those engaged in vandalism. There have been occasions where I've reported a vandal, waited hours for a block, and in that waiting period I've had to revert more and more vandalism edits. It's proven quite frusturating when I do belive I could be improving the project in other areas, rather than baby-sitting a disruptive editor and making sure their behaviour has gotten administrative attention. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Support this or something similar, depending on the amount of software modification needed. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question Are non-admins allowed to do non-admin-tool closures on AIV? "edits are not vandalism", "user insufficiently warned", etc.? If not, perhaps aiv-helper could be an acceptable user right. Choor monster (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia talk:Administrators. My only thought is that the admins who regularly work in this area are much less likely to label activity vandalism than the editors who report cases to investigate. And I think ordinary editors who care could act as aiv-helpers right now by making sure the editors making disruptive edits are properly warned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: English Wikipedia needs to produce more admins

Just recently, I wrote an op-ed for the Signpost about how Wikipedia needs more admins. I now want to see if the community generally agrees with me. There is rational backup for this position, but the details are a bit too long for this page. I strongly recommend that you read this (and the "Stats" subsection) before voting here. I have intentionally removed any personal opinions about causes and solutions from there; it is pure statistics. A large portion of my op-ed is simply my opinion as to why the problem exists and how it can be fixed, but if you haven't already you may wish to read it anyway. Therefore, you may want to read the "Why?" and "Stats" sections of my op-ed. However, realize that the purpose of this RfC is not voice opinions about how to fix the problem, but rather to determine the level of support for the position. Therefore, please do not interpret this RfC as aiming to determine support for my opinions concerning the reasons for, and solutions to, the problem, but rather to simply determine if the problem exists. It is essential to determine if the community agrees with the basic idea before making further proposals which assume that the problem exists. --Biblioworm 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Edited @ 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) --Biblioworm 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

Support, per this. --Biblioworm 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Obviously. Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes because my RFA failed but I am capable of doing the admin work. There are are many users who are capable of doing the job but failed in RFA. This is very sad. I am not saying this because my rfa was failed. I saying this in general. Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Less admins are doing the same job as before. This manifests itself as less diversity in the judgement used by admins. More admins means more oversight, and a greater likelihood of an uninvolved admin being available. I can think of at least 3 issues on Wikipedia where we are rapidly running out of uninvolved admins. HighInBC 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
@HighInBC: Could you give those three examples? They might be useful for the future. --Biblioworm 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I said "issues" but I was thinking of people. I would rather not name them, these people respond negatively to criticism. Suffice it to say that they are people who have been here long enough to encounter pretty much every admin, yet the community has failed to deal with them. HighInBC 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, in general. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes--Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. This thing is usually too big and if you pick an admin area at random (e.g. RFPP), most of the requests/issues/whatever will be dealt with by just a few specific admins. Fortunately, these admins usually happen to be very competent and skilled, but as many different admins as possible should be dealing with an admin area to avoid any chance of bias, so issues can be dealt with efficiently at all times of day etc. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support the wider notion that there aren't enough editors, admins/functionaries/bureaucrats included, to maintain content and to organize Wikipedia. Although many still oppose unbundling the admin toolkit, the community has set a pretty high standard for adminship so why not unbundle the toolkit for editors specializing in other areas? That way, the lack of candidacies at RfA would become less of a problem and editors specializing in specific areas actually will be able to maintain their areas without as much admin intervention. Esquivalience ^t 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
If we want admins to be members of the community who spend a minority of their wiki time doing admin chores then we can't afford to see their numbers keep falling. I think it would be unhealthy for the community if admins became a separate caste who had to spend all their wiki time doing admin stuff. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. Everyking (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Something's wrong, and this (again) acknowledges that fact. I hope this time we can press on to a solution. Miniapolis 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Support: Absent enough admins, the ones that remain are overburdened, leading to poor decision-making and burnout, even among the best-intentioned. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. It's obvious that 250 active admins are not enough to handle the workload. It's more than that, though, because even if we get the number of admins up to the number needed to handle the workload, we'll still need more admins. Admins should not have to spend a huge amount of time using the tools. They should have enough time to work on other personal projects of their choosing without feeling as if they might be letting the rest of us down. So when this process here, now, today leads to a discussion to try to determine how many admins are actually needed, the admins' abilities to spend time writing articles or whatever else they like to do that doesn't require the mop must also be an important factor. Paine ^(talk^–^contribs) 01:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. The number of active admins is not enough considering the backlogs. utcursch | talk 02:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. In the past I was always in denial that RfA was "broken". I've always thought, the process works very well.. it's the people that need to change. But it seems people are changing for the worse! The bar keeps getting raised higher and higher, and people are forgetting that trust should trump all else. I must admit defeat. Something really needs to be done. Or else the backlogs will grow to such a size that the hopelessness of ever getting ahead of the curve will deter even more people from wanting to do admin/maintenance work. That is, if we're not already past that tipping point.. we very well may be. -- œ^™ 04:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 05:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support It needs to be the right kind of admin, obviously. Ideally people who'll be prepared to do the grunt work of clearing the backlogs at WP:CFD and WP:ANRFC to name just two. These don't need to be "content creators", just good people who've got the time to get stuck in. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support We need more admins as stated above, particularly per Paine & Utcursch. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
More admins please. Less backlogs = less burnout = longer activity of those admins we have. Also, more admins can mean more expertise and diversity. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That would only be true if we could find perfect recruits. Samsara 19:36, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Duh. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support per User:Lugnuts; we're particularly short of people who feel comfortable assessing consensus, and people who are interested in working with files. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support I'm dumbfounded at the Panglossian reactionaries below, who say we have just the right number of administrators. I'm sure they'd say the same if we had half as many or twice as many. I am also sick of the cabal of long-time admins-for-life who've been here a decade or more, and are encountered with fear by everybody else, since not only do they know the arcane rules and the levers to pull and friends to round up in a pissing contest, but they've written a lot of what is now WP policy, and point to it as though handed down by god. Anybody who thinks RfA is a great system should be willing to go through it freshly every two years, so we don't have the same kind of low turnover and lockup on WP that we do in the US congress. Which, indeed, we do. S B H arris 21:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support There are people very experienced and knowledgeable at Wikipedia whose RfAs get close as WP:NOTNOW or who are opposed because of some (relatively) minor incident that happened a while back, and that they have learned from. I, for example, am a very experienced new-page patroller despite my only having 500+ mainspace edits. In general, those Wikipedians who do mostly patrolling work, and not really article-editing work, are underappreciated despite their vital role in keeping the site clean and running. Gparyani (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. Per everything stated by Biblioworm, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes - the correct statistics here are the response time for real-time issues (vandalism, AN3, UAA, RFPP) and the admin backlogs; the latter clearly shows ever-increasing level of backlogging. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes - as evidenced by backlogs. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course we do. This has been evident for a few years now. The requirements are far too strict as it is now. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) 10:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Support - I've been watching WP editing trends for a long time. I've long argued that the evidence is that total editing numbers have more or less plateaued and do not represent a frightfully plummeting population — as naysayers would have it. At the same time, the crop of administrators has been steadily and inexorably falling. If 60 are lost and 30 replaced (and many of those nominally remaining burning out and stopping with the administrative tasks) year after year after year, pretty soon the surplus of admins are gone and a real shortage presents itself. That's where we are now. The difficulty will be figuring out what to do about it. Carrite (talk) 10:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Support largely per Montanabw and Kusma. In the early days of 2005, getting adminship was a lot easier, and yet very few incompetent admins were let in. There's no reason for the extreme paranoia that has set in over the last five years. And I actually disagree with people who want to reform adminship by instituting term limits or making it easier to depose sitting admins: this will just encourage admins to be lazy and afraid to take on challenging situations, which would be as bad as them not being admins in the first place. I think it will also perversely decrease RFA applications even further as people see that adminship is even more stressful with term limits than without it. Also, I think comparing today to 10 years ago is more fruitful than comparing today to 5 years ago, because 5 years ago we also had very few successful RFA's; its just that more admins from the old days were still around then. —Soap— 12:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Obviously. This is something we've known for many years. If you think 250 active admins are enough to police five million articles, you are living in a fantasy world. It shortchanges the encyclopedia, it shortchanges the living individuals we write about, and it shortchanges our readers. Gamaliel (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes we've tried before, but if at first you don't succeed .... Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The promotion rate isn't the only statistic we need to consider (the number of articles deleted also started to decline after 2007, for instance). However I don't think a promotion rate of about 20 admins a year is going to be sustainable, even assuming we can stabilise at that rate. We are still making heavy use of the admins promoted in the period when RFA was more productive, and those people aren't going to stay around forever. A well populated admin corps takes some time to establish and the last thing we want to do is suddenly adopt drastic measures to quickly create a load of new admins. Hut 8.5 22:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. The need for more admins is independent of the process used to promote them, and independent of a need to make it easier to remove adminship in a few cases - those are possible reasons why the problem exists, not indicators that there is no problem. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Assuming we could find enough qualified admins, we could certainly use more. I find it also particularly interesting that of the opposes, only one is an admin (with 50 admin actions in 3 months), and would have direct insight to how much work admins do and where there are shortfalls. Mkdw ^talk 13:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. As well as making it easier to keep the backlogs down, having more admins will mean that individual admins can take more time over each action, thereby improving communication and making mistakes less likely. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. Although I don't often need to call upon admins in the course of my editing here, it's clear to me that the same old faces are doing the same old admin work year after year - and with every year that goes by, less and less admin work seems to get done in a timely fashion, as our sysops are faced with ever-growing backlogs. As Lugnuts observes above, second-tier, non-urgent admin backlogs are in a terrible state (just open WP:ANRFC to see what I mean). Many processes are "staffed" by just one or two admins, and they grind to a halt when those admins take a well-deserved break. My hope is that those users who feel inclined to oppose RFAs at the drop of a hat will take a moment to stop and think about each candidate and what good they could bring to this great project. — This, that and the other (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. More admins mean that administrative actions can be peer-reviewed to determine if they are appropriate. sst ✈ 14:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. Those stats look pretty convincing. This has worried me a bit for a while. I don't see how this is sustainable in the long run. Jimbo said that in the beginning he envisioned that everyone who'd been here long enough and wanted it would get the admin bit providing they weren't a total asshole or moron (in which I case I suppose they aren't a net asset anyway... so "up or out", maybe). In any case I don't get how having more admins could be a negative thing... right? How to forward om this I don[t know... I doubt the community will want to make RfA any easier unless there's a recall provision, which the community has shown time and again it doesn't want and won't accept... so dunno. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
it's really surprising to come back after more or less years of absence and see the same few people handling the same massive backlogs (e.g. the xfd's). Despite the surprising lack of attrition, there's going to be some, and if we're not replacing those people, the backlogs are just going to grow. delldot ∇. 17:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Make RFA much easier, (I'd personally drop the bar to 50%, which works fine for Arbcom), and either the sky won't fall in, or undesirables will get through and it will force Wikipedia to finally create the recall process it's been procrastinating over for the past decade. ‑ iridescent 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Support a lower threshold, maybe around 60% - but still a "majority". As to whether 50% "works fine" for Arbom, I'm not sure I completely agree - but the point is valid. And YES - a better recall process is sorely needed. — Ched : ? 22:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Not just a greater level of workload shared among a smaller number of people but a lower admin-editor ratio makes adminship more of a status symbol and big deal than it should be. A bigger divide between the two groups is not conducive to growing the encyclopedia. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Support, though I don't have anything to say that hasn't already been said. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 19:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Support. We reached our peak years ago. Now Wikipedia is on a decline and backlogs are piling up like litter in New York City. At this rate, an average active admin has to watchlist 20,000 separate articles in article space alone (ensuring no overlaps at all) to ensure quality. More admins would solve that problem. But you'd need to drop the bar to 2/3 of !voters. Epic Genius (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Cautious Support I do think we could use more admins. And I agree that we have become a bit too demanding in terms of what we look for in candidates and their track record. (I say this as someone who has in the past been guilty of this.) But I also think we need to be very careful about promoting dramatic changes to the way we get our Admins. Part of the problem may be excessively exacting standards, and an often unfriendly atmosphere in RfA. Another sizeable chunk of the problem is simply a reflection of falling levels of participation on the project. More editors are abandoning Wikipedia than joining, and active participation has been declining for years. That's a much bigger problem than RfA. Also we would do well to address some of the more common problems that Admins are often spending excessive amounts of time dealing with, including most prominently, IP vandalism. I have long believed that we would severely cut down on petty vandalism by requiring registration as a precondition to editing. All of this said, I think the best answer is to just look for decent editors who have a reasonable amount of experience and a track record that demonstrates both good will and that they have a clue with regards to guidelines and policies and then encourage them to step up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

RfA produces the right number of admins and I maintain the process is not broken. See my comment below. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
What is needed is an overhaul of wikipedia's basic editing practices (pending changes implemented as standard for all BLP's, required registering a user to edit etc) which would negate the need for many more admins. There are/would be enough admins to handle the workload if the workload was sensibly reduced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Implementing PC for 1,089,578 pages would require more user hours, not fewer. And requiring people to register accounts before editing would make sockpuppetry a bigger problem, also requiring more user hours to deal with problems. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Na, a BOT could do it in a jiffy. Unless you are talking about reviewing the pending changes, in which case that does not have to require an admin. Remember the goal is to reduce admin workload, see unbundling. As for registering accounts, almost all online communities/websites that require registering (with greater or lesser amounts of verification) report drops in vandals/trolls/bad hat individuals. Its already a solved problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that many of the PC reviews are done by admins; of the 15 most recent non-automatic reviews (as many as there were on the first page, since I can't filter out the automatic ones), 4 were done by admins. Even if admins only do about 20% of the reviewing (my statistics here are 27%, although clearly not based on enough data to be meaningful), that's still a lot of admin time. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
4 out of 15, but they didnt *have* to be done by admins, so its not an admin task. You could argue applying PC to all BLP's might increase the workload by editors, but the point is to reduce admin-related tasks like applying protection, blocking vandals etc which would disappear once the vandal knows they cant vandalise a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose because the wrong question is being asked. See below for further explanation. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Admin bots and unbundling have reduced the amount of work that needs admins. Backlog size seems to be stable. No need to lower our standards. Samsara 17:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
As I mentioned in my reply to Hammersoft a couple of section below, humans are still required and will always be required for many tasks. To address your mention of unbundling, I cannot think of any significant unbundling of actual core admin tools. Sure, we have unbundled rollback, template editor, etc., but we haven't unbundled, and are very unlikely to ever unbundle, the core components of the administrator package. (Deletion, protection, blocking, etc.) And we are unlikely to ever do this (especially deletion), because of the sharp rift that exists amongst the community and intervention by the WMF. Concerning the backlogs, we want to reduce or even eliminate the backlogs by getting more admins and therefore prevent backlogs while at the same time keeping the work load down for any one administrator. As for your last sentence, we are not voting on lowering our standards. That will come later. Right now, we are voting on admin production in general. --Biblioworm 18:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
we are not voting on lowering our standards. That will come later. So there is the agenda everyone was asking about. Which would be why it's important to stop this nonsense in its tracks. Samsara 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, reading further above would have made it clear that we are having this RfC for this very reason. (Namely, to establish that the issue exists before starting new RfCs which assume that it does.) I said it from the very beginning in my opening statement, and I also told Liz that very clearly. This is not some "aha!" moment that has revealed some secret. And I suppose you are entitled to think of having open, healthy discussion about an issue to be "nonsense". --Biblioworm 20:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I've not noticed any significant problems arising from a lack of admins. Compare this with AFD, say, where there's a lack of editors commenting on the topics and so discussions are rolled forward repeatedly. It's ordinary editors that we seem most short of and it might be that all the attention given to admins is counter-productive, making the ordinary content creators and maintainers feel unloved and unwanted. Consider RAN, for example. The poor guy just wants to crank out bios of obscure individuals but there seems to be no shortage of admin types determined to stop him. Andrew D. (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course, a non-admin might not notice any problems for a very obvious reason: they're not admins and don't have to deal with all the things that admins must take care of. The statistics are very clear in showing that our admin production is insufficient. Our backlogs never go away, even though we have dedicated admins working around the clock to keep them down. See this category if you don't believe that we have backlogs. Researching the topic will reveal things that casual observation will not. --Biblioworm 18:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I am aware that there are backlogs but they mostly seem to be busywork rather than anything that matters much. For example, the biggest backlog seems to be for usernames but that seems mostly a waste of time. For example, see the complaint at User talk:Jeff.jeff.jeff.jeff.jeff.jeff.21. This says "Usernames must not exceed 40 characters" which seems to be an invention not found in the policy. And, in any case, the name is shorter than 40 characters. We shouldn't be wasting time on such stuff when the real work which needs doing is in article space. Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Backlogs are not meant to go away. They're just supposed to remain stable, which they have been for a long time. There are many reasons for backlogs that have nothing to do with availability of hands. Samsara 19:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The statistics are very clear in showing that our admin production is insufficient. Except Hammersoft has shown that that is not the case, and you seem to feel you have a license to just ignore his relevant evidence and pretend it doesn't exist. Samsara 19:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
They are not meant to go away? We are to be satisfied with simply keeping them stable, no matter how much work there is? The definition of backlog is "an accumulation of something, especially uncompleted work or matters that need to be dealt with."[2] The template for marking backlogged categories says that backlogs need attention from admins. If what you say is the case, then why do we have backlog drives in all aspects of Wikipedia? Why be satisfied with an inferior solution ("just keep them stable"), when getting more admins would result in more even distribution of work and perhaps even elimination of the backlogs? And finally, I addressed Hammersoft's evidence in exhausting detail and explained the discrepancies between his data points, and the inconsistencies between the short-term data and the more important long-term data, so to the contrary no one can in any way pretend that I'm ignoring what he said and pretending that the data is not there. --Biblioworm 20:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

In reply to your comment, Andrew, it is true that many of the backlogs are busywork, but there was also a previous discussion about this in this very RfC. It was pointed out the even simple tasks can become extremely tedious and boring when there is a lot of it to do. For instance, when I edited another wiki, I was one of the very few people who dealt with the reference error backlog. Usually, it was just a matter of adding the same chunk of text on articles. But there were dozens of these articles and the work felt very difficult after a while. As for the username example you gave, that probably was a silly invention, but otherwise there are some seriously disruptive usernames to deal with. And the maintenance work is extremely important as well, so it's hardly a waste of time; otherwise, the site would descend into chaos. --Biblioworm 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The community is understandably reluctant to elevate editors to lifetime positions unless it is positive that they will behave properly. Accordingly, RfAs make it as hard to become an admin as it is to remove one. Improve the process for dealing with abusive and inept admins and this problem will self-correct. Coretheapple (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Hammersoft, Samsara and Andrew D. have the better arguments here. Backlogs are part of life, any problem can be solved only after it has appeared, was acknowledged, was debated/considered, had solutions proposed and the latter eventually implemented. The backlog is the amount of problems that are within this time window (from appearance to solution), so, by definition, there can not be any time without a backlog, except in Utopia. Kraxler (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, Kraxler, but I put much time and effort into refuting Hammersoft's and Samsara's arguments. They are invalid and not supported by the facts and data. Please read this diff for a short summary of why this is the case. --Biblioworm 15:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You have certainly put much time and effort into trying to refute them, but you failed. And thanks for pointing to useful links, but I'll use my own brain here. Kraxler (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, you look at statistics that show increases in base numbers and conclude that this means more admins are needed. For a start that is one possible solution to lowering the individual burden, however it makes no reference as to what the burden actually is. Is it onerous? Were the actions taken in (for example) 2007 more time consuming compared to today's suite of tools? Were the admins previously working at 30% of their available capacity and are now working at 50%? Have the tasks changed significantly? Do we now have more invested admins at the top end? Essentially looking at your posts and rebuttals it comes across more as a 'this is the conclusion, here are the statistics to prove it', rather than 'these are the statistics, what is causing this?'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kraxler: How did I fail? I showed rather clearly that they reached completely illogical and unsupported conclusions with their "data" and "evidence". I hope you at least read the link. @Only in death: Yes, I am trying to prove a point. A person trying to prove a point should show statistics to prove it. In regard to your assertion that I should have a "these are the statistics, what is causing this" outlook, I did that already. I looked at the statistics, and I reached the conclusion that the evidence is quite unambiguous. In fact, even Hammersoft's data, intended to prove the opposite conclusion, could in fact be construed as evidence for my position. For instance, since we seem to be very interested in correlations, does anyone find it interesting that the average burden per admin in the top 30 has increased by 29% since 2005, and by 10% for every admin since 2010? It's an interesting correlation that the individual burden has been increasing as promotions are decreasing. In regard to "burden", I'm afraid that's something that cannot be accurately quantified in numerals, but the stats I just showed to demonstrate that it has been increasing. We know, however, that there is a burden if the backlogs still exists even though admins are performing hundreds and thousands of actions while not having any noticeable difference on the amount of work. --Biblioworm 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Taking the 29% figure in isolation is misleading. The fact, in isolation, that average admin burden over the last ten years has remained static is misleading. The fact, in isolation, that average admin burden over the last five years has increased 10% is misleading. None of these figures mean anything in isolation. Using any of them to prop up any conclusion is a false conclusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We don't have it. In fact, rather the opposite. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
...which is why I said "since we seem to be very interested in correlations". I was saying it in response to the contrary attempts to prove a point using this data. So, I gave an "according to that logic" example. You're right: alone, they mean nothing. But overall, it is very interesting that was have these interesting correlations (burden increases as promotions decrease) and the presence of data to show that the average admin is doing more work than they were doing a few years ago. Curiously, they seem to support the idea that we should get more admins to reduce the average workload. --Biblioworm 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
That is your interpretation, yes. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@OID; I removed myself from the conversation below because it was apparent that we were talking past each other with statistics. There's the old adage about "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics" and it's true. The statistics can be used to support lots of views, even ones that directly contradict one another. The idea that statistics from a very small data set absolutely, irrefutably conclude anything is one I find objectionable. It's kinda like saying the flow rate in the Colorado River below Lake Havasu is too low, and therefore concluding there isn't enough rain in the state of Colorado. There's a blizzard of factors that play into that rate. Data taken in isolation is insufficient to conclude anything, much less in a system as complex as Wikipedia. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, there's more on the distribution of admin actions in 2014-5 vs 2006-7 in these graphs based on data collected in May. My interpretation of that data was that admin actions are being concentrated in fewer hands: compared to the old data, we now have many more admins who take only a few actions, and many fewer at the top of the activity distribution. There is wiggle room there for redistribution of some actions into flagged adminbots, but the basic conclusion is pretty clear. Of course that makes no normative claim about how many admins there "should" be.

From what I can tell the Foundation's data science people produce self-contained research projects rather than data in a form that is useful feedback for the community, but they really ought to pay a couple of Berkeley kids to be the on-call data gofers (er, ahem, "Applied Data Science Interns") for this kind of relatively small-scale question so people don't waste their time gathering redundant datasets too small or arbitrary to draw conclusions from. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: Your beliefs seem to be based on unstated and untested assumptions. Not long ago, I was briefly interested in page protections, and ended up concluding that it was futile trying to get a significant share of that cake because the admins who've been doing that work for longer are just that much better at it. Which is consistent with what Hammersoft found. Every backlog I've ever looked into has been dealt with and, on long-term observation, been stable. In fact, there is a problem in that some "backlogs" do not really exist, such as Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times, which is mostly populated with items that have been dealt with (I looked at ten items, and nine had been closed). Nonetheless, it is officially designated a backlog. Which goes back to what I've said before: we love tagging things, and we forget to untag them. Samsara 22:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Samsara: I don't follow. I described the difference in distributions. That's not a belief. I also didn't say anything about backlogs. It could be true that having fewer admins taking a greater share of the admin actions is a good thing: maybe higher consistency and specialized skill development is worth the tradeoff against greater diversity and less vulnerability to changes in individual admins' activity level.

As for that AfD category, it's always cited as the Dumbest Backlog. Why does it still exist? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: I alluded to the admins who've gotten extremely good at certain tasks. This is why they claim an increasing share of admin actions. I don't see any demonstration that it's anything other than a simple training effect. Samsara 23:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose in a perfect world, no admins would be needed, and actually most things adminy should be able, and many are, done by non-admins (we should devolve more), yet, recognizing this is not a perfect world - we do have some admins - the present admin corp appears reluctant to do the tool needed work, so it is doubtful "new admins" will solve anything - address the type of work (automate?) or the admin corps' reluctance to do it (incentives and accountability -- eg. one idea, out of many -- in some areas make identified admins responsible for this or that board, backlog, or say, the main page - so everyone knows who to talk to about it - and we know there are enough interested in doing it - or some other assignment mechanism - with perhaps rotation; thank the non-doers for their service and give them a t-shirt, and tell them it's time to move on to bigger and better things on this project than holding a mop). Then too, this idea that we need "more admins", without answering the 'how many' and 'for what' is backwards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: The hard facts and data show that most new admins really do contribute to administrative work (see my reply to Axl above), so to the contrary there is no proof for the idea that the present admin corps are reluctant to the needed work. The AdminStats tool shows that hundreds of admins are performing hundreds or thousands of action within a couple of months. Finally, I can answer the two questions you presented at the end. Although it is difficult to say how many admins we need (that's really something unrealistic to expect), this was already discussed. The answer is that we know that we are somewhere around the desirable number when we can eliminate most of the backlogs and the burden on individual admins is reduced (and before I hear the tired answer that backlogs are not meant to be eliminated, I would advise any would-be repliers to read my second reply to Samsara here). To answer the "for what" question, we are doing this so that we can significantly reduce or even eliminate some backlogs. (I repeat: wouldn't you feel like your hard, dedicated work was going to waste if you were performing hundreds to thousands of actions to handle the backlogs and yet they never went away? To anyone thinking of objecting, think about yourself in the position of the admins.) Just as importantly, we are also doing this to reduce the burden on individual admins. As I mentioned above, the statistics show a general increase in the burden of each individual admin since 2005 and 2010; the statistics show this for both the top 30 group and the admins as a whole. Admins are WP:VOLUNTEERs like the rest of us. They shouldn't feel like they have to do so much work just to keep this site running. Perhaps some want to work on other things on-wiki, or maybe they want to do more things in real life. Obtaining more admins will contribute to distributing the workload more evenly; as I mentioned above, the statistics also show that most admins elected via RfA go on to become active. --Biblioworm 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No. They don't want to do it, that's why it is not getting done. More admins, as experience demonstrates, will be more admins that do not do it. Sure, they are volunteers -- they volunteered for the tool, and by their (in)actions, they are volunteering not to do what it is needed for. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
With all due respect, you continue to assert that admins aren't doing any work even though the data is plainly against the notion? And furthermore, my detailed response to the questions you presented is just dismissed with a "no"? Of course, many of our admins from past years have moved on naturally, and there's not much we can do about that. But we still have a very considerable number of dedicated admins who work hard. I'll give a hard statistic: over the past month, there have been almost 180 admins who have performed at least 30 actions, 115 admins who performed at least 100 actions, 35 who performed over 500, and 20 who have performed over 1,000. This is just over the past month. And yet people are saying that most admins don't work hard? And even if what you say is true, how do you suppose that we'll get more admins to jobs they don't want to do? What if they don't want to? They're not getting a paycheck for it, so they can refuse to do anything they don't want to do. The best solution, more realistic than forcing admins into jobs they dislike, is to get more enthusiastic new blood that will reduce the workload across the board so that each individual admin will have do less work individually. As I said earlier, the data presented by Hammersoft shows that there has been a general increase in burden for each individual admin over the past 5–10 years. --Biblioworm 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
No. I do not say that individual admins are not doing work. On the whole the corp of admins is large, but it's apparently not getting done (or, perhaps these backlog tasks do not need to get done, and if that is the case - who cares). I also did propose ways to address it -- deal with attractiveness of it and their accountability for the work flow. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe 250 is fine, I do wonder at times if RFA is too strict but then again if it wasn't strict it'd be hell here!, Anyway I don't think there's anything to worry about & don't really think there ever will be. –Davey2010^Talk 15:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course you don't worry about it, since you're not an admin and don't have to do the work. Certainly, I have written tens of thousands of words within a few days that expressly discuss why 250 active admins is not enough for a website that has endless work to do and for a website that is two places more popular than Twitter. Don't be deceived by plain numbers. Finally, I don't believe there is any hard proof for the assertion that "it'd be hell here!" if we let some more people become admins and loosened our requirements a bit. We have methods for holding the occasional consistently abusive admin accountable, if people would get over their idea that we don't have any such thing and actually try it for themselves. Opposers have three times more power than supporters. Why should we have such a negative outlook? WP:AGF is an offical guideline. Paying three times more attention to the negative is not really assuming good faith. Like I said in my op-ed, we have a more unrealistic bars for "consensus" at RfA than virtually any other real-life group outside the wiki-world of Wikipedia. Many of these groups perform much more important tasks than electing admins for a wiki. In fact, even on-wiki, RfA is the only process with such a strict requirement. The range for so-called "discretion" is in fact very narrow. In other areas of the project (even proposals with wide-reaching effects, for instance), the closers have much more discretion that a bureaucrat does when closing the discussion. --Biblioworm 16:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Admins don't "have" to do the work either. I've seen a number of ANI threads in which admin action was urgently needed, and no admin will step up to the plate. That's not because there aren't enough admins but because admins don't want to intervene. Ditto for SPIs. Some sit there for days. They can be long and convoluted. You could double the number of admins and I doubt it would change the reluctance of admins to step into messy disputes. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Of course they don't have to do the work, so maybe that wasn't the best wording. A better way of saying it would be, "You don't worry about it since you don't do the work that some admins do to keep this website running properly." And as for matter of admins not intervening, I replied to Alan about that just now. --Biblioworm 19:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Something that Coretheapple just said strikes me as an excellent insight. Come to think of it, I see lots of cases where there appears to be a backlog, but it isn't because there are no admins around, but rather, it's because the issue needing admin action is a messy one, and many admins would rather just leave it to "someone else". The problem is not having enough "someone elses", as opposed to not having enough admins. In other words, we need more admins who are comfortable dealing with the ugliest situations, including the situations where they will come under fire for taking action. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
And it is one that merits further praise from me as well. I remember once talking to, I think, The Blade of the Northern Lights regarding AE. He at the time said in many of the matters brought to that page, it took him several hours to read through everything before he felt comfortable making a statement in the Admins only section. The number of individuals of any sort, admins or not, who are willing to spend several hours of their time on a single act here is probably very, very small. Particularly when in the same time that same individual could probably do several page locks, page moves, XfDs, and so on. And, honestly, I am not sure that simply increasing the number of admins will in any way address the question of having enough admins to do some of the time-intensive, or in the cases Coretheapple spoke of controversial, messy, or difficult cases, which need to be addressed. How could we, basically, make it possible to find, well, more admins with guts? (acknowledging, much to my regrets, the temporarily loss of User:Floquenbeam, who struck me as one of the best of that sort.) John Carter (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I had in mind a specific ANI thread from a few months ago concerning a problematic user. The thread went on and on and on. In such situations, one frequently gets "tl;dr" comments from admins. Ditto very long SPIs. Can't say I blame them. It's a bit like when I use my STiKi vandal-fighting tool. Some really convoluted edits are hard to decypher, so I "pass." We're all volunteers and our time and energy are limited. As for getting admins who are willing to weigh into messy disputes - just because an editor is willing doesn't mean he is necessarily the best person to do so. Editors with the "guts" to do such things may also be objectionable on other grounds. That brings me back to the need to make adminship less of a "roach motel" lifetime position, so that admins can be removed with less drama than the process currently requires. Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I think that you both made very apt points, and for me, this part of the discussion is becoming very interesting. It's like there are two sides to the coin: On one side, we need more admins who have both the willingness and the competence to spend significant amounts of time going carefully through difficult cases, without crying TL:DR (which is essentially the same thing as kicking it upstairs to ArbCom, where they have to spend the time), and who can do so in a way that results in a good outcome, that upholds community norms. That's a tall order, in part because it also requires that the community support such admins, instead of beating up on them, especially since we have a bottomless supply of users who will falsely claim abuse. The other side of the coin is that we actually need fewer admins who will step in, but do it the wrong way. In that regard, I do not think that editors opposing here are necessarily paranoid, because there really are cases of abuse. Here's a question about data: I bet someone has compiled data about those admins who have been desysopped by ArbCom for misuse of tools: are there any trends of those ex-admins having passed RfA a long time ago, versus recently? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tryptofish. In regard to your inquiry about data concerning desysoppings in relation to the year they passed, there is a fundamental flaw with that system. The flaw is that admins elected a long time ago have had a much longer time to be desysopped, whereas more recent admins have not had as much time. Therefore, there will almost certainly be more admins desysopped from longer ago than more recent admins, because the probability of being desysopped would increase as time goes on. I will try to put together some data on this, though. --Biblioworm 15:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that! I guess it's inevitably messy: on the one hand, the greater amount of time for something to go wrong, but on the other hand, the arguably rising community standards at RfA and the increasing effectiveness of ArbCom over time. Personally, I don't put much weight on the argument that long-serving admins are by definition at greater risk, because if someone is trustworthy, they will tend to continue to be trustworthy, but that's my opinion and I probably cannot prove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Would there be any sort of way to maybe, somehow, create a system which can generate, for lack of a better comparison, a system in which we can get some sort of "drafting admin" similar to the drafting arb who can maybe go through some of the complicated and lengthy discussions and summarize the data for one or more other admins or others to review and decide upon? Maybe something like a tribunal, or, God help us, "ArbCom-lite"? Not all those others involved would necessarily be admins, of course, and, I guess, maybe, making it up as I go along here, maybe individuals chosen for the MedCom or DRN or other pages, along with maybe some others, might be able to do some sort of possibly "rotating service" on the tribunals. They wouldn't necessarily have more of a !vote than anyone else who might take part in the discussion, but they might at least point out what they see as the relevant policies and guidelines, how they might be involved, and what if any form of solution seems reasonable to them. John Carter (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Well that might be worth exploring. And it doesn't have to be a lengthy or complicated discussion either. Some perfectly reasonable things come before ANI and are just ignored and archived after only cursory attention. Well-intentioned busybodies might be chosen at random to weigh in on such things, just as RfC commenters are summoned by the RfC bot. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the problem is really that admins need someone, like a "drafter", to decrease the time it would take for them to deal with problems. I think the problem is the ability and willingness to deal with difficult cases. I can picture a "drafted" dispute that admins would still be reluctant to touch, and it's really better for the person making the decision to base it on an unfiltered examination of the facts. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose question as phrased, although I acknowledge there might be another, more useful, way of phrasing it. The number of admins is not the single best indicator of admin work output. Therefore, on that basis, I think the question being asked is wrong. If there were another question asked, perhaps along the lines of "can we find some way to reform RfA?" or "can we find a way to reduce the workload on admins?" or "can we find a way to encourage more people to seek adminship?" all those questions may conceivably be able to generate some useful results. But there seems to me to be an inherently flawed presupposition in the phrasing of this question, if it is in some way intended as a prologue to further discussion on how to maybe maximize the results and "success," however that is defined, of RfA and of the admin corp in general. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. When I first joined Wikipedia I remember a fair amount of sqwaking that the project is in imminent danger of catastrophe due to something or other. It's now over 10 years later and some folks still think that way. If the sky is falling, it certainly is taking its time about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Adminship is supposed to not be a big deal. I think endorsing that we need more admins is the wrong viewpoint. We need the current admins to step up and deal with the issues that the community has reported and come to a rough consensus about. We need our current admin corps to stop taking unilaterial decisions that they know are going to be contentious and cause them to end up at any of the drama magnets (WP:BN,WP:AN,WP:RfArb,WP:ANI, etc). We need to see what admin-lite actions are the most time consuming that don't require as high of level of consensus on (such as page protection) and give those as things a qualified and trusted user could do (while still leaving it in the Admin toolkit). "Given enough volunteers, all backlogs are only a day old". Furthermore I do also agree that the standards for candidates at RfA are ludacriously high and duplicious. You can't be an Admin if you don't do content creation (meaning you need to be in article space), but you also can't be an admin if you can't demonstrate that your judgement calls in relation to admin tasks align with consensus (meaning you need to be in WP project space). Hasteur (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not convinced that we need to lower the bar to let more people pass RfA, in fact I think that's a disastrous idea. The minimum qualifications should be more stringent if anything. I also think we have lots of admins that aren't actively helping with the backlogs, and those admins should be desysoped or asked to help out more. To simply add more admins will not solve anything, because there is nothing that requires them to be active in backlogged areas. I think admin is a just badge for many, and they use it primarily to help their friends. Make admin backlogs a required duty to retain the bit, then you'll see the backlogs disappear. RO ^(talk) 19:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Adminship is a vanity project. I'll only see it getting worse the more lenient it becomes. JAGUAR 20:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jaguar: ...the more lenient it becomes? What? Adminship has not become more lenient; that should be obvious to anyone who has studied RfA. Please show the real evidence for this position. --Biblioworm 20:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
I think I could have phrased that better. I don't fully understand what is being proposed here in principal; the majority of people agree that more people have recently failed RfAs and less people have been successful. That's fair enough, but I was under the impression that we have enough admins here as it is? Less people have been successful at RfAs, but that doesn't mean we're running out of admins! There are plenty of admins here to keep Wikipedia here running and to perform administrative tasks such as protecting pages, deleting articles and closing threads per its consensus reached. I really don't see the need to "lower the bar" as people here have mentioned. I know RfAs are meant to test every aspect of an editor, and wasn't suggesting that they're in any way lenient (would that be bad for business), but I don't know why we need to let more people pass RfAs just for the sake of more people being unsuccessful. I don't understand how we would enforce the idea to bring more admins in the community? Do we need more? What other way is there to help people be successful without altering the criteria of adminship? I'm not sure if this is a good idea as such a change might only disrupt the balance of things. JAGUAR 20:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar, I have dealt with all these objections very extensively before. I have written thousands of words in the past few days which detail why we don't have enough admins. Many admins are in the support section, and relatively few in oppose section, so it seems like the ones who actually do the work generally feel that they could use more help. I've made charts showing how we're losing active admins; see this one, for instance. It shows that we have less than half the number of active admins we had at the beginning of 2008, and yet we have over two times more articles today. I've pointed out that our backlogs continue to exist, with as much work to do as ever, even though we have dedicated admins working all day every day. Hammersoft, although interestingly trying to prove the opposite point, presented data which showed that the burden per admin has increased over the years. Desysoppings have outpaced RfA promotions by over 400% this year (see this chart. What more evidence can you want? --Biblioworm 21:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
But you haven't addressed the issue that many admins are active, but not helping with the backlog. Create annual duty rosters that must be completed to retain the bit, and the work will get done, but as it is now we could have 3,500 admins, but if they aren't working on backlogs the backlogs will never end. RO ^(talk) 21:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for not addressing the issue sooner. I'm still trying to get up to speed with all the discussion here. But here is my answer: The plan being proposed will likely not fix any problems. Many inactive admins left for reasons beyond the control of Wikipedia. They might not even watch their talk page any more, so they might not even notice if we request that they help with the backlogs. Even if they did watch their talk page, they might decide they don't care and not respond. For instance, we currently warn admins before we desysop them (more than once, in fact), but the majority do not respond. The ones who do usually only make an edit or two just so they can keep their bit. The ones who request the bit back after desysopping usually don't become active. As I've mentioned before, admins don't get paychecks, so they can do as much as little as they please. It's a WP:VOLUNTEER service. The only on-wiki consequences we can impose are desysopping, blocking, and banning. Of course, no one but a purely ridiculous person would ever suggest that we block or ban inactive admins, so that leaves us with desysopping. Making the requirements for retaining the bit more stringent and carrying out a mass desysopping of those who currently aren't meeting an activity threshold for admin actions will in fact show us how few admins are actually active relative to our deceiving statistical number. The "annual duty roster" you suggested would probably be full of problems. How do we decide how much admins should do? How do we decide what they should do? What if we require them to do things they don't want to do? (Remember, WP:VOLUNTEER.) What if admins become frustrated and resign in protest? What if the strict requirements for maintaining the bit discourage people from trying to become an admin? All these potential problems, coupled with tightening the RfA standards as you suggested in your oppose vote (I don't see the logic behind that at all, by the way), will simply speed up Wikipedia's plunge in active admins and will in fact prove my point even more. (But some people would still be in denial even if we had only fifty active admins.) The fact is, even if we did get some currently inactive admins to become active, we are still relying immensely on the old generation of admins promoted during the old days of RfA. We would not be anywhere near where we are not if RfA had been the same back then as it is now. The tenure of these old-timers cannot last for ever. In time, they will start retiring and get desysopped because of inactivity. It's already happening now, but this will likely become very apparent over the next few years. The number of admins we're now producing via RfA will be nowhere near enough to replenish the number we're losing, as I showed in a chart I linked to above. --Biblioworm 22:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. It's volunteer, I know that quite well as a content creator. You are so certain that the problem is we don't have enough admins, but maybe we have too many that use it primarily as a badge, and don't keep up their end of the bargain. I'm not talking about admins that are so inactive you can't contact them at their talk page, but lots of admins do little more than play schoolmaster at An/I, which I know is needed, but working on backlogs is also important. I don't know what the answer is, but the idea that we need to lower the bar when we had a candidate pass RfA yesterday at 94% seems misguided. The bar isn't too high, but many of the candidates are unsuitable. RO ^(talk) 22:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I knew it. I was waiting for it, just as I predicted in my Signpost op-ed. The reform efforts are going to inspire more RfAs (this always happens), people are going to say "it works after all, no reform needed!", and therefore reject the reform proposals. Then, the hype dies down, everything returns to normal, and the cycle starts all over again. I will emphasize this very boldly, so that more people don't fall into the vicious cycle: Brief surges in RfA promotions are not representative of the process's long-term performance. Do not be deceived when this happens, as it always does. I also fail to see how a candidate passing at 94% percent is related to the arguments at hand here. It's an illogical connection to say that since a candidate passed at 94%, we don't need to fix RfA. Much more accurately, Ian was one of the few users (yes, I say few; look at our promotion numbers) who managed to pass RfA because he had edited for a few years, had tens of thousands of edits, and played out the whole thing rather nicely. He also got the right crowd to vote at his RfA. (Realize that RfA is an incredibly inconsistent process; it all really depends on who decides to vote.) An editor just like him might run a few months from now and fail, because a different group voted there, or because there was some particularly avid dirt-digger who found a problem deep inside the candidate's history, inflated its importance, and dragged several more users to the oppose section with him, causing a characteristic pile-on and a failed RfA. --Biblioworm 22:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
"An editor just like him might run a few months from now and fail, because a different group voted there, or because there was some particularly avid dirt-digger who found a problem deep inside the candidate's history, inflated its importance, and dragged several more users to the oppose section with him, causing a characteristic pile-on and a failed RfA.". Incredibly insightful and observant. I'm impressed. — Ched : ? 04:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

In between

I agree with the statement that administrative backlogs are longer than optimum, and that's a good reason to support. And I found the Signpost piece to be very good reading. But I see a problem with some of the evidence presented in the background reading, in that the fact that many more candidates used to pass RfA in the past than do today is not really evidence that the RfA standards have become too high. It may very well be the case that our problem is that there simply are not enough non-admin editors who could really be trusted with the tools (and who are interested in using those tools) to fill the need that is seen in the backlog. I'd hate to see a significant lowering of the passing percentage, but I welcome a discussion amongst editors, in which some editors may perhaps be persuaded to change their RfA expectations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Tryptofish. First of all, I plan to study RfAs from previous years and see if there were considerable differences in their level of experience was lower. Then, I will analyze whether or not there is genuinely evidence to suggest that admins elected back then (2007 and before) were considerably more troublesome than admins elected when the standards may have started rising (2008 to present). Secondly, I never voiced any opinions of my own in the user page you linked to. I intentionally removed all opinion from it. I simply presented hard, statistical evidence to show that our number of admins is insufficient. Perhaps you are confusing it with the Signpost article, which does contain my personal beliefs? --Biblioworm 22:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but I was considering, for example, the graph that appears in both the Signpost and the userspace page, showing the numbers of successful RfAs per year. I meant it when I said that I was very interested to read the Signpost piece, so thank you again for it. As for where I'm confused, it's not really about that, but I do agree with what Liz said just below. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI: you are going to have to do some pretty careful normalization in order to be sure your observed "differences in experience" aren't artifacts of unrelated trends. I looked into doing this awhile back but didn't have the time to do it right. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we are voting on here. Could you make a statement in one or two sentences that summarizes what you are proposing? Because right now, it seems like a validation of your Signpost op-ed and that's not really an effective focus for making future plans. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: We are voting on whether or not RfA needs to produce more admins. We must know whether or not there is general consensus on this issue, because there may be discussions and/or RfCs in the future that assume this fact. I do not consider it a validation of my op-ed, because I am asking for confirmation of the issue itself, not my opinions about the causes and solutions. --Biblioworm 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Biblioworm: okay, just so there is no confusion on what people are supporting or opposing, at the end of your paragraph, can you add: RfC:English Wikipedia needs to produce more administrators. Support or Oppose? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: Done --Biblioworm 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Biblioworm: I must be having bad vision because I don't see that you added the statement to the paragraph. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: I decided to change the title instead. The change should be more obvious in the title than in the paragraph. Besides, I wrote the paragraph over two days ago and it would look somewhat awkward to simply add a phrase at the end asking if the editor supports or opposes. --Biblioworm 16:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I just assumed the title was unchanged and read over the paragraph. It seems clear to me now. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Neutral. I've said it before, and I'll say again: Looking at this as an "Admin" vs. "No Admin" problem is missing a good part of the issue. The answer is to revamp the project so that it can get by with fewer (active) Admins. Unbundling more of the tools, so that more routine actions like page protections and page moves are done by trusted veteran editors instead of Admins, so that Admins aren't wasting their time on stuff like this, is the solution. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@IJBall: I think we should address the heart of the problem rather than simply attempting to "get by" with a few admins. Long-term, centralized fixes are always preferable over short-term patches. I would be better to focus on improving one process rather than trying to overhaul the entire project, which will consume much more time and energy, and furthermore is much more likely to ultimately fail. --Biblioworm 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
FTR, I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do here. I just think we're coming at this from opposite viewpoints: you seem to think that there will never be tool unbundling, so we need to get more Admins in order to keep this place running; I think there is no hope in getting more Admins at this point (meaningful RfA reform will never happen – there will just never be real consensus for it; and, additionally, Adminship becomes less and less attractive to most veteran editors with each passing second!), and unbundling of the tools will ultimately be an inevitable necessity in order to just keep this place running. I wish you luck. But I'm skeptical there's any appetite to fix what's broken here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the best wishes. You are indeed correct that we are coming from opposite viewpoints. I personally find it very unlikely that we will ever succeed in getting the major admin tools unbundled, mainly because that would require many discussions/RfCs in different areas (blocking, protection, deletion, etc.) and therefore has a much lower chance of succeeding than a more focused and centralized fix. There also seems to be more general objection to tool unbundling than reforming the RfA process itself. --Biblioworm 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Neutral. Biblioworm states that only 20% of admins are "active". I am interested to know if newly-promoted admins are active, or if 80% are just here to collect the hat. If most candidates just want a hat, the best solution may not be to distribute more hats, but rather to investigate the differences between active and semi-/in-active newly-promoted admins. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Axl: I have determined that most candidates who passed RfA this year (newly-promoted) would be considered active. The resysopped users are the ones who mostly remain inactive. I can give some numerical details, if you want them. --Biblioworm 15:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I am indeed interested to see the numbers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
@Axl: I will give the details shortly. --Biblioworm 14:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Axl: I just finished calculating the details of the statistics. So, I found that of 15 users promoted via RfA this year, 13 of them (or about 87%) would be considered active admins. In contrast, of 22 resysopped users, only about 7 (or about 32%) would be considered active. So, it appears that users promoted via the process of RfA are more motivated to use the tools than users resysopped quickly as a matter of routine. Therefore, I think we can rather safely conclude that most people who bother to go through RfA are not there to just get the "hat". --Biblioworm 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, it means that those who passed RfA weren't there to get the hat. I suspect it may also really mean that RfA is doing a reasonable job of weeding out the hat seekers. --Stfg (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Biblioworm. It is good to know that most newly-promoted admins actually use the tools. On the other hand, I am concerned that a recruitment drive or lowered standards may attract more hat collectors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Need to offload work from admins either by unbundling, admin-bots that anyone can use (possible example: to delete a redirect with only 1 entry in its edit history to make way for a move), or admin-bot-implemented-de-facto-unbundling (if only select users can "trigger" the admin-bot, you've got de facto unbundling). This will free up the human admins to do things that require the community's review of their good judgement (which RfA is a form of) and those things that the WMF would require an RfA-like process to unbundle such as seeing or un-deleting deleted edits (I think we could get the WMF to go along with allowing selected editors to use an admin-bot that delete things and undo the deletion if they made a mistake and caught it within a short time, but that's likely going to be their limit on "non-admins seeing deleted edits"). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments

But to say we are passing fewer admins per day than before is not the same thing as saying we don't have enough, so what metric indicates that we currently do not have enough active admins to take care of the workload? RO ^(talk) 16:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A quick look at how many inactive admins are being desysoped every month shows our ranks are dropping. I think if you look at who is making all the difficult decisions these days you will see the group is less diverse than it used to be. As the number of active admins drop we will see that the work still gets done, but by less people. Less people doing the same amount of work means less people using their judgement. The community will always benefit from more admins than less because a larger group is more capable of recognizing the mistakes of others. HighInBC 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Read the links I recommended above. There, I discuss exactly what you're asking: I talk about why our number of active admins (not our pure statistical number) is insufficient relative to the size of this website. --Biblioworm 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'm trying to get up to speed on this, but how can we say we don't have enough admins without providing an estimate of how many admins we need? How many do we need? RO ^(talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to give an estimate of how many admins we would need, but we could always use more no matter how many we have. Right now, though, the situation is especially obvious because of the pitifully low amount of promotions via RfA. However, we could get an idea of when we have "enough" when the number of active admins reaches a point where individual users do not have to be online for hours at a time and perform hundreds or thousands of actions within a relatively short period. --Biblioworm 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A good standard is: aside from the occasional outlier, we have enough admins when the administrative backlog category remains consistently empty. We currently have nine backlogs at the moment. Esquivalience ^t 19:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

~~Unsure~~ Moved to oppose On one side, there are indeeed less admins around, art an average promotion of 1 and desysopping for inactivity of 5 to 10, per month. But, since decisions are supposed to be made evaluating the merits of a case, I doubt that there is much discretion/variance in admin actions. I suppose more than 90% of all admin actions would be the same if done by a different admin. We really do have a lack of admins who can combine good judgment with technical expertise, as seen in the terrible backlog at TfD where most of the work is now done by non-admins. RfCs are nowadays very rarely closed by admins. At AfD there are not many admins voting, they appear mostly just to push the delete button after all the votes are in. CSD doesn't seem to be backlogged too much, anything I tag is deleted within a day. Non-admins are carrying most of the workload now in many places, vandal-fighters, and page patrollers make the reports, and admins just spend time pushing the buttons after making a quick check, maintaining an encyclopedia is not really rocket-science. Still pondering... Kraxler (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I'm certain now. Kraxler (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, 90% of admin actions are simple tedious bullshit, 9% are difficult tedious bullshit, and 1% are genuinely challenging situations. The rarity of the last case is in my view an argument in favor of having more admins, so that a broad range of views will be available when the need arises. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- It might sound simple (just press a button, right?), but even simple tasks can become tiring and difficult if there are many of them to do. For instance, when I edited another wiki, I seemed to be virtually the only person who bothered to deal with the long backlog of reference errors. Oftentimes, it was just as simple as adding "==Sources and Citations==<br/>{{reflist}}". It sounds easy. However, there was a few dozen articles on which to do this, and after a while the work became very tedious. Therefore, even for simple button-pressing tasks, we should have more admins so that the work will not be so long and tedious for any one person. --Biblioworm 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
RfA produces the right number of admins and I maintain the process is not broken. The real problem is that too many editors can't win over enough support from !voters and too many of those promoted to admin return to content creation rather than work a backlog. Un-bundling the "block" button from the "delete" button is probably the way to solve the backlog issue although even that won't pass muster. It's a political problem. I as an editor have to be able to trust anyone I empower to potentially block me or delete content I create. That's going to be a high bar and I'm happy with the vetting that occurs at RfA. It's silly to suggest that we all need to collectively lower our expectations when we all have (in Biblioworm's words) an "irrational fear" of being railroaded by today's well-meaning candidate. Why aren't we actively harassing our current admins to pick up the mop they were handed? I will, however, agree that the 75% number for RfA is far higher than the standard for ARBCOM election and perhaps ought to be lowered to something between 60-66% to recognize we can't all be comfortable with every admin that gets promoted. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
"too many of those promoted to admin return to content creation"? Can you blame them when most unsuccessful RfAs include a comment that the candidate is not active enough in content creation? The successful candidates want to avoid such criticism being piled on them as well after they become admins. As I noted in a recent successful RfA, the admin bit does not grant anybody more hours in the day. To do meta work - even if only a small amount - means that time has to be found for that by not doing something else. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As I have emphasized here, the tiny number of admins we're promoting now relative to past years (see the line graph), coupled with the continual existence of the backlogs despite the constant efforts of dedicated admins, should cast serious doubt on the idea that RfA is promoting a sufficient number of admins. And, actually, many of the admins promoted this year would be considered active, so we really don't need to "harass" them "to pick up the mop". Of course, I do agree with you that we need to trust the admins we elect. But the issue is that we have a very high bar for "trust". As I mentioned in the op-ed, almost no legislative processes or other real-life procedures (and even other bars for consensus on-wiki) have a bar so high as RfA's. I see that you agree with me on that issue, though. --Biblioworm 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
We both agree the number of active admins is insufficient to our backlog issue. While you want to change the process in order to have more active admins, I say the process is how it is out of necessity. Why not address the issue of inactive admins? I supported three different proposals (here, here, and here) to strengthen the community's ability to hold admins accountable. Why not question why many Wikipedians that could be trusted choose not to become admins? What's the problem with swinging the mop at our dirty areas? If manning the noticeboards is such a chore then what you'd really want to change with RfA is selecting people who will work those backlogs without raising the ire of content creators. I think lowering the passing percentage and un-bundling with a sunset clause is the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec)RFA does not produce the right number of admins if it can't produce as many admins as leave. It doesn't produce the right number of admins if we only have 24 admins who started editing since January 2010. As for the comparison with Arbcom elections, its a different electoral system and the two are not comparable. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that blows my mind. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may be worth considering/reframing the problem in a way that pares it back a step: instead of "not enough admins", it's "not enough people performing the duties currently assigned only to the admin usergroup" or somesuch. I.e. we need admins to do admin stuff, not to be admins. Indeed, Biblioworm gets at the issue of admins who don't use the tools in the op-ed. If the point is RfA, reframing this way could be distracting, but if the point is to be as inclusive as possible at this stage (inclusive of approaches to the problem), it may be helpful. As Un-bundling the "block" button from the "delete" button would be one of the possible ways to address the problem, would it then ring truer, Chris troutman? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Yes, the "we need admins to do admin stuff" statement is definitely the issue. I'd be happy to discuss how that might be accomplished. I just don't think changing RfA is the method. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is what I've found to be the issue. I've looked at some of the same data Biblioworm has, and it's the RESYSOPS part of the equation that's the problem. From what I've looked at, I considered RESYSOPS to be a somewhat of a joke. Now, it's not true of all of them, but a substantial portion of the former Admins RESYSOPS'ing (and I'm talking 50% or more) seem to be doing pure "hat collecting" from what I've seen, and never use the tools when they get the bit back. Yes, some do; but many don't. That implies to me that the RESYSOPS procedure is actually what I consider to be broken. We shouldn't reflexively be giving the bit back to former Admins who then don't use the tools they are given – there needs to at least be a question included in this process: "Do you actually intend to use the tools we're giving you back much?!" If the answer is "No", then the response should be, "Well how about Rollback instead?!", not "Oh well – here you go!!" --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? It's no skin off your nose if someone has admin tools they're not actively using at the moment. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty much the perennial response to the POV I expressed above (note: I'm not the only one who shares it). To say that I find it uncompelling probably understates my reaction. Admin rights are a "big deal" in so many ways (there's just too much opportunity for malarkey...), and they shouldn't be handed out to anyone who isn't going to actively use them to improve the project. (The same could probably be said about Rollback and Pending Changes Reviewing as well, now that I think about it...) In any case, I know many Admins, especially, share your view on this. On my end, I couldn't disagree more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless you intend to show that resysopping is doing some damage, I don't know why you'd bring it up. Samsara 04:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Because my standard for a "good idea" isn't "net neutral" – it's "net positive" for the project. (And, no – I'm not going to waste my time on a RfC for this – I already know the current Admin corps would shoot it down cold...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The case in point has already replied to you, though you apparently didn't notice. Samsara 04:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall, Have you collected any statistics of admin activity by returning former admins? From what you are saying this is a glass half full/half empty situation where some would look at it and see an important part of the what has enabled our remaining admins to continue to offer a good service, and others look at it and wonder why certain people bothered when they don't seem to be using the tools much. We've had related discussions here in the past, one conclusion being that if you ignore people who aren't admins but made the admin stats due to certain anomalies, and the people whose active admin period was before December 2004, very very few admins get the tools and then don't use them. The other discussion was about the risk of long absent admins returning and making mistakes because they'd forgotten things or things had changed; The conclusion there if I remember right is that such scenarios rarely reach a level that requires a trout let alone a desysop. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course I can't remember where I saw it now, but I semi-recently stumbled upon a page that had the stats for recent RESYSOPS'ings, and about half had zero Admin actions since getting the bit back... It might be buried in a thread in the WT:RfA archives for all I know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm just looked into this and found that 32% of resysopped editors became "active" admins. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The possibility of unbundling the "mop" stuff from the "cop" stuff might allow more folks to do some of the tasks where there is a big backlog (page protection, moving articles, DYK queues, TFA, ITN, etc...) Montanabw ^(talk) 01:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
That said, I also agree with WereSpielChequers that we also don't want a situation where admins are so swamped that they only can do admin work, thus creating a separate cadre; one needs to keep their toe in the water to recognize the issues that content editors deal with on a daily basis. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Regarding unbundling the tools, I'm going to say the same thing I said the last time this came up. I'd be wary of splitting up the core functions. In a few cases I've had to delete, protect, block, and look at deleted edits all for one incident (typically a page protect request that leads to a SPI). Each action has to be thought through. Having the tools to do only half the job means another admin will have to familiarize themselves with the situation. If we do unbundle these rights, we're going to have a "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" environment. Every day, there are reports to AIV that are better served by page protection or page deletion than a block. Likewise, every day there are reports to RFPP that are better resolved by blocks or deletions. If the editors patrolling these boards only have access to one tool, we run the risk of implementing sub-optimal resolutions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen you make this argument before, Neil, and I have to say I consider it a weak rebuttal to the idea of unbundling (at least some of) the tools. Will unbundling, say, Page Protections solve every issue at WP:RfPP? No. Will it eliminate the need for Admins to do anything at RfPP? Obviously, no (for one thing, I'm pretty sure "unsalting" is likely to continue to be an Admin-only purview, though maybe I'm wrong...). And, yes, sure – some situation will require an Admin to come in a look at the more complex situations. But if 70%, 80%, 90% of the tasks at RfPP could handled by veteran editors after unbundling (and, in many cases, they'll likely be declining requests, as Admins have to do now), rather than Admins doing it, that would move the ball forward. (Then, if you unbundle more of the bit, then it's possible veteran editors with both Page Protector rights, and say Vandal Fighter rights, could handle some of the more complicated situations you mention...) Unbundling isn't about solving all issues at once – it's about incrementally moving some tasks to be primarily Admin-only actions to being primarily handled by trusted veteran editors, freeing up Admins to do other tasks (like deletions, or more complicated blockings) more... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen repeated mentions of a "backlog at RFPP". Is this still a problem or is everyone repeating what everyone else says? I'd have less of an issue if these semi-admins were given good guidelines on what they could and could not do. They would also have to run through a mini-RFA. Too many veteran editors post inappropriate requests for protection or blocking to consider bestowing these tools upon request. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Proper guidelines (i.e. esp. qualifications for such a right) would absolutely be key if this is going to work. However, a mini-RfA seems like overkill to me for either Page Protector or Page Mover rights, though I suppose it could work if the focus of the "mini-RfA" was narrower. Personally, though, I think it could be granted like a "user right" – it's just that whoever would be granting a "Page Protector" user right would better come from an Admin like yourself that operates at WP:RfPP a lot. But, getting back to the original point – the key issue would be figuring out what would be needed for "qualifications" for the right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Figuring out what is needed: a mini-RFA focused on examining the editor's history in the area. If they want the page protector right, examine their past protection requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment regarding unbundling: Personally I am a little wary of granting additional admin permissions to non-admins except when it comes to moves. I never really understood why we couldn't add a page mover permission. We already have a file mover permission. Why not have a page mover permission? Admins are required to move a page when there is existing revisions on the target. Essentially they are deleting the target and moving in one step. Why can't a trusted user be granted that permission? The requested move board always seems to have a backlog and having additional people with the ability to work on those requests can only be helpful. For every other admin function I feel the same way as NeilN. There is just too high a chance that multiple semi-admins would have to be involved in one situation to make it worthwhile. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Purely from a political standpoint, I see the chances of "rights unbunlding" going like so (in decreasing order of likely successful proposal): 1) Page Protections, 2) Page moves (but the pesky issue of Redirect deletions is a stumbling block), 3) Vandal fighter (there is still substantial resistance to granting even limited "blocking" rights to non-RfA-approved Admins), 4) Page (and Template) Deletions (basically, forget about it: from everything I've seen, the consensus is that significant Article Deletion rights require either a full RfA, or something like "RfA Lite", and most seem to be against the idea). So, the place to start with unbundling is probably on the Page Protection proposal... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually have more of an issue with page protection than page moving. Page moves are simple. There are only two answers, move or no move. Page protection has more outcomes that have to be taken into account. Length of time and type of protection being the two categories. Do we protect for a day, a week, a month, indef? Do we do semi, full, pending changes, or move? All of these have to be answered every time a page gets protected. Allowing non-admins to page protect things freely makes me really uneasy. There would have to be a few very important restrictions to make me comfortable with that. Disabling the ability to protect indefinitely being one of them. In fact, I would say any protect that last more than a week should be left to someone who has gone through RfA and has shown that they have the community's trust. These issues is why I put page moves first in my "probability" rankings. There is just less fuss to deal with when it comes to page moves. As to blocking and deletion I highly doubt those will ever be unbundled. There is just far too high a chance for abuse, even in a limited capacity, that granting them to even experienced users who have not gone through RfA would be a bad idea. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with "Page Mover" rights gets back to the issue that it would require the ability to delete Redirects (and possibly Disambiguation pages – not sure about this second one...), and we're back to either, 1) any page deletion "right" requires "some kind of RfA", or 2) there needs to be a technical solution to this that would create a user right that could only delete Redirects (and Disambig. pages?) but not any other pages and apparently that could only be implemented on the WMF side of things (as I understand it). On the latter, I think people in the "know" seem to think the second point isn't as much of a technical stumbling block now as it was a few years ago. But until this issue can be resolved, I'm guessing a "Page Mover" rights proposal isn't going anywhere... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem with user attrition, not with any aspect of adminship or RfA. Wikipedia is not recruiting enough editors.

Samsara 04:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

- If it was an attrition problem there would be some link between the number of active editors and the number of admins. I'd like us to be growing faster, and until the beginning of this year the number of editors saving over 100 edits in mainspace per month seemed to be in gentle decline. But by that measure we are now stable or even growing again. Of course there could be a time lag between that growth and an increase in RFAs, especially if the growth is from new editors as opposed to returning ones or long term ones becoming more active. But if RFA wasn't broken I would expect an increasing proportion of our active editors to be admins, instead we have the opposite, and that's despite some evidence that simply making someone an admin is good for editor retention as admins tend to stay longer than other editors. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Support unbundling... seems to me a straight-forward way to deal with the problem often encountered in RfA ("candidate does not have enough experience in X"). We even ask numerous candidates what area they will use their admin tools in, which is almost doing this by proxy. I think this is a sensible way to start, decentralising some of the tools. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Unbundling is difficult, as many situations require several of the tools. For example, the correct answer to vandalism on an article is sometimes block and sometimes protection. An editor who has access to only the block or only the protection button is likely to use their suboptimal tool instead of the correct one they don't have access to. Similarly, in order to decide whether an account needs to be indefinitely blocked, the viewdeleted user right is often needed. Deletion is the function that needs the others least, although having access to deletion and not blocking or protection is going to be a terrible waste of several people's time. (Often when you delete something, you either notice it has been repeatedly recreated and need the protection button to WP:SALT the page. And of course, when you decide to delete all of an editor's attack pages / ban evading contributions, you also decide that editor has to be blocked). I don't understand where the popularity of unbundling comes from -- I strongly oppose any unbundling that separates block/protect/delete. —Kusma (t·c) 13:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at those figures again, I'm slightly puzzled at the interpretation. It seems that unbundling coincides with fewer admin promotions. Did anybody not foresee this, and is it really a problem? Samsara 13:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a case of unintended consequences. Even in simple systems, unintended consequences are common. Wikipedia is far from being a simple system. That's one of the problems I've had with every RfA reform process that's been put forward; no anticipation of potential unintended consequences and how to mitigate them if they are damaging. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong question being asked

With every ounce of respect to Biblioworm; This RfC asks the wrong question(s).

Anchoring bias:The statistics we are asked to review state opinions have been removed. This is false. The very section linked to starts off with "We need more admins". That's an opinion. Further, the second paragraph concludes that "we don't have enough admins" in bold. We're then asked to voice our opinion on whether we have enough admins. This is anchoring bias. Sorry.

Wrong analysis: Just looking at declining admin counts doesn't tell the whole story. We have to look deeper than that. For just one example; I took a look at admin actions for the time period of August 5 to October 4, a time period of two months. I compared admin actions for that period to the same period from five years ago, 2010. There's a few things that leapt out at me; (1) the total number of admin actions went down slightly by 1.7%. (2) Bot admin actions went up a whopping 169%. (3) The average number of admin actions per all admins with at least 1 admin action in the time period went up a modest 10%. (4) The average number of admin actions per top 30 most active admins went down 19%. This data points to one possible refutation; we do not need more admins, as our burden, per admin, has remained more or less the same for the last five years and we've reduced the burden on our most active admins. I say possible because considerable more research needs to be done. We can not conclude anything based off of just WereSpielChequers's excellent chart. The data from that is insufficient to support any conclusion. The data I've provided above isn't sufficient either, but it shows at least that we can not conclude, based on statistics provided so far, that we need any more admins than we did five years ago.

Other interesting bits: Bots perform 76% of restores, and 60% of blocks. In total, these categories of admin actions comprise 40% of all admin actions (including bots). There's another big, big hitter in the room though; deletions. Deletions comprise 55% of all admin actions, yet bots conduct only 6% of all deletions. A possible conclusion from this is that rather than looking at a process which seems (one possible conclusion) to be producing enough admins to maintain the status quo for the last five years, let's look at ways in which bots can be utilized to perform deletions. Do that, and we reduce the burden on administrators. Sidebar: I took a look at the top 30 admins for the last two months. A curious data point evolved; the average date these admins began editing was just over nine years ago. It doesn't mean anything in isolation, but I thought it interesting.

Conclusion: I'm chipping at the iceberg with a toothpick here. However, just a quick analysis of some figures compared to five years ago shows the anchoring bias statement "we need more admins" to be provably false. The issues are considerably more complex than just a chart, which is but one data point to pull from. We can look for other ways in which to reduce admin burden (which has remained close to static for the last five years). Note that I have not spoken at all regarding the declining participation issues we face. A longer term plan for solving our administrative issues has to address this, and produce plans for maintaining the project after we're all gone. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: The evidence is very clear that we need more admins. I have every statistic backing me up. Since your comment is very long, I will take some time to read through it carefully and give a point-by-point response to it. --Biblioworm 15:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Some other interesting data points. I took at look at the same two month period in 2005. The number of actions per admin has remained effectively static for 10 years; it dropped 1% from 2005 to 2015. The number of actions per top 30 most active admins went up 29% from 2005 to 2015. Whatever our means of handling admin actions, the burden on administrators has remained static for 10 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is my reply to Hammersoft's data:

1. I will first answer your accusation of "anchoring bias". First of all, when I said that I had "removed all opinion", I believe I clarified even before this that I had removed all opinion about the causes of, and solutions to, the asserted problem. I presented the statistical evidence, and made a logical conclusion, which is namely: we need more admins. Secondly, I asked voters to read the section on the user page (and, if they wanted, the op-ed) so that they could be informed about my side of the story, and to head off any automatic oppose votes by anyone who might not be aware of the evidence. I did not say, "You must read my composition, and you must support!"

2. The data presented above is full of problems. Indeed, we do need to go deeper than simple data which shows that admin promotion numbers are declining. And I did. Secondly, you contradict yourself and reach illogical conclusions.

Now, I will address your numbered points: (1) and (4) – This relatively short-term decrease (2010–2015) proves absolutely nothing. First of all, I note that for a bot admin action increase of 169% noted in (2), the decrease in the number of admin actions is not comparatively significant. And most importantly, there are contradictions in your data. The general decrease in admin actions (1.7%) mentioned in point one is contradicted by (3), which shows a 10% increase per admin. There is a difference of 9% here. Next, the shorter-term data in (4) is contradicted by the longer-term data that you presented . The long-term data is more important by the short-term data. So, the shorter-term decrease of 19% for the top 30 active admins is contradicted and completely canceled out by the longer-term data you presented here. Over the longer term (2005–2015), there has been a 29% increase in admin actions for the top 30 active admins. The shorter-term data is completely canceled out with 10% to spare by the more important longer-term data. Ultimately, this data does not at all lead to one possible refutation (namely, that we do not need more admins). Your conclusion is logically unsound and is not even supported by this data. It does not destroy the fact that despite the efforts of dedicated admins, our backlogs continue to exist. It does not destroy the fact that we are losing admins faster than we are gaining them. It does not destroy the data that WereSpielChequers presented here.

3. Bots cannot do everything. We are concerning ourselves with the actions that humans must do. We cannot rely on AI for everything. First of all, when you say that bots perform 60% of blocks, you are almost certainly talking about open proxies. I imagine that would be possible to set up via coding. But humans will always have to use intelligence when closing AfDs; humans will always have to use intelligence when deleting most CSDs; humans will always have to use intelligence when deciding to (un)protect a page; humans will always have to use intelligence when deciding to (un)block a user; humans will always have to use intelligence when closing noticeboard discussions; and the list goes on and on. You get the point. Bots cannot do everything. If we try it, our quality is certain to decline, because by their very nature bots are fundamentally less intelligent than humans. They get their limited intelligence from us; we can be pragmatic, while they rely on a set of rules.

Conclusion: To the contrary, I believe the assertion that we do not need more admins is demonstrably false. It is supported by data. If this is too long for some people to read completely, read point two of this reply; it is the most important, as it shows why the data presented is in fact meaningless, does nothing to refute my position, and should not be used as a rationale for opposing this RfC. --Biblioworm 16:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm; Please have a read through Anchoring. If it's too long to read, just read the first sentence. Now, in presenting this RfC the very first sentence in your proposal links to your op-ed "We need more admins". You then said "I strongly recommend that you read this (and the "Stats" subsection) before voting here.". You then asked us to answer the question of whether "RfA is not producing enough admins". The very first pieces of information you give us are that we need more admins. Then, you 'strongly' recommend we read your assertion that we need more admins. You then ask us if we need more admins? This is a classic case of anchoring bias.
As to contradictions, please read the two statements and understand there is no contradiction: I said the total number of admin actions went down, but the total burden per admin went up 10%. There is a serious difference in the meanings; they are most emphatically not the same and there is no contradiction.
As to backlogs existing; they will always exist. To conclude that we need more admins because backlogs exist is a non-starter. To begin to verify the need, we'd need to know what backlogs existed over time. Do you have data for that?
As to bots doing everything; I never suggested that. I suggested we look at ways that bots can be used to perform deletions. Given that only 6% of deletions are done by bots, and deletions are the majority of what admins do, there is potentially fertile ground for reducing admin burden there. I think it's worth looking into.
In abstract; I think the question being asked is the wrong question because it looks at one reliable data set in isolation. The data I presented shows the average burden per admin that does anything (which actually favors your interpretation by the way) was effectively unchanged from five years ago and unchanged from 10 years ago. Also, the question of whether we have enough admins has been a perennial discussion; 2005, 2007, 2010, 2014. I'm sure it's been discussed several other times. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

As for anchoring, that's the voter's problem, not mine. They are not obligated to support, although I will defend my position. The job of any person making a case for something is to present evidence and reach conclusions using the evidence. Nothing would ever get done if everyone trying to prove something was careful to avoid this thing called "anchoring bias". Secondly, my point was that your data is filled with different sorts of conflicted data over different time periods. There are some increases, some decreases. It becomes a confusing incoherent jumble of factoids. Ultimately, the minor details matter very little. The big picture is that over ten years, there has been only a 1% decline in admin actions. This is not anything significant and cannot be used as evidence of any sort; it does nothing to prove that we have enough admins. It could mean anything. As for the bots, I don't think we can do much at all in the way of deletions. Deletions require discretion. Even seemingly simple CSDs, such as G7, require an admin to look at the tag. After all, imagine the damage vandals could do if they could get article deleted by some unintelligent bot by simply adding the G7 tag to articles. And finally, in conclusion, I would also note that we are trying to reduce the backlogs by obtaining more active admins. Simply showing that the number of actions/backlogs/other things have been stable for x years really means nothing. --Biblioworm 18:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Anchoring being the voter's problem. If you wanted an unbiased appraisal from the community about whether RfA is producing enough admins, then the means by which you started this RfC to assess that have failed you. That's why I was pointing out the anchoring bias. If this is (as I think it is) part of a building effort towards RfA reform, then you're starting out on shaky ground. This can't be used as a basis for anything. You are welcome to disagree. Our discussion is devolving, so I've nothing to say on the other points. I wanted to post further about the anchoring only to highlight that using it to support anything is problematic. Anyway, all the best. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I should also note that data framing is very important, so you must be cautious whenever anyone says that there was some massive decrease (or increase) in admin actions. For instance, using this image, I could truthfully say, "Between June 2012 and February 2015, the number of admin action rose by almost 700%." (While ignoring that it was a very brief spike that was responsible for it. I also forgot to mention above that admin actions alone is not an important statistic. There could be many reasons for a decrease in admin actions other than a sufficiency of admins. The important part is the backlogs: are the backlogs improving in any significant way as a result of these admin actions? --Biblioworm 19:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- Except that Hammersoft made an appropriate year-on-year comparison, not June to February like you're implying. Samsara 20:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  - My point was that the time span used is very important. For instance, the long-term data is more important than the short-term data for anything. Scientists look at long-term trends rather than short-term fluctuations when writing research papers. So, the long-term 10-year data since 2005 actually shows an increase in admin actions as opposed to the shorter-term data, which shows a decrease that is completely canceled out with 10 percent to spare by the more important long-term data. So, by your logic (e.g., number of admin actions correlates with our need of them), the long-term data supports my position. --Biblioworm 20:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
To clarify, I forgot to mention in my previous comment (20:25, 5 October 2015) that I was referencing the long-term data for the top 30 active admins. I will write a final, organized summary of my objections to the evidence for those who do not want to read through the lengthy and rather messy discussion above. Two data points show an increase in workload per admin. These two data points are the long-term data for the top 30 active admins since 2005 (to hence be referenced as the "top 30" data) and the short-term data since 2010, which shows the average workload per admin. The long-term top 30 data shows an average 29% increase in admin actions per each admin in the top 30 activity group. The short-term data for shows an average of a 10% increase in admin actions per individual admin. Therefore, these two data points actually show an increase in burden for each individual administrator. This actually proves my point. This data is conflicted by the short-term data since 2010 for the top 30 group, which shows a 19% decrease in admin actions per individual admin in this group. However, this data point is shorter-term (and as I mentioned above, long-term data is almost always preferred over short-term data in studies) and fails by a healthy 10% to cancel out the longer-term data for the top 30 group. And even if it did, the other short-term data point showed that every average admin (not just those in the top 30 group) performs 10% more admin actions than they did in 2010. This point covers a wider spectrum of users and is therefore more relevant. Finally, even though there has been a 1% decrease simply in the amount of admin actions performed, this does not prove anything. First of all, it is an extremely negligible change, and finally, we should not be as concerned about the actual amount of admin actions performed as we should be concerned about the individual burden per admin and how the backlogs are affected as a result of these actions. So, overall, the facts are still in favor of Wikipedia lacking sufficient admins, and this data does nothing to prove otherwise. (Some points are actually in favor of the position opposite of that it trying to prove.) --Biblioworm 13:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually the proper conclusion is that the burden on individual administrators has increased, and effort should be placed in the most efficient place to reduce the burden. Given the amount of automated admin actions in that time that has otherwise reduced the growth of human-admin actions, the logical thing to do would be to explore how more automation can reduce the need for the human component. 'Throwing more people at it' is rarely a good solution to any problem. Work smarter not harder. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Really, we already know "more admins" is not the answer. If it were, the present admins would be actually doing the work. It is a rather useless idea to make, say, 100 more admins today in the hopes that a handful of them might do the work. Address the work, or address the lack of interest by admins to do the work, first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Alan, as I mentioned above, the facts (see my reply to Axl) show that over 80% of users who pass RfA this year would be considered active. I seem to recall doing this for last year at one point, as well, and the results were similar. The data certainly seems to support the idea that RfA motivates most users who pass to use the tools. AdminStats shows that we have over a hundred admins that perform many hundreds or thousands of actions within a month or two. Is this dedicated work, or isn't it? And I addressed the possibility of bringing back inactive admins in my op-ed. I pointed out that many became inactive for reasons beyond our control, and might not care or even notice if we beg them to come back. In response to your comment on automation, Only in death, I discussed just recently how humans will always have to perform many tasks here. Almost all deletions, protections, and blocks (other than open proxies) require discretion. It's a plain fantasy to ever think that the idea of a bot that handles most deletes/protects/blocks would ever be accepted by the community. And Hammersoft's data is rather curious in that the individual burden per admin has generally increased despite a 169% increase in bot admin actions. What would we do if simply making more bots gave the same result? It apparently hasn't made any considerable impact in the past... --Biblioworm 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

So your reading of statistics is that we will appoint 4 in 5, who do the work, and over time that will become 1000 to 1 who do not do the work. And you get the temporary 4 out of 5 who do the work in the present system, but there is certainly no reason to think we will get that good a temporary yield, under another system. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposals for Modifying the Promotion Threshold

Undisclosed alternate accounts cannot be used for internal discussions in project space, especially proposals. Please use your regular account or you may be blocked for violating our sock puppetry policy. HighInBC 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Assuming, as I do, that Biblioworm is correct that Wikipedia is not promoting enough new admins to replace those who become inactive over time, the community must consider several proposals for how to promote more admins. These are:

Do nothing and let Wikipedia die. I have no objection to letting Wikipedia die, but assuming that other people do not want this outcome, please consider the following alternative proposals.
Reduce the promotion threshold for all RFAs. I know, WP:PEREN. But see WP:CCC and consider the change in circumstances from 400+ promotions in 2017 to only about 20 for 2015.
Reduce the promotion threshold for some RFAs. One way to accomplish this is to say as follows: If a candidate's RFA would pass by the existing rules, then it passes under the new rules with no delay. However, if a candidate gets between 50 and 75 percent support, then the RFA result is placed "on hold." The RFA will then pass if fewer than three (3) new admins (who had not previously been admins) are appointed by RFA in the next 30 days. Exception: an RFA will be moved from "on hold" to "failed" if the candidate is subjected to a legitimate block of their user account while the RFA is on hold (even if the block is only for a few hours).
Same as the preceding option, except that a runoff voting method can be used. Thus, if in a defined period (say, a calendar month), an RFA is placed "on hold" and fewer than three candidates passed by the normal 75 percent heuristic, the next best candidates will be promoted from the "on hold" group, from the highest percentage down to the next highest percentage pass rate, until at least three admins are selected for the month. This prevents the absurdity of Option 3 above whereby one candidate with 51 percent support gets the sysoop flag while another candidate who ran a month later with a 70 percent support rate won't get the flag. Or to be more precise, it allows the absurdity to happen but only under different circumstances.

The point of Options 3 and 4 is to challenge the community to ask, if candidate X with 68 percent support is not good enough for you, do you have somebody better to put forward? And if you don't, would you prefer to let the project die as per Option 1 above? Agent 73124 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2015 (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.

While using an undisclosed alternate account is not allowed in internal discussion, I suppose there is nothing to stop people from responding to this post if they want. The poster can participate if they log into their regular account. HighInBC 02:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Generally accepted RfA principles

I have created the Wikipedia:Generally accepted RfA principles page to prevent repeat RfCs on principles that already have respective consensus. It lists principles that are generally or at least significantly accepted by the community per consensus. I have already added one principle in; feel free to add more. Esquivalience ^t 22:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How does it prevent them?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I applaud the effort...but it's misleading for the info box to say the page as "communal consensus" when there has only been one editor to the page so far. It's a little early to declare the principles as reflecting a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It only exists to describe past consensus on principles per the thousands of RfCs, not to create new consensus. Esquivalience ^t 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

As long as supporters think that they can get to within crat chat range of consensus, if they only package it properly, I don't see it making a difference. It's like a video game, where they are trying for three stars on a screen. They'll hit the refresh key, select just a bit of a different angle, fire at a slightly different moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For what it may be worth, I've created WP:GARFAP as a shortcut to this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good Article Request for Authors/Proposal??? Wikipedia:Good Article Review/Featured Article Promotions???

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying, as all I see is a WP:WALLOFRED. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I was trying to be funny and it didn't work. Sorry about that. By the way, when I read WALLOFRED my first thought was a bunch of people named Fred lined up against wall. But that would be a WALLO'FREDS not a WALLOFRED. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows that to create a proper WALLOFRED you need to start with a single, extremely wide Fred. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination problems

Hi. I've nominated User:Wikicology. As usual, I can't seem to make it work —I don't know how to "substitute the time parser functions", etc. Could somebody please help me? I'll watch and observe how it is done. Thanks! David Cannon (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Done here – You just have to remove  from around subst: and delete {{red ... request.'''}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I one of the big reasons for an RfA failing is because the candidate can never can properly get the RfA transcluded and started. So I'm calling for a summary desysop of David Cannon for not knowing how to do that. :p Who agrees? :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Offline} 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if he were the candidate, but I think he's safe as the nominator. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Add an edit filter to page creations for pages whose names start with "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/*"

We can use edit filters to strongly discourage nominations of clear-WP:NOTNOW candidates where the nominators either don't use or ignore the tools at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate.

I recommend setting the bar of "automatically rejected NOTNOW" much higher than "autoconfirmed" but much lower than the typical "NOTNOW." Something like

nominee has EITHER [90 days plus 100 edits] OR [nominee has any manually-granted :en or global user-right, such as steward].

If the nominee can't be detected, then proceed as if it is a self-nomination. Have the edit filter put up a big notice saying "If this is a nomination for an RFA then it will almost certainly fail and may be an embarrassment to the nominee. Please do not save it. If this is NOT a nomination for administratorship, go ahead and save it." Once it is saved, put a note on both the nominee's and nominator's talk page pointing them to RFA-related pages and instructions on how to gracefully withdraw the nomination in case the nominator saved the nomination anyway.

We can also do things for nominations where the nominee passes that minimum threshold, such putting up a notice asking them to confirm that they have read a "before you nominate someone for adminship" page before saving the edit and, once it is saved, adding a "thank you" note on their talk page and the page of the nominee.

The reason for not summarily preventing the creation of RFA-nomination pages is that new editors may legitimately create "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/*" pages may not actually be nominations, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Since such pages may transclude Template:RFA or Template:RfA/subst as part of the discussion or documentation, we can't rely on the presence of key words from those templates to determine if this is a nomination or not.

If this idea is worth pursuing, a similar edit filter for RfB nominations with a much higher "bar" might be appropriate if there are enough premature RfB nominations each year to justify the use of an edit filter.

Is this idea worth pursuing? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit filters cannot edit pages directly. Esquivalience ^t 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The message wouldn't be saved in the page, it would be a warning that appears to the editor when attempting to save the page, specified in the box for "System message to use for warning:" - for example, on Special:AbuseFilter/148, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-autobiography contains the message. If possible, it could be set to warn (or prevent creation) only for suspected self-nominations, similar to that filter. Peter James (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

An edit filter can add a tag to the edit summary. A bot that monitors recent edits can edit pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I've seen several self-nominations rejected or deleted as NOTNOW, and for these no bot is needed, but I'm not sure that a filter for other nominations is desirable, because there are so few and there may be good reasons for those nominations. Peter James (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

How may RfA are rejected in a year per NOTNOW? A handful. There are already more words, doubtless with 000's more to come, than are used in 2 years of manual NotNow closes! A solution looking for a problem. Leaky Caldron 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

A filter set to disallow would prevent some of them, if it could be done without too many false positives; in exceptional circumstances a nominator could be found. Peter James (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Leaky caldron: Short answer: At least 1-2 a month. Long answer: So far this year, almost half of the 36 "official" failed RfAs have been either NOTNOW (8) or SNOW (5). Another 6 were withdrawn with less than 10 "supports" and another 6 with 11-20 "supports". That's 8 that would've been told up front they would fail and possibly another 17 that might have been deterred with stronger up-front notices that they weren't likely to succeed. I'm not even counting the ones that didn't make it into Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). 2014 had 15 of 40 fail as "NOTNOW" with 2 SNOWs. On the other hand, in 2013, only 4 of 40 were officially "NOTNOW" with 7 SNOWs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There are also some considerations:

Will this edit filter adversely affect editing? Let's assume that 75 edits are being made per minute, and this filter will take 7.5ms (estimated considering multiple conditions + regex). This adds up to about 810 seconds every 24 hours. If one or two NOTNOW RfAs are filed each month, it would cost 203 to 405 minutes of editing time to stop one single NOTNOW RfA that could simply be identified and deleted in two minutes.
Will this filter increase hat collecting for the edit filter right? Almost every recent NOTNOW candidacy was made by a hat-collector. A filter may either remind them or direct them to the edit filter manager user right. They see "because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors who have the required good judgement and technical proficiency are permitted to configure filters" and they think, "ooh, very powerful" and rush to the Edit filter talk page and request permissions. Another time sink. Esquivalience ^t 01:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the edit filter: I can be written efficiently enough so this is not a major issue. See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Instructions#Making expensive operations cheaper. Regarding hat-collecting: Good question. I hadn't considered that aspect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure whether using an edit-filter to head off the not-now requests for adminship is a suitable use of edit-filter-developer time... let alone server-time. But this discussion about unintended consequences, actually seems like it might be the right way to go, counterintuitively. Instead of dangling the awesome power of the edit-filter-userright before them, give them a good hard shove towards a place they might learn something.

"Dear potential RfA candidate: an edit-filter (note: these filters are very boring stuff you would not be interested in) has detected that you have achieved an editicountitis score of 13 edits. Good work! But all truly powerful wikipedians must achieve *more* edits, and must achieve those edits by *helping* other wikipedians. Only the most helpful most wise wikipedians can become admins!! You must walk the path. The toughest most difficult work is found in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, helping truly beginning editors draft articles properly. Go forth bold wikipedian, and show your mettle in helping the people who seek assistance with wiki-policies, to understand them more deeply! When you have achieved NNNNN editcountitis in draftspace, and have successfully helped NNN other wikipedians, you may return here to RfA in glory!!1!111"

Or something along those lines. My apologies in advance to the fine folks who volunteer at #wikipedia-en-help , but I didn't pick that out of a hat. AfC decline-message-templates currently already direct beginning wikipedians attempting to write their first article (often COI-encumbered and/or personally attached to the topic in question) to the same IRC channel, thus usually there is somebody clueful to walk the beginning editor through the basics of the wiki-policies. Adding some admin-wannabee-folks to the channel could be a net positive, since they can help by answering the easy questions... and show of their vast 13-editicountitis knowledge... plus, on IRC as opposed to en-wiki, any disruptive wannabee admins can be kickbanned by the IRC channel-ops, should the need arise. So crazy it just might work? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

I will be going live with this RfC soon. Any thoughts/comments on the talk page would be welcome. - jc37 05:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh good, another adminship reform proposal. It's been so long since we've had one of those.

I hope, when you start your RfC, that you explain in detail how this differs from this similar proposal rejected barely two months ago, which was based on the German recall process, and provide evidence that your formulation is responsive to specific criticisms of the binding recall proposal, the BARC proposal, and any other related proposal out of the large number discussed within the last six months. Given that this has been unsuccessfully proposed before but has been minimally edited since then, it would also be useful to explain why the 2013 criticisms no longer apply. Additionally, given the recent track record of very rapid arbcom desysoppings that subsequently became controversial, please describe specifically why you believe another desysopping process is needed at this time.

If there is one thing about adminship reform for which there is overwhelmingly abundant evidence, it is that new proposals almost never present actual evidence that they might work, or even that they might be less likely to fail than the last failed proposal. Maybe this will be the exception? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

+1.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Concur with Opabinia regalis. The 2013 proposal has been changed only to include phrasing allowing a seven day delay (which, granted, does answer a concern raised at recent reform proposals), and how ArbCom can handle outcomes. That's it. I too am curious to know how this proposal, absent significant changes, addresses the issues raised at recent reform proposals much less the concerns raised in 2013. I asked some months back for an example administrator who, if this were to pass, would be subjected to this process. Supposedly, answering that question would be a personal attack (nevermind this means the entire system would be one giant personal attack). If the German Wikipedia is any guide, there's something on the order of 140 active administrators out of the pool of ~580 active administrators who would lose their admin bit in the first year of implementation of this idea. So, it should be trivial to identify _one_ administrator who would be subjected to this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_I/RfC#E:_Difficult_to_remove_admins is currently live and heading for no consensus. Please redirect your proposal to that or at least give us a six month break before reviving this perennial suggestion. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm really restraining myself from saying "aww jeez, not this shit again" but I think the community has now experienced a profound sense of exhaustion in these discussions. While some may still aspire to fixing RfA, there is just too much cynical resistance now in place to get anything passed through at this time. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

For starters: In any case, no system will ever fly that allows participation of the peanut gallery, trolls, and the people who are nether admins nor vote on RfAs, but who regularly and noisily participate in all such discussions. That's why BARC was proposed - at least it was a system adjudicated by a panel of trusted users rather than an angry mob.

For the main course: Easier, faster, and more equitable admin review processes are demanded by a) those who want the criteria for adminship relaxed because they are too scared to go through the process as it stands, and b) those who in righteous indignation feel aggrieved by some admin action, or whose own RfA was unsuccessful.

For the desert: Yes, 'Oh, this shit again!' - paticipants are either so entrenched in their own ideas on the subject that they oppose anyone else's suggestions, or they have no ideas whatsoever but resent the initiatives if those who do. This is very typical of a lot of participation on RfCs in general. On the other hand, at least jc37 is being pro-active even if the timing is possibly wrong; at least it's better than RfCs that simply drone on and on with no clear objectives other than to remind us yet again that we already know what we already know; they are little else than WT:RfA on another page, and I question just how altruistic the motives are for launching such mammoth debates. Already admins themselves, neither jc37 nor the proposers of BARC have anything to gain (or lose) with their proposals which at least give the community something very solid to hammer not quite so very softly on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Optional RfA candidate poll

I encourage you to watchlist and give views at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's no real way to standardize your arbitrary scale of 1-10. I'm curious as to what we hope to learn from the numbers. Let's say for arguments sake that 20 people respond and the numbers range from 4-10, what exactly has the editor learned? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

He has learned exactly that he would be facing uncertainty in an RfA. And in the case of 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, the the potential candidate will learn plenty too. Same goes for 8, 8, 9, 9, 9 etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Except the number isn't defined and is completely arbitrary. It's the same reason that the pain scale of "1-10" is so infuriating and largely useless in the hospital except for extreme cases. Also, a sample size of 5, 10, or even 20 is not at all representative of the community. Opt to do this if you wish, but I just don't think it's at all useful. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, my friend. I think you are seeing this from a scientist's perspective. And even from such a perspective, 0 obviously relates to someone thinking 0% chance. Five would be around 50-50, etc.

And rating things on a scale of 1-10 has value. How strong do you want your coffee? How good is the pizza at that place?

This may already have helped one person avoid a bad experience and may right now be helping another decide to run. It has also prompted good, experienced editors to post at their talk pages with guidance and further feedback.

This discussion should really take place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Your views are welcome there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough and I do understand what you are hoping to accomplish with the poll even though the benefit isn't clear to me. Cheers Anna Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and you're right - I tend always look at things too scientifically. I blame my lab. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Saying that five is around 50-50 means that you are assuming the scale is actually a percentage representing the probability of passing. Although I guess most people will assume this, perhaps it might be worth while making more explicit?

I have continued the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll § Participant feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see is that RfAs are unpredictable. You never know who will show up to vote or what their reasons might be for their vote. You could have one resulting vote on Day #1 which is different than Day #4 which is very different from Day #7. I think it is misleading to imply that an informal poll would be in any a replication of the RfA process or prepare potential candidate for the process. At best, they can identify NOTNOW candidates and dissuade them from launching an RfA. But most serious candidates are a mixed bag, with varying levels of experience in different parts of the project and it's difficult to predict what a voter will say after digging through a candidate's contribution history. I know for myself, there were points I thought would be brought up that weren't, and other interactions I had that I thought were not very serious that some editors based their votes on. I don't think that a potential candidate poll would have unearthed these developments.

I think the bottom line is that a candidate has to make the plunge and, more importantly, not withdraw at the first sign of opposition to ones candidacy. Many people do not want to look like they have "failed" and so candidates have withdrawn early from the process when things weren't going their way. But RfAs are a dynamic process and situations can change radically over seven days, both ups and downs. I don't know that there is any way to protect a candidate from the negative criticism that occurs in almost every RfA over the past few years except to tell them to "gird their loins" and stick with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Liz here. I consider this an actively bad exercise, as it's explicitly asking for people to give first impressions, but RFA votes are based on a close analysis of editing patterns. (My approach to RFA is generally to look at Q2 & Q3 to see where the candidate sees themselves focusing, and examining their conduct in that field in detail; thus someone promoting themselves as a peacemaker will get their contributions to drama boards and high-traffic talk pages scrutinised; someone selling themselves as a content specialist will get their claimed "best work" picked over, etc. A first impression is useless as an indicator of what this kind of search will turn up.)

I think it very likely that those who get low scores will be every bit as demoralised as those who actually fail RFA (it's not nice being told people don't consider you competent, whatever the venue), while a sizable proportion of those who get high scores will be encouraged to run at RFA, fail, and be all the more shocked and upset when they don't sail through. (Both myself and Liz can testify that even should you ultimately pass, getting heavy opposition in an RFwhatever is a soul-destroying exercise.) ‑ iridescent 18:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Good points. With great respect, a response to both of you in point form:

I think it is misleading to imply that an informal poll would be in any a replication of the RfA process or prepare potential candidate for the process.

The poll does not claim to replicate anything nor prepare anyone for anything. That is not its purpose.

At best, they can identify NOTNOW candidates...

That is a bold claim. Already there are indications that that is not so.

I think the bottom line is that a candidate has to make the plunge...

That is easy for you to say now. You went through the horrible process and passed. Tell that to the 6 out of 7 that failed. Plunge and fail has resulted in editors leaving the project for months or indefinitely. That should be prevented.

...it's explicitly asking for people to give first impressions, but RFA votes are based on a close analysis of editing patterns...

Exactly. And anyone who would pass an RfA would know that.

...those who get low scores will be every bit as demoralised as those who actually fail RFA...

I strongly disagree. Consider asking the 6 unsuccessfuls to be sure. One of the 6 commented "Had something like this existed, I would have absolutely taken advantage of it."

I still think that if this has a chance of improving the horrific rate of 6 out of 7 unsuccessfuls, it ought to be tried. You've stated what you believe to be cons. Here again are what I believe to be pros:

It may prevent SNOWs.
It could give a small taste of what it feels like to have a number of people give opinions.
So far, those who have tried this have had kind posts at their talk giving guidance. A detailed analysis may be requested of the poster. This could initiate serious preparation for an actual RfA and possible nominations.
It could improve the appearance of the Latest XfAs table. That table has a strong impact and right now it looks like a stop sign.
For those who get high numbers, it may be the thing that finally removes the fear. Along with personal talk page feedback, the potential candidate could actually run and we get more admins.

If you object to any entity or individual that encourages people to run who will not pass, please keep in mind all of the nominators for the past 6 out of 7 unsuccessfuls. These are not nominators who just gave an opinion. They actually nominated for an actual RfA that ended in tears.

I am very curious to know what the past unsuccessfuls think of this. Their opinions are worth more than all of ours, I think.

Anyway, I encourage you to lessen any cons you perceive with a strong lead full of disclaimers and cautions.

Sorry for the long post. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Put this on main RFA page. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

An RFA to be deleted (deleted)

An editor who has been active for 25 minutes has created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rabauter. It needs to be deleted but I don't know what CSD criteria would be appropriate for this page. Advice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete such candidacies with a manual edit summary; that's what I do, rather than a specific CSD criterion. I have deleted the page. Acalamari 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Acalamari. I know that CSD criteria are strict. I appreciate you tending to this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

CSD G6 would be the applicable criterion. Such deletions are well established as uncontroversial and encouraged as standard procedure. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my. And here I thought WP:RFA was going to be deleted! Rats. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Likewise. It certainly got my attention. :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Limited Access} 17:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Must have been from theonion.wikipedia.org. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, we're voting to delete WP:RFA? Ok cool! Support --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted the heading appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

And I've adjusted your adjustment. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added more information. ;) - Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Tweaked it once more for the sake of tweaking. :D—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Four years late to the party... bibliomaniac 1 5 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh come now, consensus can change, even if sus scrofa domesticus can't take on avian like properties. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Admin stats

I know this stuff gets repeated but I never noticed there was an X! tools setting to look at admin actions. Granted, that it only considers admin acts to be actions like blocks, unblocks, protection, removing protection, deleting a page, restoring a page and granting user rights and many actions as administrator lie outside this small group of acts. But it is still remarkable I think that out of the current administrators, less than 300 admins made 30 admin actions over 3 months (pointing out the obvious, we're talking doing 10 admin actions/month). Most of those at the top end of actions work in the CSD area, I think. Of course, I'm sure that the numbers fluctuate over the year but it still shows that the the currently active admin pool is not 1300 or 500 but even less than that.

Numbers are here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm 186 with 110 actions and I pretty much consider myself semiretired. Scary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What on Earth is that page? I have 681 something-or-others. 681 what? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahhhhh I see. It is actions in the past 92 days. Okay. I missed that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 681 logged admin actions in the past 3 months. This list is a prime example of why editcounting is ridiculous; devote three months to resolving disputes in such a way that noone needs to be blocked and nothing needs to get protected, and you'll have zero logged actions and be flagged as "inactive"; go to WP:NPP and throw blocks and deletions around and you'll have a decent chance of driving away multiple good-faith users, but you count as a "highly active admin" and you get feted by the WMF. See also the wretched WP:WBE. ‑ iridescent 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Wretched indeed! And don't get me started on the fetid fêted. Now if you'll excuse me, I have still have 3,324,655,765 n-dashes to fix.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternately, I think this shows the problem with what people consider adminship to be. As is, the "ideal admin" is expected to be police, diplomat, judge, janitor, editor, researcher, and technical expert simultaneously. Half the disagreement on most RfAs seems to me to be over these differing views of what an admin "should" be. Some people oppose candidates who don't have a lot of "content creation" work, while other people take the opposite tack and oppose candidates who aren't heavily involved in "admin areas" like AfD. The social role of "admin" has grown far beyond its roots as a set of software abilities that couldn't be made available to everyone because of the chaos that would ensue. In real world societies, we assign these roles to different people, because it's unrealistic to expect many people to be proficient in all of them. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The annoying part is that AdminStats is only semi-functional right now – a few months ago, it used to list all Admins, even those with zero logged actions, but it stopped doing that several months back. And no one seems to know why it stopped listing the "0 logged actions" Admins, nor does anyone seem to know how to restore that functionality. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, you can also check User:JamesR/AdminStats, look at All Totals, another admin stats tool. It is updated hourly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

User:JamesR/AdminStats lists all logged admin actions since December 2004 with a few anomalies where non admins are credited with one or two admin actions. The combination of those two gave rise to the debunked but recurring myth that a large minority of admins have performed few or no admin actions. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm impressed to be at 1651 and I'm not an admin! Okay, I know why I am on the list and some of the other non-admins with actions are for the same reason.QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, I have long wondered about the admins on this list who are listed as doing, say, less than 5 admin acts over the course of their adminship. I just thought that they chose not to exercise the tools. Now that I know this is incorrect, can you tell me how non-admins can be credited with admin actions? Is it a glitch in the stats compilation? Or were the actions that were once allowed to be performed by non-admins that later became reserved to admins? Or were non-admins granted temporary admin rights? Or will my curiosity about this anomaly never be answered? ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Liz, there's a small minority of admins who genuinely have few or no logged admin actions, the myth is that it is a large number. Apart from a gaggle of staff accounts and possibly the odd steward or global sysop, they presumably include a couple of people who are contenders for shortest ever career as admin, the other language admins who got admin rights here to edit the spam filter before the global spam filter moved to mediawiki wiki, probably some people who got admin rights before rollback and filemover were unbundled and only used those parts of the mop, and maybe even a few who got the extra buttons and then didn't use them. As for the people who have never been admins, definitely a glitch rather than temporary admin rights or an upbundling, but I'm conscious that I've been corrected twice as to what the exact glitch was so won't try to give my understanding of it. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the list because I have three real admin actions here as a Steward (they were deletes of pages with more than 5,000 revisions that requires a right that local admins do not have). There are a number of other Stewards (current and former) and global rights holders (staff, global interface editors, etc.) on the list too. I know nothing about the glitch so no comment on that - QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz and WereSpielChequers: Some non-admins are on there because they've moved semi-protected pages. Doing that creates an entry in the protection log (example). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A solution! Let admins block a dummy account to create a count for "admin actions" in any case where they determined, as an admin, that a real editor should not be blocked! Say "BarnabyFitzPatrick" (whipping boy for young Prince Edward)? Collect (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

First, I said that the stats didn't include many admin actions. Secondly, this is not a competition. At least, I don't have admin act-itis. I stumbled upon this tool, set it to track actions for the past three months and wanted to see how many active admins Wikipedia had. Not "highly active", just active and I don't think there are any brownie points depending where you are on the list, not by WMF, not by anyone.

I arbitrarily chose 10 actions/month as a sign of activity and I was surprised that the number was under 300. I thought there were at least 500 admins that could be considered active when there are far less. This tool and information wasn't intended to focus on any individual admins and where they ranked but on the aggregate, to show that Wikipedia doesn't have enough active admins (which y'all knew anyway). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There's a way to fix this. Make me an admin, I'll go an a mass protection and blocking spree, and completely screw with the edit filters to disallow further editing by anyone. There problem solved, in a way. :D :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

All joking aside, generally speaking, edit counts and admin action stats should be ignored. They contain no useful information. I have thousands of these actions and should not be commended for them. Any fool can delete advertisements and block profane usernames. The great admins have a skill set that rivals real-world judges. They accept the enormous challenge and responsibility of reading the situation properly, making the right call, and helping produce the best eventual outcome. It's a high art, if you ask me. It is also a huge investment in time and brain power. The best I can do is take a bit of the load off, so my betters can do their thing. But someone has to do it and I am not ashamed of it. Admins like Iridescent who have the skills to dwell at ANI negotiating tough disputes and handling the difficult judgement calls are a special breed. You are indeed appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness, I gave up trying to talk people down some time ago, and my admin activity nowadays consists primarily of clearing out CAT:EX, and occasionally trying to explain policies to well-intentioned newcomers who either don't understand them, or don't understand why they exist. I agree wholeheartedly with the general point about editcounts, admin counts, article counts; a useful thought experiment is to head over to WP:WBFAN and see how many of the names listed are people you'd want to sit next to on a plane. ‑ iridescent 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This thread is funny. When I saw it I thought 'yeah, old news' but apparently it's always new news :) IIRC from the last time I looked at this, consistently over the last decade, about 30-35% of admin accounts take no logged admin actions in a given year. Relative to the pre-rollback days, we now have a higher proportion of total logged (non-bot) admin actions taken by a smaller group of admins, i.e. fewer hands are doing more of the work.

And for the damned-lies-and-statistics files: I'm #44 on that list with 1398 admin actions. Well over 800 of those were done in one batch, from closing a single TfD, and I briefly locked the database doing it. But that made me over twice as good an admin, right? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You do your share, girl. We plebs who voted for you to get the bit again are pleased. Besides that, your WT:RfA posts are usually pretty entertaining. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm on the list with 52 logged admin actions. I'm pretty sure my unlogged admin actions such as reviewing the deleted edits of RFA candidates took more time than those 52 logged actions. As for the hundreds of admins who are around but logged fewer than 30 admin actions in that quarter, collectively they did thousands of logged admin actions in those 90 days; We should not lightly dismiss their contribution, especially as many of them are that ideal of adminship, active editors who just occasionally wield the mop. That said an important role of the admin corps is to service WP:AIV and to be available for urgent G10 deletions and rev deletions, so those who want to work out our minimum need for admins need to think how to be sure we have enough to always cover those areas. An alternative and much better model is that as mops are free we should appoint as many admins as we can find suitable candidates. Do that and we no longer need worry about how few admins we could get away with before getting serious problems, and you overcome the problems of being dependent on a small number of admins who perforce lose touch with normal editing. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

64.251.137.41 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done Please specify what do you want to edit. sst✈^discuss 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kitcher45 Kitcher45 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done With no edits other than filing an RfA, you are not going to gain adminship at this time. BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Should the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kitcher45 be deleted at this point even though it will not be transcluded? Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As such, I have deleted it. There's no point in transcluding it - we all know what the result will be. Acalamari 23:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

JonaQwer RfA

Came across Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JonaQwer.. should it be deleted? JonaQwer (talk · contribs) has not been active for over a year.. JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The editor was mentioned in an SPI just before they left, which is probably why they have gone...I'd say delete it (and their AFCs) as stale drafts. Giant Snowman 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, that RFA was mentioned in this archived RFA talk page thread. That's probably not a reason to keep it hanging around, though. Graham87 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Beating the odds?

It is worth noting that three successful RfAs closed in past 9 days...that must be a recent record. Or is this just a better time of the year to launch an RfA? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I blame the high quality of the candidates. HighInBC 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Statistical noise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point Liz. Perhaps a few more watchers/participants have decided they who won't cop the BS in silence? Who knows? ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This year is not exactly a bumper crop and will probably close with a famine. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just random variation. Look at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month: we have 47 days left this year to promote three more admins, or we will have dipped below 2014's abysmal figure of 22. BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that certain individuals are not going to RfA to make a point as much as before. Notice how these last few RfAs did not degenerate into a debate about what RfA should be? HighInBC 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fact that recent ones were less adversarial RfAs that those of the summer is hard not to see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Recently sending one particularly vocal FA/GA sock back to the drawer has certainly helped with that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Short-term surges as this one aren't very unusual. It may have something to do with the ongoing reform efforts. In 2013, for instance, promotion numbers briefly increased early in the year as the RFA2013 RfCs were ongoing. Around this time last year, there was a brief influx of candidacies parallel to an RfC proposing the total abolition of the RfA process. As I keep saying though, we must not be deceived. Consensus shows that the RfA process is broken and that we need more admins, and we are not going to get very far with brief increases inspired by reform efforts. Long-term increase is what we need. --Biblioworm 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
- Speaking of which ... the Phase I RfC of WP:RFA2015 is over, and Biblio has started to work on the Phase II page. (Thanks, Biblio.) Anyone have thoughts on what should happen in Phase II? The closer, ErrantX, found "clear consensus" for 4 proposals, and for 3 other proposals, he was optimistic enough to pass them through to Phase II. I liked his focus on the value of listening and adapting, for instance under Proposal A: "a good portion of the opposition talked about the vagueness of the question and in some cases even lightly supported the idea of some defined standards. It's likely that some well worded proposals in the next phase will find consensus". - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

RFA2015 Phase II RfC

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposal drafting for Phase II RfC

Hello everyone.

As part of Phase II of WP:RFA2015, there will be a two-week proposal drafting period for the Phase II RfC. In this period, anyone may add proposals on how to fix the issues that passed through the Phase I RfC. The proposals should be added at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC, under the relevant section. There are four main sections: "More participants", "Hostile environment", "Narrow discretionary range", and "High and undefined standards". The idea of active clerking also passed through Phase I, but since that is directly relevant to incivility I have made it a sub-section of "Hostile environment", and I merged the two issues of "High standards" and "Undefined standards" into one section, since they are both about standards and may be relevant to each other. (For example, standards may be high because they are undefined.) I have already added some proposals for issues A and C, so they can be used as examples for formatting. Remember that this RfC may have substantial effects on this process, so please be careful when putting together proposals. Under section A, add proposals on finding ways to expand participation; under section B, add proposals on how to fix the hostile environment at RfA; under section B1, add proposals on the specifics of clerking at RfA (who the clerks should be, how much authority they should have, etc.); under section C, add proposals on how to expand the narrow discretionary range; under section D, add proposals on how to fix the high and undefined standards (how the standards can be made reasonable, what the defined standards should be, etc.). --Biblioworm 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Evidently there was no interest in proposal drafting, so I did it myself and will be launching the RfC shortly. Biblioworm 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm I think a lack of participation at your RFC proposal isn't necessarily evidence of "no interest" but perhaps exhaustion over the marathon of RFC proposals. I'm not sure the exact number but we've likely seen a few dozen RFC proposals over the past year for RFA so those who commented or worked on those proposals already feel like they've already said what they needed to say, and voted how they needed to vote. Your RFC proposal is certainly extensive so also could seem daunting. Anyway, just wanted to mention these as possible reasons for a lack of participation so you're not necessarily jumping to the wrong conclusions. Mkdw ^talk 20:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

By "no interest", I meant that people apparently had no desire to draft proposals, which is understandable. Doing so takes a considerable amount of thought and time. That doesn't necessarily mean people aren't interested in the idea of the RfC itself. As for the "marathon of RFC proposals", this RfC is part of an organized reform project and contains new proposals that were a direct result of the Phase I RfC. I would note that several participants seemed to be rather eager for Phase II to start. Biblioworm 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I was eager to see the next phase, and the fact that quite a few people have already started commenting on the various aspects is an indication that there were quite a few other people waiting to have their say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with putting all proposals, major and minor, on one page is that participants would have to take in a lot of information and arguments. If editors want changes to be made to the process, they should open at most two proposal RfCs every 30 days or so, multiple phases if needed. That way, participants can focus on individual changes instead of dozens and dozens of changes and alternatives. For example, if editors want RfA to be clerked and have arguments for it, they should start a new RfC page (such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerking proposal 2015) and propose there. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

People who have been continuously involved with RfA issues and their reform for many years, such as WSC, Worm That Turned, and me, generally agree (and history has shown) that changes for most major policy types are most successful when they come in small, stand-alone proposals at a time. As much as I wholeheartedly embrace any viable proposed solutions, I also loose interest in long, rambling RfC that require 30 minutes of my time or more to wade through the longer they get. There is also the fact that they only get around 30 or so participants per section which IMO is not really a representative consensus. I generally aim for a single proposal to attract 200 or more participants. There's also the fact that most closers are put off from having to close a dozen different sections of a RfC.. Anything to do with adminship involves major policy changes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A new 'essay' about adminship

Or should I say 'Guideline'? - Aye, that is the question. Here's something interesting you might have missed. Its talk page is even more vibrant. If you have time, you may wish to add your 2p. Don't worry, for once its not something *I* wrote. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA clerking proposal

You are invited to participate in a RfC proposing clerking in RfAs; the discussion is here. Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

With all respect, this has heavy overlap with the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B4:_Clerking_at_RfA. This is just too much right now. I recommend shelving it for the time being. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. We should wait to see what the consensus of the ongoing RfC is first before considering further large RfCs. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  - Thirded: Too soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to existing proposal; having two concurrent discussions is at best confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It may be partly my fault for telling Esquivalience I would fully support reasonable proposals for clerking (which I do). It's certainly reasonable and worth commenting on, but the timing is unfortunate. I have made plenty of comments at this RfC that I feel very strongly it's one topic for a stand-alone RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Offer from Supdiop

Being dealt with at ANI

Supdiop is saying that he will create 20 non-stub articles in 20 days if he gets unblocked. I think we should accept this offer and unblock him. He is also saying that he will propose a new idea for RFA process if he gets unblocked. What do you think? - 183.83.231.107 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, my first thought is that, you are Supdiop. I say this because it is the only IP edit and the IP is from India and so is Supdiop. My second thought? Well, maybe a CU to prove it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're not Supdiop himself, per chance? Biblioworm 23:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Supdiop should heed the advice given to him multiple times and make use of the Standard offer instead of all this bargaining and pleading. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the IP sure is similar to the last one on this list. Supdiop, this is socking. If you want any chance at the standard offer, you should find another hobby for six months, or maybe a year or so. Also, I posted at your talk about your IRC statement. And now this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. After reviewing the geolocations and behavior of his previous socks, it's crystal clear that this IP is Supdiop. Biblioworm 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

..... And the timetable resets again. Can't request an unblock until 12 June 2016. Although, we will certainly hear from him again. It's crystal clear by now he is and has been on a trolling mission for quite some time. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I started an ANI thread here. I think it's time for the community to revisit this and decide what should be done. Biblioworm 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

In any case this is the inappropriate place for such an appeal. Mkdw ^talk 01:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Supdiop is about to be site banned and range blocked by a large unanimous consensus at ANI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Validity of the RfA Reform RfC and close

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please don't forum-shop. You already have a discussion going over here. Please keep discussion there so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I question the binding validity of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC.

Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. Even if the so-called RfC is to be re-closed by someone else (which it now has been), it should not be binding, per items #1 and #2.

Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton:

It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.

I find all of the above to be compelling reasons why this RfC is not, and cannot be considered, binding or valid. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with all of the above. The RfA process has been so disfunctional in the recent past, and there has been so much in the way of reform discussion that many may have fallen by the wayside, despairing that RfA would ever be reformed. However, this RfC was well structured and managed, there were many thoughtful discussion points, and it resulted in some clear outcomes that I am sure will benefit RfA and en WP in general. The results should stand and be implemented immediately. I would like to assume good faith here, but sadly, I don't think this thread is itself an act of good faith and acceptance of the consensus that was achieved. All the best. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Query

Hi, what do you do when someone creates an RfA without adding it to the RfA page, as has occurred here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RohithKumarPatali? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, can somebody close this per WP:NOTNOW? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Can there be some kind of filter which is triggered whenever an RfA is started, even if it isn't added to the page? This is at least the fourth time I've encountered an RfA that nobody noticed. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, prospective admins should be able to follow the instructions to the letter, which includes transcluding their request to the main RfA page. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

True. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer, there's no need to formally close untranscluded RFA's. Please don't vote in them either. G6'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@NeilN: Sorry about that, I also didn't notice the date. Thanks for letting me know, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

If the editors haven't transcluded them, they haven't started the process, so there's no need to do anything with them. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

These RFA's should not be transcluded unless the candidate does so or they have requested someone else to do so. Mkdw ^talk 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as long as they are not transcluded there is nothing wrong with starting an RfA page for oneself, preparing for one day when they might want to actually have an RfA. I imagine there are a lot of untranscluded RfAs sitting around or ones that might have been abandoned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Liz. An untranscluded RfA is just another page in wikispace. There's no need to transclude it for the creator (unless they ask you to) and there's no need to delete it if it's left untranscluded for the short or medium term. Really old ones might be deleted as useful cleaning up, but if there's any prospect of future use they may as well be left alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that stale un-transcluded RFAs that don't have a specific reason to be kept in WP:-space should be userfied after about a month or two. The editor can always move them back later. Likewise, very stale ones should be userfied rather than deleted. The editor can {{db-user}} it later if he wants to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)