This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 02:36:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 Most recent Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Is there some sort of dislike for self-noms that I'm not aware of? I enjoy to read old RFA and I frequently see phrases against selfnoms. Even supports sometimes have "Despite being a self nom blah blah blah..." Anybody mind filling me on why these are looked down upon? wirenote (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, some like to see another respected/well-known editor nominate the candidate as a vote of confidence. I really haven't noticed the sentiment lately, but I wouldn't say it was ever an outright prejudice against self-noms. I self-nommed a few years ago and things went well, but I suppose I would fall under the "boring" class of editors—which I've got no problem with. Some editors respect the cluefulness it takes to gauge one's own readiness and others like to see a respected editor nominate a candidate. If there's an active disdain for self-noms, I'm not aware of it either. It really doesn't factor into my judging of a candidate. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there's no problem with self-noms other than the obvious - they're a wasted opportunity. RFA candidates are asking the community to trust them, even though most editors won't have worked with them before. Being nominated by another respected editor is like attaching a good reference to your CV. An example - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MER-C 3, where an editor claimed expertise in copyright issues. The co-nomination by MoonriddenGirl - our most dedicated and expert copyright editor - put that claim beyond doubt. Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first RfA was a self nomination. My second nomination passed. Chillum 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most self-noms nowadays are closed rapidly per WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW, very few make it through compared to those nominated by other trustworthy editors - in fact, there hasn't been a successful one this entire year. I didn't follow RfA too much back in the day, maybe this is why some people viewed it less-than-favorably. That, or they think that self-noms are prima facie evidence of power hunger. (Kudos if you get the reference) Ansh666 03:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, hard to believe that was 5 or so years ago already. My personal favorite, though, was having to get an endorsement from a WikiProject around the time I went through RFA. bibliomaniac15 05:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those were the days. Hard though it may same for "newer" editors but I remember when a 100 AIV reports was generally considered enough evidence alone of needing the tools. Pedro :  Chat  08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brings back memories - Kurt was one of my 3 opposes, it was almost a badge of honour. Black Kite kite (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly, my own RFA (from a couple weeks after yours) featured an oppose vote because someone else nominated me. I recall a few AN/ANI threads about those types of votes, because nearly every RFA was opposed by one or the other. The glory days of RFA 2007.... Resolute 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, WP:HATSHOP is probably part of the reason. However, we've kind of moved on from *cough* having too many nominators and from opposes based purely on the fact of self nomination; which is good. Basically, there's no real issue with self-noms, but it does add some weight to have one, maybe two nominators who are experienced users - or maybe specialists in a field the nominee intends to devote time to. They should never be mandatory though. Pedro :  Chat  14:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on a quick look at some of the more recent (last year or so) RfAs, I'd have to say that there is a pronounced prejudice against self nominations. Is that a healthy development? I don't know. But that it exists seems pretty hard to deny. For anyone who really wants to be an Admin, I would strongly discourage self nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty sure that's because the vast majority of self-noms are poorly informed new editors, at least as far as I can remember. Look at the last few edits in the history of WP:RfA for a shining example. Ansh666 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO any genuine self nom by an experienced user stands a fair chance of passing. Let's keep the noms by newbs out of the equation - they just distort the stats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sad thing is, there have been so few of those lately. None so far this year, as far as I'm aware, at least not successful. There were 5 successful ones in the last half of last year, though, so there is that. Ansh666 17:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a popular mythology built up around self-noms, but in my time here I'm not convinced I've actually seen anything significant. I've seen a few people suggest they view self-noms with mistrust, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone fail due to being a self-nom. Very few !voters are so stupid that they can't look beyond that trivial detail and judge things properly based on the candidate's contributions, and the very few stupid !votes that do show don't have any real effect on the outcome. We certainly should not be swayed by the large number of self-noms who fail, but that's because they're almost entirely newbies who wouldn't have a chance of passing no matter who nominated them. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it matters terribly and I would never hold a self nom against anyone, but human behavior being what it is, I wonder if a nom from a familiar face simply draws more attention (good or bad) and might create more interest/votes. I can think of a few individuals that if they nom'ed, I would be more curious about the candidate than had they not been the nom, thus more interested in participating. In some cases (the last RFA for example) it even nudged me into supporting because of the trust I had in the nom in doing their own background check. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the ones that were snowed before I even realised they were there, and a few that were quite obviously going to fail; I think I've voted on almost every RfA over the past four years or more. It's never bothered me at all whether they were self-noms or not, I do the same research for them all - unless of course Dennis has already done it for me ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just doin' my job, boss. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having looked through just about every successful and failed RFA in the past three years when mine was up, I'd say a self-nom from the right candidate will invariably succeed. It makes no difference as far as I can tell. Many selfies seem to fail more because the candidate is unsuitable for whatever reason rather than the fact that it was a selfie, and a nom and co-nom wouldn't make any difference in those cases. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, don't say selfie for self-nominations. It's bad enough people taking their own pictures all the time without dragging the word into wikipolitics. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would lighten up the mood a bit... maybe? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for !votes from my peeps when I do my selfie RFA, yo. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many RfAs, self-nom or not, would pass were the nominee to use that sort of language... Ansh666 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the table, but I think there's a simpler explanation. Every once in a while, someone maons about the dearth of qualified candidates and a number of people go searching for anyone who might be qualified, resulting in a few supported nominations. This means that self-noms, almost by definition, are editors who were not uncovered in one of those searches. It isn't easy to do all the work necessary to prepare oneself to be an admin, yet be so hidden that none of those who hang out here have seen them. This means that the population of self-noms is mostly the clueless newbies, along with a very small number of qualified candidates who managed to not get caught in the search sieve. --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, far too much attention is paid to whether Wikipedians (whether they know or even bother to research an individual or not) believe admin privileges should be granted to any given nominee.

In real life, you don't get a job just because someone thinks you will probably do a good job. Nor do you get one job (e.g. admin) just because you've done good work at another job (e.g. editor). That would be like making someone a Chief Financial Officer because they know how to balance a checkbook.

No... in real life, you receive training and certification in certain work. We had a similar program here on WP a while back - for anti-vandalism fighters, and I was one of the instructors, until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify". That's just nonsense.

Instead, if we really want to fix RfA (and I know there are many of you reading this that don't want to fix it), we need to build a set of criteria in which an individual must prove competency (it's called a rubric) and if they illustrate such competency (and pass whatever other criteria the community deems appropriate, such as number of edits, or tenure in the project) then they're given the mop. No more "votes", no more "campaigning", no more of the hurt feelings and vague rejection that goes on in the RfA now.

I can't be the only instructional designer on the project... this is what we do for a living, so it's certainly not impossible to build a training curriculum for admin as well. I won't do it alone, but I'd certainly be willing to help.

What say you all? Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we do have or have had programs such as adminship coaching, mentoring, etc., which would be the place to start, as well as the existing admin policy pages. By the way, our current system does not have campaigning (and campaigning or canvassing often leads to strong opposes), and the yea/nay "votes" (usually called !votes meaning not-votes) are a discussion which develops based on the issues raised by the opposition. Based on whether the individuals have displayed competence in their contributions, they are evaluated; invalid !votes will be rejected. In the case of AlanM1, his nomination failed because he displayed an adversarial and combative position when probed about his views on the article deletion process, so if he wants to do a bit of AFD and run again maybe he'll have a better shot. Anyway, I always thought the problem with rubrics was that they hinge on subjective meanings or judgment calls. This way the community-at-large's wishes are expressed through our mechanism of consensus, rather than an individual or group's opinion. RFA is not broken - we continue to promote admins, and some would say the prevalence of "bad eggs" from past eras in which RFA was less selective has led to the tightening and selectivity we see today. So, I think building an admin training curriculum could be a good use of time, but I don't think that comes along with some kind of new RFA appointment process. Andrevan@ 05:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan, Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thank you for your contribution to the project. I am, however, forced to disagree with you on several points. While it would genuinely be fantastic if the "community-at-large" did participate in the process, we all know it doesn't happen. I wonder aloud how many unique names I'd find if I studied the last 100 RfAs (maybe a good research project when I have a week with nothing else to do). And your statement that the current system relies on consensus rather than an individual's or group's opinions. Unfortunately, that's what consensus is... agreement based on the group's opinions, and ultimately, it's really one person's decision based on how he/she "reads" the opinions and the input from the group. I know that's how we make decisions here, but it's still group opinion that's driving it. But in any case, please don't read my suggestion as being borne in AlanM1's nomination alone. That's just the most recent example. While I do think this RfA was handled poorly, I have participated in many RfAs and have expressed this concern for quite some time. Your assessment that the rejection was based on defensiveness is really core to my point. The current systems asks that everyone be nice and polite in order to get adminship, but if snarkiness and defensiveness disqualifies someone from getting the mop, then I have a list of people available who should probably have their adminship revoked. In posts well above mine, people keep referring to how it "used to be" compared to "how it is now". I've been on the project for 8 years now and I don't see any difference, so I'm not sure how long ago "used to be" is. I am well aware of the concept of !votes, so please forgive my lapse in putting in the exclamation point, but you are mistaken in your statement that there is no campaigning. I have received many messages asking for my support for nominees seeking adminship. Perhaps you never have, but I have experienced it personally. BTW, I have never participated in any RfAs where such participation has been sought, because I do agree that it should be competency based - we just disagree on the way competency is evaluated. Lastly, I know you're a software engineer, so I'm surprised to hear you think an objective measurement of output would not be a better approach. Competency models and rubrics are quite appropriate for any skills based learning and just the opposite of your assumption, seek to remove subjectivity. Again I sincerely thank you for taking the time to comment because I do appreciate the insight your response provides. If you and other bureaucrat colleagues truly believe that the process is can't be improved and there's no need for a new approval process, then it seems like even having a conversation about it won't bear much fruit. Best wishes! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to "remove subjectivity" - the "very good" and "excellent" categories on my rubrics when I was a kid (I think the last rubrics I had were in elementary school state tests) were always a hair different, and if the teacher liked me I'd get the nudge. Learning a high-level, complex skill is not about checking off a box in a list of arbitrary reductions or attempted distillations of that skill. Anyway, everything and everyone has a POV. The way to balance POVs is to represent them all and give appropriate weight, oh yeah, and post appropriate references. Sound familiar? The zen philosophy of wiki is that it works because of the wisdom of crowds. RFA works the same way, no better or worse than other processes here (such as AFD, which Alan might know if he had spent more time being a deletionist - to understand when that POV comes about). Adminship is about subtlety, judgment, and a little good luck and humor. Each user posts a POV and supporting references. When the support starts becoming a kerfluffle on the candidate's RFA page itself that's probably a bad sign for passing. Similarly, I think long-winded calls for RFA reform (including occasionally from users well-known with many accolades) are generally met with the difficulty of finding a better system that scales, is objective, and maintains the fundamental community commons that has built our project. Andrevan@ 05:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like a training programme for existing admins. I find it very hard to keep up with the changes to guidelines and policies and this leads me to make errors and to stay away from areas I am not familiar with.Deb (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For areas your not familiar with, I bet you could find an admin with experience there who could give you some pointers. But your comment did get me thinking, it would be really nice if there was essentially a policy changelog for admits to reference. Basically a centralized place where policy changes, arbcom precedents, foundation edicts, and even just changes in common practices that admins will want to know about are recorded. To some extent you can get that from browsing AN and ARB/N archives, but one centralized location, not cluttered with other notices/announcements/discussion would be awesome. Monty₈₄₅ 13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there isn't one already is ridiculous, but then again there may be some who prefer it that way. Policy is easier to wield as a club when it's obscure and hard to locate, after all. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While we COULD make use of the course: setup to create a Wikipedia School; it would need dedicated staff to actually manage it. Also important is that "being trained" doesn't equal "being trusted" which is also an important part of the community approving admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so. And for that reason, although a training programme is certainly an interesting idea, I wouldn't like it to supplant RfA. RfA is certainly rough, but that is because of the culture, and many editors understand this and try to influence the culture for the better. It remains the case that we need a voice as to who is entrusted with the tools to block and unblock editors, delete articles, see deleted material that the rest of us can't see, and prevent us from editing articles (while they can do so, leaving us to make requests on which they rule). --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking why we don't have a school were experienced admins will give lessions to potential editors, so that they can become successful in there future RfA. Just like we get a degree when we complete a university course which helps us to get a job in future. So, I was thinking if admins can teach potential editors, how to become successful admins. I mean train potential editors for adminship?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jim Carter - Public: You mean like this?—LucasThoms 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, everything needed for a willing candidate has become a history, Editors review, Admin coaching etc. Now, I'm feeling that proposing new idea is just a time waste. Every good project end up like that. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud the positivity underlying this idea, but it's a non-starter. No matter what the classwork entails, it would be too easy for objectionable candidates to jump through the requisite hoops. Technical competence isn't enough; you can't teach a reputation of trustworthiness and fair play. Townlake (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Administratorship isn't supposed to be a big deal but it is. That's simply the state of the community. I know this is a tired gripe in a lot of corners but I believe we need to unspool admin tools. Just like rollback or reviewer permissions, we should have "delete" and "protect" permissions. There is no reason why trusted, established editors can't tackle these areas without more substantial, and nearly irrevocable, admin tool sets. RfA should largely be limited to people with special viewer rights, the ability to block, and the ability to view restricted material. GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We did used to have WP:ADMINCOACH, which was a sort of policy training program, but it came to be viewed (rightly, in my opinion) as a "teaching to the test" approach and went inactive. There is also new admin school but it is more of a get-to-know-the-tools thing as opposed to a policy seminar. This isn't really done in pracrtice but any changes to administrative policies and priocedures should be prominently noted at WP:AN. Another idea could be a quarterly newsletter for admins detailing all policy changes that effect admins. Out of touch admins who got in way back before RFA was actually hard are, in my opinion, a problem that needs solving. Many of them do not keep up to date and maintain the cowboy attitiude that belongs in WPs past. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here is missing one very important point. There is no reason to educate the admins to prevent mistakes if there are no repercussions of abuse. If even flagrant abuses and violations of policy are ignored in the name of adminship, then what incentive is there for an admin to do this? There is none. Additionally, this idea infers that the admins are fallible and make mistakes when the culture of Wikipedia has been firmly established that the admin is always right. Unless you intend to fix those serious problems, then admin school or coaching is like making chicken salad out of chicken shit. I haven't edited since 2008 but lately all I see is a bunch of arrogant admins talking about how bad editors are. I hope you all know you really come off as a bunch of self centered jerks. It amazes me that you are all paid employees of Wikipedia. 71.163.243.25 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a 50% pay cut to all admins as a punishment for their arrogance! Monty₈₄₅ 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, again?? Do we have to eat tree bark too? It made me sick the last time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there are specific cases of the changing policy, out of touch admin problem, but if there is a problem with distributing notice of significant changes, AN is definitely not the place. I was there and I can tell you that AN was not supposed to be the mess it is today when it was created. Andrevan@ 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AN (or more specifically, ANI) is the mess it is because in spite of being an Aminstrators' Noticeboard, any newbie and clueless Tom, Dick, or Harry, especially teenage admin wannabees, can have their say. And that's why many admins, including those who are otherwise known for good social and judgemental skills won't go near the place.

The problem with coaching future admins is that there are already plenty of admin wannabees who have joined Wilipedia with that sole intention in mind - and many of whom certainly do have the wrong reasons for wanting to be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung, I don't see having a training program for those who want to be an admin as a bad thing, even if there are those who have the wrong reasons for wanting it. And I'm not sure, but it sounded a little like you were saying that someone who wants to be an admin should somehow color others' perception of them in a negative light. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is currently an admin (yourself included) wanted to be an admin or you wouldn't have undertaken the role. I do recall the positive conversations you and I had while we were working on the revised CVUA program (though not sure how often that ever gets used any more), and that was actually the inspiration for the original suggestion. Thanks for taking the time to make a comment. All the best.... Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vertium, I didn't want to be an admin - most people with my age and background don't, but a significant number of users whom I highly respect persistently suggested by email that I should consider being one. As I was already heavily engaged at that time on an adminship reform project having been subject to some nasty treatment from at least three rogue admins (all since desysoped), I thought I ought to run for office and get my own experience of what it's like being an RfA candidate, and what it's like being an admin afterwards. At least it would prove or disprove some of my theories about the actual RfA process (which it did do so admirably). Being an admin today is a thankless task but among other reasons it keeps me active on Wikipedia - not only from the aspect of protecting the reputation of adminship in general, but also being bold enough to disapprove of admins who do not show the corps in a positive light (indeed, a few more have since been rightly desysoped although it took a long time getting rid of them) , but also to disapprove of those who tar all admins with the same brush:

''What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course. But the system has to change, and to change it we have to work within the rules, however naive we may think them to be."

Unfortunately, although there are indeed still some rotten apples in the admin barrel, that very statement itself is not 'within the rules' - it smacks of subversion and bloody revolution, things which are not conducive to the retention of new editors who happen on such comments. Knowing how to deal with such belligerence needs certain social skills that simply can't be 'taught', and many admins who attempt to address such issues simply end up making matters worse. One either already has such qualities, or they grow on one - those who do have them in RL simply 'emerge' as voices of reason in troubled times, and often make the best admins. A significantly high number of our active admins for example, go to meet ups and Wikipedia conferences, where it becomes apparent that they are the same nice people they appear to be online. Those admins who are unpleasant online rarely venture into showing their true colours in real life meetups. It's rare to find these talents among the younger users, but it does happen as demonstrated for example by the people who nominated me for adminship.

A bad person who somehow gets through RfA is going to be a bad admin. Anyone who follows this talk page regularly (and there is a lot of it) will realise that there is a general consensus that training people to be admins is probably not such a good idea, especially (and without including those who had an agenda such as Pastor Theo) perhaps those who may possibly still not yet have developed the required diplomatic skills which they would need in a real life environment.

There is still very much an antivandalism academy today (I know, because I wrote the present incarnation of it). I don't know where the idea that 'until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify" comes from. Admittedly the CVU does not get a lot of movement on its project pages these days although I still closely monitor it. It's better this way - such projects are not supposed to be a social gathering, and anti-vandalism does not seem to have suffered as a result of having cut out the MMORPG and cackle aspect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Kudpung, I take your meaning on whether someone wants to be an admin, but I'm still reluctant to believe that someone wanting to become an admin alone makes them unworthy of it. And I'm genuinely not trying to argue for the sake of argument, but it's a bit contradictory to have everyone claim that adminship isn't supposed to be the "big deal" and then still refer to it as "running for office". This entire thread was begun because there are better ways to learn a skill than on-the-job trial-and-error. Reading educates, but it does not train.

As to the comment of "until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify" comes from the fact that there is no one actually coordinating CVUA [1] and that anyone can add themselves to the CVUA trainer list as noted when you expand the List of Trainers here [2]. While your claim of CVUA's existence is undeniable, it's utility or effectiveness does not share such certainty. I've no doubt you monitor it, but I found that the tool formerly used to review Instructor Activity is no longer functioning. While I do respect your opinion that there was a "MMORPG and cackle aspect" to CVUA historically (though I don't really know to what that refers), I am bewildered by your statement that it's "better this way". Why? I find no evidence that it's better to have a system no one uses than one that had a lot of activity and engaged editors into becoming vandalism fighters, "MMORPG and cackle" notwithstanding. And who decides what a part of this project is or is not "supposed to be". Isn't it "supposed to be" whatever achieves our overall goal of having an accurate encyclopedia?

And lastly, while you may not remember, I contributed to the revisions of the CVUA. In fact, you called my rubric, the "best thing to ever happen to the project" [3]. I'd hate to think that such tools are only valuable when they're used elsewhere than "behind the big curtain" (sorry, obscure Wizard of Oz reference).

Given the current state of the discussion, I'm going to consider this thread as having run its course and no longer (never really) viable, but I do thank each who took the time to contribute. I found it quite educational, and civil dialogue is always worthwhile, even if one doesn't achieve one's objective. While this conversation might continue here, I'm not going to be following this page any longer, so if you have something to say that is directed towards me, I would appreciate you posting on my talk page. Many thanks to all. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 12:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of passed RfAs by support percent? I am sure there must be but I unable to find. Antrocent (♫♬) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RCA gives the !vote counts - you'd have to calculate the percentages yourself: Noyster (talk), 07:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raw percentage isn't particularly useful anyways; the closing bureaucrat(s) may or may not assign lesser or no weights to comments, particularly in closer ones. Remember, RfA is not a vote. Ansh666 07:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know. That is why I am curious to see how low can the support ratio be pushed. I am looking for the most extreme cases of the closing bureaucrat doing just that. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely the lowest and there are some similar edge cases for other reconfirmation-type RfAs. These kind of questions come up a lot, consider searching the archives. benmoore 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look through and here are some of the closest successful RFAs in the last 3 years:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 72.4%
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk 71%

And some unsuccessful in the last 3 years:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mlpearc 73.2%
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual 69.6%
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ 68.2%
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5 68.6% (withdrawn)

Mkdw^talk 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe consider all "reluctant" opposes as only half an oppose each? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. Unless you know what the closer was thinking when they reviewed the RfA, counting votes simply isn't a good way to judge it. Ansh666 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt there is a formula for how the votes are tallied. I would imagine that the individual statements are weighed to determine an overall consensus. It does, however, highlight the range in which discretionary action has been taken. Mkdw^talk 21:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ben Moore, Mkdw. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another close one with a contentious log of activity. Andrevan@ 22:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carnildo_3 (61%), ^demon_3 (63%), Krimpet (67%), Danny (68%), Davemeistermoab (68%), Ryulong_3 (69%) - the only RfAs I'm aware of that passed with less than 70%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That list is comprehensive apart from this one which doesn't really count because of the low participation. If you're interested in high-scoring unsuccessful RfAs there are CWY2190 (75%), Theopolisme 2 (74.8%), Connormah 2 (74.6%), Cobi 3 (72.9%). There are higher scoring unsuccessful RfAs if you include situations where the candidate withdrew and there are plenty of successful ones with percentages in the low 70s. Every RfA closed at the end of its time limit with over 75% support has passed. Hut 8.5 21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that looking for such stats is particularly useful. At WP:RFA2011 we examined literally 100s of RfAs. RfAs are each too different and any trend(s) that data would appear to demonstrate, would be as purely subjective as the voting. The issues that had dragged the process into the mire seems to have cleaned themselves up in recent months now that those who deliberately sought to wreck it have either been banned or have moved on to new pastures for their disruptive hobbies. Or simply grown up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RFA experts: I am trying to create an RFA for another user. The instructions at WP:RFA said to follow the directions on the page, but I failed to detect any, except for a suggestion to check for errors by using the preview. I took a guess at what to put where. Here's my page so far: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dodger67. Is the page supposed to look like that? I don't see any comment characters to be removed as instructed in red, and there are an awful lot of square brackets where I would expect to see links. The guidelines have dire warnings about not following all of the steps correctly, and I don't want Roger to get off to a bad start because of an improper nomination. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else for instructions. At the bottom is a big blue button that says "nominate another user", and it has a changable text above. Change the "username" in the text into the username you want and click on the button to create a request page. At the instruction page you can find what to do next. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I suggest you simply start over. To delete the page you already created, you can add ((Db-g7)) to it, which will request a deletion to the admins.

I have deleted it. I had already done what you suggested above. Please, Taketa, what instruction page are you talking about? —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anne, the thing you probably did wrong is you changed the "SUBPAGENAME" after clicking on the big blue botton. You only need to add the name before you click on it. This might sound confusing, so to make it easy, click on the button below and click on save. The rest comes later. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Taketa. I had already figured it out by just trying various things. You are right that I changed the capitalized word. My mistake was thinking that if it said "user=" that meant I should put in the name of the user. I think it's right now. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anne Delong:, good to see you worked it out. Good luck with the RFA. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following a lot of RfAs and saw that AfD participation is cited frequently in RfAs. Is there a standard people typically look for is % accuracy (result versus vote) or quantity? Upjav (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the exact expectations vary from one editor to another. But it is my personal and slightly jaundiced observation that some editors tend to feel very strongly when they see a candidate whose apparent record with respect to inclusionist/deletionist appears to be at odds with what that editor prefers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it is obvious that too low a value is a red flag, I would also consider a close to 100% value a red flag. It would be easy to game the system, and someone whose votes always matched the result would be a hint that some games playing may be occurring.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal rule of thumb is that 80%+ of votes matching outcome tick my RfA box, 70-80% pause for thought, below 70% serious questions 50-60% no. There is also a rider on these criteria that persistent misunderstandings of policy/guidlines, rudeness and the like will immediately override the above. The minimum participation I would expect is at least 250 discussions. Per Sphilbrick's observation above, gaming the system by only voting for dead certs to go a particular way in the !vote will give me serious cause for concern as will a lack of reasonable policy/guideline based discussion in complex cases. I should add that AfD is only one element in the complex business of analysing a candidate's suitability for the mop. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it best to read the AfDs to understand if there was an issue with inclusion/deletion standards. Chillum 19:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Counting % of AfD outcomes which match with how the candidate voted is among the worst type of bean counting that goes on on Wikipedia. If the candidate wants to work at AfD then AfD participation should be necessary, that's my bottom line. Then, I actually check what they write at AfDs rather than just looking at numbers. If they place short rationales at AfD without explaining themselves which go against better explained policy-grounded rationales, fine, that's a red flag, but simply counting numbers is lazy, and people doing this are the reason the "gaming of the system" mentioned by Sphilbrick even happens. AfDs are not all simple clear cut cases of keep or delete, sometimes the views on either side are justified depending on your opinion. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, some editors largely reserve their AfD participation for discussions that are finely balanced rather than wasting their time piling on to snow jobs. This is a good thing to do, but it is not going to result in an 80% hit rate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole idea of judging AfD competence by percentage of votes that were or weren't in line with the final result is fundamentally wrong-headed from the start, for more than one reason. First, it confuses consensus decisions with being "correct". AfDs are decided by what we call "consensus" (by convention of wiki-jargon, not by what that word actually means in English), but consensus is no guarantee for truth, so having voted on the "losing" side is never per se a sign of being "wrong" (the irony being that if we were to apply the same kind of argument to the quality of RFA votes, many of the people who use this kind of argument about AfDs would turn out to be "bad" RFA voters). Not even if you persistently tend to vote on the same "losing" side does that constitute a sign of being wrong – if, let's say, you don't have the habit of going through all of a day's AfDs indiscriminately but feel attracted to the interesting, contested cases, where the outcome could go either way, then your likelihood of ending up on the "losing" side of the vote is quite high, no matter how intelligent and policy-informed your vote was. Finally, judging admin candidates by such a metric is measuring the wrong thing anyway – the thing to look out for in an admin is not where they would stand themselves in such debates, but to what extent they are able and willing to interpret and recognize the opinions of others independently of how they themselves would vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'd be better off, if anything, insisting on a strong record at DRV. Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My freshly closed RfA is a "good" example of the obsession with AfD performance here. "Advice for wannabe Admins: Do AfDs, nevermind the rest of the zillion and one other things that need to be done on WP, just do AFDs, because at RfA that's all anyone actually bothers to look at." IMHO it's grossly unbalanced and ultimately bad for the project because it will end up producing one-trick-pony admins who don't have a broad view over the full range of the issues affecting WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates doesn't mention Afd or Mfd at all, although there is a bullet point about it at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, one among among many others. Should the advice page have an addition? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is pretty much covered by: "Review as many old successful and unsuccessful RfAs as possible, and be absolutely sure to generally meet the criteria required by regular !voters". Though I would change old to recent. A lot of RFAs revolve around aspects of deletion, especially where the candidate has been active in an aspect of deletion and says they intend to use the tools there. But you could have a candidate who simply wasn't active in deletion - I reckon a candidate with a GA or two who was active in dealing with vandalism could get through RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AfD is one place where a lot of comments are made about deletion; another is in the edit summaries that accompany CSD nominations. However, editors who are looking for evidence of competence in deletion areas can't see the second item; maybe that's why they tend to focus on the first. I was lucky on my RfA that admins commented on my CSD record, which was extensive; I likely wouldn't have got through on this AfD record. Should the advice page recommend that future RfA candidates turn on the Twinkle CSD log, so that the editors can more data to consider? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed if my CSD record has been available for scrutiny I think it might have had a significant influence on the outcome of my RfA. I've initiated hundreds (if not thousands) of CSDs in the course of working at AfC - as opposed to the paltry few dozen AFD's I've been involved in which consequently were analyzed and grilled to the Nth degree. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That actually sounds like a good idea. And, taking it one step further, I manually annotate my own (CSD, PROD) so that I (and presumably others, if they cared enough) can see in the future if one was self-reverted, declined, sent to AfD, or whatever, especially if the links are still blue. Ansh666 05:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodger: Are you serious? You think the AFD comments at your RFA reflected voters' all-encompassing "obsession" with deletion policy? Come on, voters don't expect perfection, but they do expect knowledge of the basics. You think that's unreasonable? Administrators who screw up on deletion issues discourage the people who create this site's content and thus directly harm the project. AFD matters, and it matters a lot, and rightly so. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Townlake - There's obviously hyperbole and caricature in my comment above but I believe the core of my statement does hold water - AFD performance has become the overwhelming single criterion for judging RfA candidates - to such an extent that I do believe there is a risk of creating one-dimensional admins who are masters of deletion but have almost no other relevant skills. We should be careful not to make a fetish of AFD "scores". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, even if a candidate had an exemplary AfD record I would still oppose based on failures in civility. Chillum 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is only one of many criteria for review when considering an RfA candiate. It's #11 on my list of 30 boxes to tick, but those are not in any order or priority and I do trade weak items for stronger ones. AfD is not by any means the most predominant point in most RfAs. It just happens that sometimes the first opposer singles one aspect of adminship out where s/he finds the candidate is lacking and that causes a pile on from people who don't do their own research. RfA can sometimes be a bit of a hit and miss affair, for example in the recent RfA if more voters had turned out to vote, the result may well have been very different. Turn out is just as important as the actual way people vote. There aren't many true 'regular' voters on RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Roger (Dodger67), I agree with Kudpung that AfD is not always the predominant topic of discussion. If a CSD log were available, editors may have found things with which to take issue in that, too; who knows? I've seen some which focus on uncivil behaviour, some which are about inability to admit errors, edit warring, conflict of interest, lack of experience, no content creation, etc. If an RfA focuses on one weakness (especially one that can be remedied) that is a credit to the candidate, since it likely means everything else was okay. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your last sentence Anne. Genuine good faith candidates who failed must understand that, and be encouraged to try again when they have addressed any poignant issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that my RfA is probably too fresh for me to have a properly neutral informed opinion of the process as a whole. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you try again in a few months time, be sure to read WP:RFAADVICE if you had not done so already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTDT, but not a bad idea to make a note-to-self to study it again before going another round through the Inquisition, after all one should really try to avoid being burnt at the stake. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remember that RfA. I didn't realise it had been filmed. :)  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of us look at experience with deletion policy closely, and if there are no CSD/PROD logs, then AFD is the only view we have. What is said at AFD is more important than the metrics, but the metrics are not worthless. I had 1400 AFDs behind me with a solid 80/20 ratio, and over one hundred CSDs, with 90% (found to be higher later) success rate, yet I still found many opposing me, 31 to be exact, mainly due to being right 90%+ of the time on CSD being insufficient. I passed after agreeing to mentoring, in the low 80s. You shouldn't feel like you are being singled out, deletion policy concerns is a common topic at RFA and a legitimate one, as once you get the tools, it is easy to quietly undo a lot of hard work. It isn't personal, although I understand it still stings. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can play easily with the AfD % (select clear cases, wait until more editors comment and then place your !vote etc.). It is an imperfect statistics also because when you express a different opinion than is the actual outcome, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. All important points of view should be examined at an AfD, and valuable opinions don't have to be only on the "winning side". That's what matters, not someone's "percentage". So I wouldn't take the metric so seriously. What bothers me more is sloppiness in researching of a topic before an AfD or CSD nom, lack of imagination and constructivity or unwillingness to communicate and collaborate on improvement of the project. When I see more examples of sloppy CSD/PROD/AfD noms in an RfA candidate's contributions, and little willingness to help constructively, it's a worrying sign to me. Especially when they want to work in deletion areas as administrators. On a side note .. some editors see their failed AfD noms as lost personal battles which is completely wrong, but sometimes results in rancour rather than better understanding of a joint collaboration on a project where counter opinions actually contribute to better outcome for the project. But I digress. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only now I noticed that I to some extent repeat what editor Fut.Perf. wrote above. My apologies, no plagiarism intended :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you both, anyhow! :-) Deb (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it needs to be said often. Second guessing what the consensus will be is boring and often easy. What an admin has to know how to do is ascertain what consensus has been established. --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not overly concerned about percentages. What I oppose over is sufficient recent examples of egregious errors to be troubling (I no longer oppose over one bad CSD tag). Being slightly the "wrong" side of a borderline decision shouldn't bother us. Equally someone with a poor overall percentage but who has now learned and recently improved may be more ready than someone who still gets a certain CSD criteria wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think AfD activity is a very, very important metric. I my view the ability to delete articles is potentially a more damaging tool for abuse than the block or protect powers. It's not something that can be reduced to raw numbers. Defenses of articles from deletion are apt to be less frequently successful than opinions in favor of deletion. I like to look at a "win-loss" record for each of these two distinct activities. Failing to attempt to defend anything from deletion is a red flag to me. Trying and failing is no mortal sin; it is often an uphill fight and a success rate of over 50% would be pretty good. Very high "success" rates can be generated by piling on to obvious deletions, so the win-loss record there is not illuminating. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A while ago someone mentioned a tool that weighted !votes by order in order to discount pile-ons. Anyone have a pointer to it? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lesser Cartographies: You mean this one?  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Philg88:: No, it was for AfD. The mention was over a year ago at least, so I may be misremembering what I thought I read. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Fut.Perf. For candidates who are interesting in undertaking any form of deletion, I look for evidence of strong understanding of the deletion & notability criteria. Usually, that evidence is most easily found at AfD. I am not interested in percentage agreement with the close. (Low agreement is sometimes a sign of poor understanding, but some editors might choose to !vote only if they see a discussion is heading in the "wrong" direction.) Pile-on "Me too" !votes at AfD are irrelevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have only one thought here. When people are musing about the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for adminship or wondering why so few candidacies succeed, they need to look no further than this section. If someone is up to doing more studies, they should look at whether unsuccessful candidates continue to contribute at the same rate as prior to their RFA. Risker (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at that a few years ago, it may not have changed since, though for a while a few of us were reaching out to rejected candidates and that may have helped. Short answer, some stay, but quite a few go, never to return. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: Did you see a difference in the proportion who left of established editors compared to TOOSOON newbie applicants? Or was it about the same proportion of each leaving? BethNaught (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be s a complicated thing to measure, not least because the definitions of NotNow candidates have varied over time - I have seen that template used on people with thousands of edits rather than the hundreds of edits it is intended for; But also the normal retention rate varies over time and also dramatically between people with a few hundred edits and those with tens or even hundreds of thousands, and of course what matters is the increase in the attrition rate. At the time I was trawling through unsuccessful RFAs of several months earlier with a view to finding candidates to nominate, and what I found was that for a troubling proportion this was the rejection moment which prompted an immediate departure or probably accounted for them rapidly leaving afterwards. By contrast if we appoint someone as an admin it seems to greatly extend their wiki career, very few admins leave each year, hence our current situation of an admin cadre where 30% of all the admins ever appointed are currently still counted as active admins. ϢereSpielChequers 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's interesting to think about. BethNaught (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please close my RfA as I have Withdrawn my candidacy. Note that at least one !vote has been added after I posted my withdrawal statement which should be removed from the final tally. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NAC of AfD's (2nd row, 4th link) and Log Actions (4th row, 3rd link). Ansh666 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no new RfA since mine closed - is this cause for concern or is it normal to have such longish breaks of activity here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) (Much as I'm tempted to tell you that you're the last candidate we'll ever consider... ;) ) During or shortly after the Northern hemisphere's summer break period, it's normal. We've been having similar discussions in other places. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed it is a bit quiet. Perhaps people are nervous given the 6:1 failure rate over the last month. Chillum 07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken out my sixth form (high school) statistics, so forgive me if I make a mistake. So far we've had 36 weeks this year with 50 RfAs. That makes 2.78 RfAs per 2 week period on average. Modelling as a Poisson distribution (and so assuming RfAs are random and independent) the probability of any given two week period with no RfAs is approximately 6.5%. So unusual, but by no means out of the ordinary. (Numbers now fixed I think).

Please correct me if I've messed this up. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that's, as you say, assuming that RfAs are random and independent, which they may or may not be. Most university students in the States have had anywhere from one day (lucky bastards! at least they get out later than the rest of us) to three weeks of school, parents with school-age children presumably will have less time for the same reasons, and so on. It'd be interesting to go back through the years and see if there is a drop-off of activity (not just in RfAs) from late August through maybe October; a rough eyeballing of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month doesn't suggest a pattern in successful RfAs, though. (Also, slightly off-topic, is there a list of all RfAs ever in chronological order, not split up by year/success/whatever?) Ansh666 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6:1 failure rate is not indicative of anything at all other than some (not all) of the failed candidates should have been clueful enough to read all the advice pages first and then realised that they didn't stand the remotest chance. Nothing for any genuine candidates to get nervous about.

Why always assume that the rate of RfA (or any other editing for that matter) depends on the academic cycle? Especially where the number of annual RfAs is now so low that it's impossible to draw any conclusions. Not all editors are schoolies - plenty of us are right at the other end of our careers, even some adminship candidates. KudpungMobile (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are American students in fact overrepresented among RfA candidates, or the total editor population? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be difficult to analyse given the relative anonymity of editors in general. However, the academic cycle is relevant even if students are not overrepresented because school vacations coincide with the periods that are the most popular times for vacations in general. For example, in the UK pretty much every adult, with or without children, will take one or two weeks of vacation between late June and early September. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: - not just students; parents who may need to tend to children going to school, teachers, etc. The school cycle affects more than just children. Ansh666 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered a similar conversation a while back. It was 2 years ago. An RFA was withdrawn on 21 Aug 12, the next RFA closed as successful on 1 Sep 12, then the next one closed as no consensus on 9 Oct 12. It was 31 days between the close on 1 Sep and the open on 2 Oct 12. What is happening now is not usual, but it is not unheard of. GB fan 11:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, after reading some of the recent ones, prospective candidates have asked themselves why they would want to go through such a broken (not just IMO) process. Note that this is the only comment I've made since. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From your keyboard to God's inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a college class on Wikipedia where students are graded by the level of responsibility they achieve on the site. Those who become an Administrator will get an "A" for "Administrator". Those who becomes Bureaucrats, of course, will get a "B", Checkusers will get a "C", and you know what happens to those who become Developers, or go to work for the Foundation. bd2412 T 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Support. Ansh666 19:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a student, I can say that I certainly would not run for RfA at any point during the year, due to the time commitment. Especially now that I'm in college, there's simply no time for me to even edit much, let alone go through an RfA. Since much of WP's editor base is high school and college students, it would be a perfectly plausible explanation for the decrease in RfA candidates. I suspect that once students settle in and get into routines, we'll start seeing more in October. Also, I get an "A", yay! StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what I get...U for user? and what about people who only edit from IPs?! Ansh666 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those who only edit from an IP get put down as an "incomplete" until they earn some other grade. bd2412 T 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why a college class? I still think that there are so many who are ready and would run for RfA if only they could know what their chances are were in advance. I tried this, but was out of town during the discussion. I didn't get a chance to speak further on it as I was out of town. Bottom line: Totally optional, so not another hoop to jump through. Simple feedback, short and sweet. Caveat emptor. Maybe it could just have been in this format:

• Easy pass - Your AfD work and clean record will do the trick. ~~~~
• Likely - Sure. ~~~~
• Almost certain - ~~~~
• Outcome probably 100 S / 3 O - I can't see others objecting. ~~~~
• Certain - ~~~~
• Easy pass - ~~~~
• Probably 80/0 - Do it! ~~~~

I wish this proposal could be revised in a way that everyone likes. I now regret the Village pump post. I wish I had boldly created the page in Wikipedia space just to see. What's the harm in this page existing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna, doesn't seem like you got the joke. Read BD's suggestion again, carefully!

Also, yeah, that non-proposal...shot down because an inexperienced user doesn't know what "idea lab" means and took to mass-messaging admins about it, right? Maybe if the proposal was refined and formalized it would be more useful to consider. Or, just making it would work too, though I wonder what people would do... Ansh666 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An inexperienced user, yes. Considering the opposes, would you think that simply "just making it" would be in terribly bad form? It could go to MfD if it didn't work out. More potential benefits than hazards? What do we have to lose? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking the question from the above. While it is probably a matter of the time of year that RFA's have slown down....is there really a great need for new Admin?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of admin volunteers looking at RFPP and AIV during certain parts of the day sometimes gets bothersome when you've got a new editor/IP/socks cutting through articles. And WP:SPI is perpetually backlogged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs far fewer, not more admins, particularly the way we define an admin these days. The admin system needs liberating by shedding the legacy admins, that huge historical bulge appointed for life far back in the days when you had to do little more than ask in order to become an admin. Problems like those NeilN just referred to would be easily resolved by debundling what is now an enormous set of admin tools and privileges, and reassigning them to appropriate users on a needs basis. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Often times the apparent backlogs at AIV, and to a lesser extent, RFPP, are the result of borderline requests. So when there is a backlog at AIV, blatant vandalism usually gets processed quite quickly, and the backlog ends up being a bunch of people like music genre warrior #501, whose individual edits aren't obviously vandalism, but whose editing pattern is probably disruptive, and probably deserves a block. Or at RFPP where an established editor is having a dispute with an IP editor and requesting semi, but the IP editor's edits are disruptive enough that its not a clear no, (shouldn't use semi to let auto confirmed editors win edit wars, but also looks like a good faith dispute. Or a semi request for a page that is getting vandalized, just not really that frequently. Monty₈₄₅ 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]