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.

Once again that hypothetical question has been asked at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jakec (question 4). it was asked during my RFA too. I think they are just copy-pasting this question. Two points/questions: a) firstly is there any rule that discourages same questions on every RFA? b) is this question really related to his adminship assessment? I have never seen such a situation. Do we really need to ask such question? --Tito Dutta (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's a policy about it but I think questions like this don't do any good for RfAs, it seems like it's meant to pick out a reason someone qualified shouldn't be given admin rights. Being an administrator on Wikipedia is about being trusted to act responsibly, not being able to deal with every "possible" situation. I doubt there are any situations where an administrator is forced to make a decision on their own, there's nothing wrong with leaving a decision for another administrator or, if it's time sensitive, asking someone else for their opinion. A good administrator is one who has a good understanding of the policies that relate to the actions they make and knows when they lack the knowledge or experience to make one. PhantomTech (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically a user can ask the same question at any RfA they see fit. I don't see anything wrong with this question. It seems to be perfectly relevant and reasonable for an RfA to determine how a candidate will judge consensus—this is a major aspect of adminship. There's no right or wrong answer, but it definitely helps in judging a candidate to see their response to a hypothetical situation. I was pitched some absolutely ridiculous hypotheticals that didn't even make any sense at my RfA, I simply answered them the best I could, the people who could take something from them did so, the people who didn't, didn't. Swarm ^X 04:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

IMHO this is a perfectly good question, as there ought to be some way of judging how someone would use admin tools -- as past experience isn't helpful in this case -- and it's a possible situation and one to which there are more or less "right" and "wrong" answers. There are no policies on RFA questions and votes; Wikipedia:Advice for RfA voters and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions are essays, and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is an information page and does not take a firm position on these things. ekips39 (talk) 07:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an excellent question, if not for the reason many seem to assume. It highlights that strange place where supposed non-authority figures are called upon to be authority figures. GraniteSand (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no reason to object to asking the same question at multiple RfAs -- the standard questions are asked at multiple RfAs, after all! This one is an excellent question: it tests whether the candidate is clear that policies and guidelines are developed by community consensus and trump the 4-1 "majority" of group A in the question. --Stfg (talk) 09:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's actually a silly question in that it presents a false dilemma. I have a great deal of difficulty conceiving of a circumstance where a specific administrator is compelled to make that decision under those circumstances, limited only to those two options. To even produce this exact situation in reality – four voters who totally don't grasp Wikipedia policy, and one voter who completely does – you're typically dealing either with fanboys in a darker corner of Wikipedia (something related to Pokemon or cold fusion), canvassed puppets at an AfD or similar process, a deeply contentious political article, or some similar mess with significant backstory and overtones beyond the vague hypothetical framework. The question, as written, is a lose-lose—every reader is going to be able to come up with a situation where A or B might be the correct outcome. Trying to force the candidate to pick one or the other (and giving them no opportunity to consider anything else: "What is the outcome of the debate, A or B?") is a contrived, uninstructive, and counterproductive exercise.

Any admin not sure of his ground in such a situation has a plethora of options. Doing nothing is a valid option, as taking an admin action is never compulsory for any one individual. Adding one's own vote endorsing the policy-compliant view is an option. Extending the deadline to get more discussion is an option (sometimes the lone voice doesn't grasp policy as well as he thinks, and it's good to wait for confirmation). Asking for assistance at AN or elsewhere is an option. Opening an RfC or escalating the dispute to a relevant noticeboard (WP:BLPN, WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc.) is an option. The deeply-cynical but usually-correct approach is to start by figuring out why there are all these people who don't understand core Wikipedia policy attending this one discussion in the first place, and then go from there.

It actually smacks of the questions we see on a regular basis at WP:HD, WP:VP, WP:AN, and even User talk:Jimbo Wales. Someone poses a "hypothetical" scenario with names, article titles, diffs, and context omitted, and asks how admins should (have) handle(d) it. After very little exploration, it tends to become extremely clear that the poser of the question's "general" query is actually quite specific, and they're trying to trap admins into (re)litigating a particular situation based on the poser's personal slanted presentation, making a decision that applies to a specific case sight unseen. Most admins tend to be pretty quick at calling bullshit on this type of nonsense, and either identify the real underlying dispute or keep quiet until an honest question is posed. I suppose that Iaritmioawp might have intended to test whether a potential admin could recognize these sorts of traps ("The only winning move is not to play"), but I fear that's giving too much credit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the questions section should come with a reminder to the candidate that if they choose to answer a question, they are not obliged to accept the premise of the question... WJBscribe (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This was asked at my RfA too. IMO it is a dumb question, because as TenOfAllTrades correctly states, it presents a false dilemma, not a real situation. My answer was that the hypothetical discussion is not ready for closure, because consensus has not been reached - and the notion that the candidate MUST make a closure is not something that would happen in real life. I said that rather than closing, I would cast a !vote for option B, and leave it for the next person to close. The question as posed seems to call for the closer to cast a supervote in favor of option B, which is not something admins are supposed to do. But with that said, I don't think we can or should prohibit copy-pasted questions or even dumb questions from being asked. Let the candidate deal with it, or not, and see what their response reveals about them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's a false dilemma; it would make more sense to say "What do you do? [do you close the discussion? if so, how? if not, why not?]" than "A or B?", since the latter is arguably a trick question and is not fair to anyone because such tricks would not be part of the actual situation should it take place. I've never closed discussions so I can't comment on the situation itself, but I think some kind of question about consensus should be asked to determine how well the candidate understands it. Perhaps linking to a real situation would be better? ekips39 (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Linking to a real situation is a pretty good idea but only if it's still open (so they can't just say they'd do whatever the closer did) Without an active discussion it might be a good idea for the questioner to write out a scenario in their sandbox or something and have the candidate respond to that. PhantomTech (talk) 03:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually think that false premises come out all the time in debates and seeing that a potential admin recognizes them is a good sign. I've asked occasional trick / trap questions myself especially when I'm unsure about the candidate or have a particular concern. ( Hint: If I ask a question at an RfA and carefully label details of it to make it easier to talk about, question the question. ) Such questions are particular useful when someones edit history is either weak in an area or if they have had problems in the past. Direct questions sometimes might be too easy to answer right without really telling how they would respond in the real situation; if I want to give someone the benefit of a doubt I like to have a way to gauge first. For example consider the question I asked SoV; there was still concern over some past issues ( and I had opposed a previous RfA for those issues ); even with the statements that they wouldn't reoccur so I asked a question to see if they would attempt to self-justify "obvious" answers. And when they "copped out" on answering the question, I felt justified in supporting. For the question in particular I've also seen this consensus question asked before and answered before and seen good answers to it. It may be a bit of a false premise, but it's also a bit of a softball question to be honest. There are lots of very clear good responses to it if one is familiar with how consensus works. PaleAqua (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with asking the same question at an RFA. The user asking the question clearly has a personal set of criteria that the question is designed to answer. The question generally shouldn't be added to the "default questions" because the user may not wish to ask it on every candidate and the community hasn't endorsed the question for default use. Regardless of the content of the question, candidates should not be pressured to answer any questions they don't feel are appropriate or are badgering. Nakon 03:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with asking the same questions at RfA, provided they're not silly or abusive, which this isn't. I agree though that this question poses a false dilemma as no admin is ever obligated to close a discussion, and the closing result depends on what 'A' and 'B' actually are. Consider a nationally important Ivory Coast politician, who doesn't appear prominently in a UK or US Google search. Five "A"s all speak English as a second language and give vague criteria such as "he's important" or "he's nationally famous" because that's all they know, while "B" is "fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG" and other policy links with links to search results. "A" might still be the right option depending on how good B's research skills are. This is why I like to ask specific questions with specific content, which show that a candidate can apply a policy to a particular situation, there is no "right" answer and indeed a good answer can show insights I didn't think about.. Vague "what do you think about policy 'x'" questions are too likely to simply get you what you want to hear. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with someone asking the same question at multiple RfAs. But I am not a fan of trick questions either, and I think this is bordering on being a trick question.

• Questioner: If you were called upon to close debate XYZ, how would you close it?
• Candidate: Well, I'd take into account foo, bar, and baz and probably close it in favour of bleck.
• Questioner: WRONG! You shouldn't close it at all, you should put in a vote instead. !!!GOTCHA!!!

Reyk _YO! 13:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The already infamous 4xA vs 1xB question looks rather like a Rorschach test. Although the question is always the same, I've seen quite a variety of widely differing answers. The !voter is then called to make up his mind about what the answer might mean... Kraxler (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In which case, be very careful how you answer. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting side note: It's been suggested that the person who pastes this question into every RfA has a particular answer they are looking for. But in fact, as far as I can tell this editor never posts a "support" or "oppose" vote. They do not seem to care how the candidate responds; they simply post their question. Nothing wrong with that, of course - the responses may give insight to other !voters, so to that extent they are contributing to the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If copy and pasted questions, why not copy and pasted answers? It took very little effort to ask a "canned question", and the questioner ought not to expect much more from the candidate. KonveyorBelt 00:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Since no one actually notified the editor asking the questions I've done so here and told them what the consensus seems to be. Sam Walton (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that Sam. Perhaps the community should make an essay called "The answer is option C" and paste it as a note below the optional question. (joke... kinda) Mkdw^talk 21:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Deja-vu: a little history

This is not a new problem. Anyone who has been at RfA long enough will remember the notorious question on cool-down blocks. Hundreds of canned questions? No problem, there's an app for that (but no luck for those who run for ArbCom). On a more serious note, the whole point of asking questions is not to catch a luckless candidate out or to force one to suit your opinion but to assess the suitability of the candidate in question. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Iaritmioawp's question be banned?

I tried to just be Bold and make the changes but the template is protected. I recommend adding a link to Template:RfA Navigation for Oversighters and Checkusers like the Admins and Bureaucrats are. It seems like it would be very helpful to be able to see the without digging eventhough they are most the same people in both groups. 96.255.237.170 (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's a question for the group: Suppose there is someone I strongly support for adminship, and I know they are planning an RfA during a time when I will be away from the computer. Would it be acceptable for me to send my support statement ahead of time to someone I trust, and ask them to post it in my name at the appropriate time? What would the community's reaction be to such a !vote? Would it even be regarded as legitimate? --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

No, I do not think it is acceptable. You can make a statement though and ask someone to (re)post it at the talk page, or even be a conom.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I'll have to admit I wouldn't be very comfortable with that. The individual will be without electronic access, completely, for an entire week? That's quite an accomplishment. If I were in that position, I'd probably ask a trusted editor to post my thoughts, but only as a comment, or on the talk page, not as a !vote. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is it so shocking that someone would be unable to access Wikipedia for a week? People go on vacation for 1-2 weeks at a time, they go camping, hiking, etc. out in the back woods, they go to other countries (some of which block Wikipedia), they remodel their house and lose internet access for a brief time, they go on business trips, get sick or have surgery and require hospitalization, get busy with major projects at work, school, or home, have to take care of sick relatives. . . I could go on, but you get the picture. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I would also say no, but consider co-nominating. I think it would be perfectly acceptable to write a co-nomination statement in advance, perhaps in your userspace so that it can be linked and attributed, but I think that there should be a definite !voting period with a set start and end time. Ivanvector (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic idea. Actually, couldn't the co-nomination statement be created/included in the nomination, before transclusion? Then it wouldn't even have to be in userspace. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

In principle the answer is no. But I will never forget one of the nicest things that's ever been done for me on Wikipedia, which is that someone took the time to do this. So at least once, where there was a will there was a way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Brad, do you agree that back then, people seemed less prone to freaking out about things that don't really matter than they are now? I think it's kind of the opposite; this would be fine (IMHO) in principle, but in practice it would cause mass hysteria, and do more harm than good to whoever the nominee is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, memories... ;) - Mailer Diablo 00:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all; very helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem I see with the idea is that the RfA process itself is crucial to forming one's opinion about the candidate, or at least it should be. The answers to the candidate's questions are an important part of the vetting. So is our combined scrutiny of their editing. Any "pre-RfA" opinion is outdated without these pieces. Even for editors that I know and respect, it's hard to say that I am aware of their global behavior: I only see a slice of it and I think that's generally true for all of us because it takes many of us to sort though potentially tens of thousands of edits. That said, a person's endorsement does carry useful information about the candidate. All in all though, this is a rather rare situation and officially allowing votes before the debate doesn't sound wise, or at least raises too much an eyebrow. But... the closing bureaucrat is supposed to judge based on the strength of the total argument. I believe they are capable of knowing how to weigh an automatic or passed-along support (lightly). Perhaps nothing is wrong with an "automated Neutral" comment in support so long as it clearly states that it is based on pre-RfA information. Interesting question you raise. Might be a can of worms however. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've wondered about this sort of thing from a different perspective, when I've been away from WP and come back to find I missed an AfD, or seen fallout from an edit war which I could have managed and prevented, or any number of things. In the case of an RfA, since support requires a very sizeable majority, I don't think a lack of one "support" or "oppose" vote would be an issue, though a particularly perceptive and well-reasoned vote could make a difference if it persuades other people decide one way or the other. I think for RfA, as others have said, you have to be there for the debate; it's not like you can "un-RfA" someone like you can recover an article through WP:DRV or WP:REFUND. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you are both right that being part of the process is the important thing - not just casting a "vote". And I think Floquenbeam is absolutely right that anything this irregular could touch off a shitstorm that nobody needs at their RfA. So, bottom line: this was a bad idea. Forget it. (Interesting discussion though.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

An additional problem is that if you allow automated 'support' votes (and these are votes, in most of the meaningful senses of the word), then the reasoning would have to be very tortured indeed if you hoped to avoid automated or proxy 'oppose' votes. And good luck with how that turns out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a curious hypothetical (actual hypothetical). Also, if someone is interested, I'd be interested in reading a RfA oddities page, similar to WP:TFAO. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My guess would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Phaedriel 2 which had as many as ten (co-)nominators. Iaritmioawp (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone else be interested in working on a page related to RfA history/records? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records and User:NoSeptember/Admin stats? The pages weren't kept up-to-date but you don't need to start from scratch. You might talk to NoSeptember about using the data he/she has compiled as a starting point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick strawpoll, what does everybody think about simply asking "Why do you want to be an admin?" I think it's a pretty all-encompassing question, but I'm not sure what everybody thinks. I don't know, I'd just like a quick opinion on it. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

• It's pretty much what standard question 1 is asking though it is begging the question slightly as it assumes the answer to is to do a certain type of admin work, which is a pretty reasonable assumption to be honest. PaleAqua (talk) 01:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I just feel like that is asking more how they'd use the tools, not why they want them. But you make a point. Kharkiv07^Talk 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I mean, you can go ahead and just ask everyone that from now on, and if after a while consensus is that it's a useful question, someone may propose adding it to the standard list. ansh666 03:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have often seen this question asked, and in fact I had prepared an answer in case it was asked at my RFA (but it wasn't). I think it can actually be quite a good question, as it can give insight into how the person thinks about adminship - as opposed to the more technical question #1 asking which areas they would use the tools in. IMO this one is good because it is unstructured. Honest answers to this question can range from "I have always wanted to be an administrator" to "I never aspired to be an administrator, and had to be dragged here kicking and screaming." Plus of course there will be some who will avoid saying how they really feel, but will answer with generalities or what they think we want to hear. But that, too, can be enlightening. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One thing that isn't a problem with the RfA process is a shortage of questions. In fact, I partially judge a candidate on his/her willingness to address a wide range of questions about hypothetical situations that is thrown at them. I don't think an additional mandatory question should be added to this list although if any individual editor wants to ask this question at RfAs, that, of course, wouldn't be out of line. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't proposing it it was just kind of an odd question so I wanted to gauge opinions. Kharkiv07^Talk 20:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Q1 is about what; your idea is to ask about why. I think it's a good idea. Worth trying on two or three RfAs to see how it goes. --Stfg (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the current RfA candidate and the volume of questions that addressed to him...well, it is very intimidating. I wonder how many admins who got the bit 8 or 9 years ago would fare under this harsh light. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

That, I think, is the real question, and the elephant in the room at Wikipedia. As for the question, support inclusion. Jusdafax 12:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't know why the candidate wants to be a admin after the nomination statement, the acceptance (if it's not a self nom), and the first three questions, surely that's indicative of a problem? The question isn't asked explicitly anywhere, but it's implicit in the whole process. Certainly it's about the first thing I ask prospective nominees who approach me about a nomination, and that factors into my nomination statement (and indeed my decision on whether to nominate them at all). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
• Echoing the thoughts of HJ Mitchell, it should be quite clear from the nomination (whether self-nom or not) and the answerd to the three set questions why a candidate wants the tools. To ask again would be superfluous. The vast majority of requests I get to nominate people come from editors who frankly don't stanf a chance; in fact in open defiance of my advice they sometimes go ahead with a self-nom which of course fails. A lot of editors with the right qualities need the tools but don't realise the huge service they could be doing Wikipedia by having them, hence they need some heavy encouragement to step forward. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
• I found it to be an interesting question when I answered it in RFA4, but I don't think it's a generally good one. In an environment where wanting it too much is seen as a reason to oppose, I don't think that questions that go to desires instead of behaviors can work well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• If someone's real reason is unacceptable, they may just tell us what they think we want to hear. If they don't know better than to give a reason that we don't want to hear, they're probably unsuited to the role, but if they're not being honest with us we have no way of knowing. For example, someone like Wifione would not answer honestly. Also, to some extent you're not supposed to want to be an admin, as Sarek said, so there may not be a right answer. (I personally don't understand why anyone would want it -- you have to wade through poo all the time and carry on quietly as people fling it at you. And you have to have an infinite amount of free time.) ekips39❦talk 03:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We are at roughly two weeks right now. In a couple of days, we'll be able to say that we've had one successful RfA in the past two months. How long will it be before this process can be marked as historical? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Last year: September and October 2014 had no successful candidates. Only one successful in three months (Aug-Oct) and only three successful in six months (Jun - Oct). That being said, November 2014 had five successful candidates so it wasn't necessarily a trend that continued. Also in that six month window there were nine unsuccessful RFAs (most NOTNOW, but some that weren't) so the process wasn't inactive. RFA numbers have been in steady decline since 2007. Mkdw^talk 17:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

IMO, November was an outlier, probably the result of a brief period of activity spurred by concerns over two months with no promotions. Dating back to last May, there's only been one month with more than two successful RfA. I guess 15 RfA in 6 months isn't quite inactive, but it's pretty close. What is it going to take to boost activity? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing. Wikipedia is in permanent decline. WMF's grand idea to stop this is to tweak the interface. Their incompetence spells the end of the project, most especially since there is no trust fund to sustain the project after donations dry up (and they will). We will never see the numbers of RfAs that we saw 9 years ago. December 2005 saw 68 successful RfAs. That, in one month, is equivalent to the number of successful RfAs from November 2012 through now...a period of 2.5 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

English Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is that would boost activity, I oppose. The WMF is rolling in money. Abolish Arbcom, strip every advanced permission from existing admins and hire a few dozen professionals. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I don't see WP in decline. There are still oodles of content creators out there. It's just that nobody wants to run for admin because it has become a vicious, humiliating ordeal that you have to be Superman to pass. Reyk _YO! 18:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• The decline of Wikipedia has been well documented ([1][2][3], and plenty more). The issue isn't if Wikipedia is in decline. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever it is that would boost activity, I oppose. - Clear plagiarism of Groucho Marx [4]: Noyster (talk), 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of the RfAs I've seen over the past year occurred because a veteran editor (usually an admin but not always) went to an editor and suggested they try to be an admin and volunteered to nominate them. I don't see many self-nominations pass, in the past or present. So, if we need more admins, maybe senior editors and admins need to spot promising candidates and offer to support them. Passing an RfA is obviously a project that one can't achieve on ones own, it takes community support and the quality of the nominators is often taken into account when supporting or opposing a candidate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Rather than the decline of Wikipedia, I see it in its adolescence; it is 14 years old after all. Growth is not the same as maturation. We don't know how it will transition into adulthood or what it will look like as it does so. It may need different approaches than what worked so far. Wikipedia is still a wonderful thing, even if some in the trenches don't see it from where they are.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• You are certainly welcome to your opinion. My view is abstract however. The problem I see 10 years from now is the donation stream drying up. Since there is no trust fund, the lights will go off and Wikipedia will be no more. The WMF is grossly incompetent and believe the solution is improving the interface. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• WMF want to improve the interface so non-technical users will have an easier time getting involved. I think it's a worthwhile idea in principle, but they haven't shown so far that they have the technical or UI/UX chops to get it done. So to your competence point, the current WMF staff may not be a crack team, but their budget is pretty limited compared to say, Google, and you get what you pay for, especially in software development these days. However, Google itself has an interest in keeping Wikipedia working well since it provides content for its search results and therefore, in a roundabout way, billions in ad revenue. Some portion of that is going back into the WMF last I heard. So eventually there is going to be either a workable interface redesign or another strategy to improve and expand engagement -- or Wikipedia will be hard-forked. Andrevan@ 04:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, no. The interface that we've had created the largest and (arguably) the finest encyclopedia the world has ever seen. I'm reminded of a colloquialism; "If it isn't broke, fix it until it is". Could the interface be improved? Sure. Is it worth it? No. Wikipedia must transform. Wikipedia became one of the top ten websites in the world on a fraction of the budget of any other property in the top ten. How? By relying on the immense volunteer base. That is an asset unlike any the other top tens have. If Wikimedia wants to play with the top ten, they need to emphasize their unique assets. You don't do that by fiddling with the interface. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a problematic side-effect of decreased RfA activity is that administrative power has become more concentrated and therefore adminship has become more and more of a big deal. This is absolutely not what Jimbo had in mind back when the idea of administrators was invented. In order for this change, we have to start promoting more admins. What we don't need is one spurt of activity like what happened last November. That was articificial and perhaps did more harm than good, as pseudo progress can be an impedient to real progress, giving the impression that the situation is not as bad as it really is. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self-nominate me, just to keep the RfA addicts occupied? Kraxler (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please do, Kraxler. I might even support you. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(ec) @Kraxler: Are you dropping a hint here? I haven't reviewed your contributions in any depth but in 30 seconds of drive by, yes, you should seek adminship. --B (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy IRL these days, but I think it might be necessary to sacrifice myself, just to end a historical RfA drought... Kraxler (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Are you a virgin? Self-sacrifices are not allowed unless you are. ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm an indeed an RfA virgin, I'd say, never having requested adminship before. Or did you mean something else? Kraxler (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self nominate, just for the humor factor. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I should self-nominate and see how many people oppose because of WP:NOTNOW. That would be interesting. ansh666 20:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I was just thinking something similar myself. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Bloody right. Excellent people are turned down because they don't bring the right kind of shrubbery. We need more admins. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We need more admins who will go through backlogs and use the buttons. Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is massively backlogged. WP:OTRS is massively backlogged. Wikipedia:Non-free content review is massively backlogged. If anyone here is will to do that, nominate yourself and stop sitting around talking about it. There's a limit to how much anyone wants to sit there with a mouse clicking on stuff in the backlog and hence the current problem. We don't need "moar" drama - we need admins who will give a few hours here or there sitting in one of the innumerable backlogged processes and processing them. --B (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is fewer and fewer people are interested in pursuing the bit. As well documented here, it's a bone chilling gauntlet. I've said before that anyone crazy enough to stand for RfA is too crazy to be an administrator. There's also the popularity contest aspect of it. I'm friends with nobody here, and am very happy to call a spade a spade. I've been a heavy critic of ArbCom and of the WMF. Despite being right ~99% of the time on things needing admin intervention, I would never pass an RfA. I don't toe the corporate line. Oh I follow policy and guideline to a fault, but that's not the corporate line. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• It hasn't really been that bad of a gaunlet lately. Of course, nobody runs anymore. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Really? The last five full-term RfAs averaged 18 questions apiece. Taking the last five successful from April 2010, the average was 10. Granted, limited data set. But, if anything, it's more of a gauntlet now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• I am thinking more in terms of the vitriol and the negativity having been dialed back. To me, RfA doesn't seem quite so angry these days. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• American political commentator William F. Buckley once said "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University." A little extreme rhetorically, but his basic point, I believe, was that greater diversity of opinion and perspective in governance is a good thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This issue will persist until Wikipedia separates its janitorial and police functions. An easy fix, but one the voting community refuses to make. Townlake (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There are a number of administrative functions that don't require the tools but would still be useful for experienced editors to tackle. Wikipedia:Non-free content review and Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions require experienced knowledge of copyright and non-free usage, but no tools. I go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion on a regular basis, seeing if any CSDs can be saved, or at least downgraded to PROD or AfD. Non-admin closures of AfD are getting more and more popular, to the extent that I'm sure I've seen people oppose an RfA on the grounds of "not enough non-admin closures". So there is plenty of maintenance work to be done without the headache that is a week long RfA. I agree with Townlake's view that adminship is less of a "mop and bucket" than a "mortar board and cane" role - blocking and deleting pisses the bejeezus out of people, so you have to have good diplomatic skills to deal with the fallout that entails. (PS: Yes, I am thinking about it.) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• We are quite clearly doomed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• Everything ends. The question is not if, but when and how. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent." — Porky Pine.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The technical means within the software exist that we could create a new user class called "deleters", and give them delete/undelete, but nothing else, right? I know that this idea has gone over like a lead balloon before, but now that every single blessed administrative queue is so bloody backlogged, maybe it's time to rethink this idea. That way, someone who isn't sufficiently trusted to be an admin because they swore at someone five years ago could at least help out with the backlogs ... they just wouldn't be able to hit the block button. (Maybe we call the user group "janitors" so that it's not a bit you go out and collect.) The WP:Requests for Janitorship discussions could have a lower threshold for how many !votes constitute a "rough consensus" and hopefully would not get the ridiculous opposes because they haven't authored twelve featured articles. (They're volunteering to be janitors, not the Senior Editor.) --B (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unbundling would solve a couple of fundamental problems. bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Perennial proposal. Problem is that since delete/undelete must come with viewing deleted content, WMF demands that access requires a process at least as vigorous as RfA. WMF is a lot more concerned about the delete button than the block button, for better or worse. ansh666 04:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of this at WP:PEREN under the "hierarchical structures" heading is not exactly written eloquently. That aside, I agree there should be an RFA process for the janitor button separate from the RFA process for the police button. The janitor button one will be easier to pass, as it should be, even if you use the 70/80 guideposts for both forms. Wikipedia hires police officers for life with no meaningful performance reviews; this is an insane thing to do and an even more insane thing for WMF to allow, but at least we can make this situation a little saner by making the janitorial role distinct and thus getting some aspects of site maintenance improved. I'm pretty confident more janitors than police would pass. Who disagrees? Townlake (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Insane? I don't think so. As someone noted above, blocking ticks people off. If you have any sort of reconfirmation process for admins, then those who have been blocked by that admin stand a good chance of destroying the reconfirmation. Which is more insane, no review or allowing a review to be tainted by those who have been blocked? And no, it's not as easy to say "well don't let the blockees vote!". There's multiple reasons why this idea is a perennial proposal. If it was so insane not to do this, we would have easily found a way to do it already. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Townlake, well, I disagree. In my RfA experience, !voters are much more concerned about the use of the deletion button and the closure of contentious discussions than afraid to get blocked by the future admin. So, I think it would be much easier for a civil user who has stayed out of drama to get the "police" button than to get the "janitor" button after seeing their sub-par AfD stats. Thus, unbundling probably won't help much with the maintenance of the Wikipedia. The general impression is that we need more admins for janitorial tasks, I believe, I doubt that there are not enough admins to block users, if necessary. Kraxler (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an excellent point and raises the question of what is a "janitorial" power and what is a "police" power. Can a police power involve dealing with content / "property" that editors contribute? These are questions the community should be asking; classifying the customer service aspects of the site and staffing them appropriately is, to me, the make-or-break for the user experience here in the next few years. Meanwhile, the WMF is more concerned with rolling out new software to make it easier to creatively vandalize Wikipedia. The disconnect between what needs to be done and what's actually being done is pretty interesting. Townlake (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The WMF is effectively incompetent. They're very busy rearranging deck chairs on the WMF Titanic. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know about the WMF but when I read WP ANI and ARBCOM archives from 2006, 2008, 2010, etc., you see plenty of editors talking about how everything on the site has gone to shit. There never seems to be a shortage of unhappy editors talking about how everything was so much better 5, 8 or 10 years ago even though the standards for adminship, for featured articles, and everything else actually has gone up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• The decline was well underway in 2008. Peak Wikipedia was in 2007. --B (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
• Liz; yep. People do become wistful for the 'old days'. Me, honestly, not so much. My grave concern is the future. If the WMF had a real plan, we could percolate along just as we are indefinitely. But, they don't. If you were on the Titanic and the ship were going down, would you be preoccupied with what color the funnels were painted? Well, that's what the WMF is doing. Plus, they're paying outside agencies to tell them how great they are, and then bragging about how great they are. Truth stranger than fiction, but I'm not making it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

German Wikipedia

Im just pointing out that de.wikipedia.org (as of 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)) has FIFTEEN separate RfA's currently in progress: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Kandidaturen&oldid=141501510 .

I imagine that link will change over time, but if they're like us it'll at least show the closed RFA's still transcluded. —Soap— 16:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed but this is exceptional and the consequence of a call inviting to run for adminship in the Kurier, the equivalent of the Signpost at de:wp. In general, we observe a similar decline in adminship and regular participation at de:wp (see File:Entwicklung Anzahl Adminkandidaturen pro Jahr.png for a diagram with the number of admin candidacies per year at de:wp until 2014). There exist a interesting difference, though: Despite being the smaller project, de:wp has far more Wikipedians who vote in the admin candidacies. See, for example, the most recently closed admin candidacy with a participation of 419 votes (including those voting neutral). --AFBorchert (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll agree Andreas, that this is a cultural dichotomy rather than anything specifically Wikipedia related. Take the Lokal K for example. Where do we have anything similar in the big cities of the major English language regions? ?--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't know why the section above went purple so quickly.

There is often a failure to observe the notice, found on the edit screen just above the Discussion heading, saying IMPORTANT: Only registered Wikipedians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "general comments" and "discussion" sections. According to this, IPs are not allowed to vote, but also they are not supposed to insert comments below other editors' votes. In future RfAs I would like to see such insertions moved to General Comments: Noyster (talk), 09:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually that statement is contradictory. It states that IPs may not 'comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections' but can participate in the discussion section. Since the support, oppose, and neutral sections are in the discussion section that would imply to me that it's supposed to be read as 'may not vote but can reply to votes and vote discussion'. I can see how it could be read the other way though; clarification would be a good idea. Sam Walton (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It may make sense to drop one of "General comments" or "Discussion" and structure the latter sections like this:

 Candidate details
 Links
 Edit counts [collapsed]
 Discussion [or "General comments"]
 [IPs may participate]
 Voting
 [IPs may not participate]
 Support
 Oppose
 Neutral

: Noyster (talk), 10:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• IMO it would make sense to keep them off RfA altogether. The fact that they are allowed is an anachronism dating back to times when it was an oversight on the part of the Wiki software creators. Other later created Wikipedias don't let unregistered or even new users anywhere near their RfA process.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

  Anyone can edit. (Which appears to be an evil WP:XNR; who wants to nom that for a WP:RFD?) --Izno (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I care less about them making comments and more about them posing questions which have seen rather pointy to me. Asking 15-20 multipart questions of the candidate is onerous and while some are valid questions, others are "no win" questions where any answer can be held against the candidate. If IPs want to give their 2 cents, that's fine by me but I don't think they should be grilling candidates when they have no permanent identification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• Its an easy enough problem to fix. Just permanently semi-protect the RFA's so only registered users can edit there. I agree completely with arguments that IP's should be allowed to edit and I generally think IPs should be treated better, but I really cannot see a reason why an IP or even a brand new user should be allowed to vote at RFA. Admins should be experienced members of the community and if you haven't been around to witness their conduct and make a useful suggestion then there is no reason to comment. If they do know enough to ask a valid question then they are probably evading scrutiny. There are more than enough things to do that they should be able to find work outside the RFA's. Giraffasaurus (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I think they're mostly doing it for anonymity's sake. Some are probably registered users who don't want to face the negative scrutiny that would come to them if they posted using their main account. —Soap— 01:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment given what I have seen in some recently. Opposer's tend to get badgered and bullied into changing from Oppose to Support. So in some cases its better to just comment and bring the concern or problem to light and leave it at that than to associate ones name and reputation to the RFA. Giraffasaurus (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

• I cannot remember seeing IPs ask questions prior to the current RfA and the most recent RfA. In my opinion those two RfAs demonstrate why IPs should not be able to ask questions. In the current RfA there are three questions from IPs - numbers 4, 7, and 15. Question #15 is not a question, it is merely badgering about the answer to #7, making it clear that at least those two IPs are the same person. Question #4 refers back sarcastically to a similar question asked at the previous RfA, making it likely that it is the same person. At that last RfA, four questions were from IPs, and at least two of them were pointy and argumentative. My suspicion is that this sudden recent burst of IP activity is all likely coming from one troll, who has decided that it is fun to disrupt RfAs. I personally don't see why the community (or the candidate) should have to put up with this. --MelanieN (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Disruptive questions are a problem, whether or not they come from IPs. Good questions are good, whether or not they come from IPs. So if the problem is disruptive questions, why ignore the problem and try to address something else? WilyD 14:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • It's pretty evident from the ISPs for those three that they are all reiterations of the "Best known for" IP user, who is not a fan of Ritchie333's. I would block, but since I'm one of the co-nominators it would look rather dodgy if I started blocking questioners; perhaps another admin would like to investigate and act as they see fit... Yunshui ^雲_水 14:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
      • What good is blocking when they seem to have an unlimited supply of IP addresses? If it is determined that these three different addresses are all the same person, and that they are being disruptive, the only solution is semiprotection. --MelanieN (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
        • The other alternative is simply to WP:DENY them. Someone running RFA is always eligible to ignore a question (and presumably to explain why somewhere or another). Or ((hat)) can be applied. There are options other than semi-protecting a page that either rely on social constructions or non-Mediawiki technical constructions that can take care of the problem. Someone can make a comment on the talk page or in the context of those questions that the bureau should take into account how badgery the question is. (All of the above are standard practices here and elsewhere….) --Izno (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
  • @MelanieN: I think it's unlikely they are the same person. At Opabinia's RFA the IPs geolocated to China (two different cities) and the US (also two cities). In the present RFA, the IPs all geolocate to South America: two to Santiago and one to Buenos Aires. --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the information. So it's just a coincidence that IPs are suddenly commenting in droves at the two most recent RfAs - after a grand total of one IP question was asked during the first four months of this year? I suppose coincidences do happen. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Or someone is using a proxy, considering the discussion above. ansh666 00:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There's a proposal to merge Template:Rfap with Template:Rfaf, which might interest readers of this page. Alakzi (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

((Rfah)) has also been nominated for merge. --TL22 (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I have missed a couple of RFA's lately that I would have liked to have commented on. My fault, because I sometimes take it off my watchlist. Would it be possible, (or useful) to create a reminderbot for those interested in RFA voting who may be missing a run, or to put it up as a general banner on the mainpage, or as a mass messaging subject for those interested who may miss a run? It may increase participation as a side effect, which would probably be good. Colleagues wishing to be reminded could sign up to a bot for instance. I certainly would. Regards, Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You could put ((User:TParis/RfX_Report)) on your userpage or talk page. –xeno^talk 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! A classic case of looking but not seeing. The RfA status table is everywhere. Trout at will. Irondome (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Have the ethical implications of watchlisting RfAs ever been debated? - Pointillist (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you expand on that extremely interesting point? What do you see as the negative and positive ethical implications of watchlisting RfAs? Irondome (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• I presume you mean watchlisting an RfA that does not yet exist. I don't see how that is an ethical problem. If you interact with someone here and it becomes painfully obvious they are ill suited to becoming an administrator, it would be a good thing to watchlist their RfA so that when it comes up you can voice your opinion. Contrastingly, if you find someone to be particularly well suited to being an administrator, you can do the opposite. I see no issue with this. Tangentially; I would like to see a feature where you could record notes for yourself, not publicly viewable, indicating why you watchlisted something. I have over 1700 things on my watchlist, and much of it I do not remember why. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering whether there is any existing discussion or essay that might help me organize my thoughts about watchlisting. Hammersoft's editor-specific approach is one scenario to consider. More broadly, is it desirable that editors who enjoy the dramah of RfA get automatically notified whenever one starts, even if they have no prior connection with the candidate? And then there is the question whether watchlisting is in general a good thing. I used to clear my entire watchlist at least once a year to avoid feeling that I "own" my prior edits (unfortunately I contribute so little nowadays that's almost irrelevant). Are long-standing editors who permanently watchlist articles a significant bar to motivating new editors, or are they the only thing standing between us and chaos? Without watchlisting, Wikipedia would probably have very different models for onboarding new editors and preventing vandalism. Has this been debated anywhere? - Pointillist (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• To the general point of RfAs; no notification system is needed. The WP:RFA mainpage can be watchlisted, as it changes (almost) only when there is a new nomination. That counts as a notification system so long as you check your watchlist periodically. As to the other points, this drifts off topic from RfA so I'll comment only briefly; Wikipedia editorship in general is in decline and has been for some time now. There are many pages (an administrator can tell you how many) that are not watched at all, and likely a much larger swath that are notionally watched but in practice not watched (dormant accounts). Within this context, any watching seems positive. The model of dependency on editors who know a subject and are watching has and is failing. I see things change in recent changes, and it doesn't look like vandalism at first pass. I'd have to research to find out if it is wrong information or not, or if the edit is fixing wrong information. If I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, that could take some time. Many times, I just don't bother; takes too long. I think the quantity of subtle vandalism is going up, and the ability to fight it is going down. As editorship declines, the quality of the project declines. Ok, I'm rambling too much :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that the lack of watchers is probably a bigger issue than ownership issues. The key problem is that without sufficient participants in a discussion to establish consensus, a disagreement between editors cannot get resolved. Accordingly, there is a disincentive to follow guidelines and not edit war, because the page remains stuck with the content of whoever edited it last. There is also a disincentive to edit less popular articles (which are precisely those that need more help), since disagreements on them cannot get easily resolved. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. This is a reality that the Foundation refuses to address. It's been a problem for quite some time now, and one that continues to get worse. The Foundation just sticks their collective heads in the sand and hope the problem goes away. For several years now they've hoped that someday real soon now editorship will go back up. It's idiocy, but that's what they do. They need to develop content management models that do not depend upon even static editorship (much less increasing editorship, which will never happen), but do work within a declining editorship environment. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are all excellent points. Looking back at the early history of Wikipedia the idea that "anyone can edit" didn't actually necessitate contributor anonymity—that was a gamble that there'd be sufficient good-faith volunteers to fix vandalism and reverse ill-informed edits. Over the years, that reservoir of goodwill has been depleted. Imagine watchlists don't exist in Wikipedia 2.0, or they exist but few editors use them, what other mechanisms might be feasible? - Pointillist (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• A development branch of Wikipedia (what we currently edit), a branch to incubate articles towards release, and a release branch. The release branch would not be editable by anyone. The development branch would be editable by anyone. The incubation branch would be editable only by very long established editors, and there role would be limited to fixing known errors prior to release. Allow feedback mechanisms on release branch so the general public can place requests for updates, note changes that need to be made, etc. The longer we wait to do something vaguely akin to this, the more damage the project incurs from declining editorship, the more difficult it will be to get to a stable release. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fascinating suggestion. Have you canvassed it elsewhere? - Pointillist (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Nope. Please feel free to do so. Though, I strongly expect such an idea will get shot down before it ever comes anywhere near flight. The people in authority here are very, very reluctant to change anything. I sometimes think I could show them the wheel and note what a great invention it is, and they would criticize it as difficult to implement, too costly, not well suited to modern needs, etc. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually a similar schemes/ideas were already discussed and partially declined and in particular the WMF didn't seem to like it that much. See Wikipedia:Flagged revisions including variations of it which probably was the most comprehensive effort so far.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I like Hammersoft's wheel analogy but the fly in the ointment is the WMF, not the volunteer commubity. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

A long discussion relevant to RfA is winding down now at WP:AN#On the brink of collapse. I offered to help with one job here, but I didn't get any response there, and if I put any energy at all into fixing the problem, then I'll probably have to give up my job as a serial closer. My thinking is: when someone says "I'd be an admin if only ...", people sometimes discount that, for various reasons. But if we survey the people who actually did become admins and ask them why they chose not to run, say, three months sooner than they did, it becomes harder to discount their feedback ... we did, after all, promote them, so if we weren't taking advantage of their services sooner, that might give some insight into why otherwise qualified people aren't running. Btw, we're now less than a week from the end of the month, so we know that as of June 1, only 5 first-time admins will have been promoted this year. That puts us on track to promote 12 for the year. Everyone knows that, for a variety of reasons, most admins aren't still grinding out a lot of admin work years after their initial promotion, so that figure of 12 represents some much smaller number of projected long-term heavy-duty admins that Wikipedia might pick up as a result of this year's promotions ... say, 3 or 4, max. Clearly there's something going on that's very different from the way things worked in our first decade, and I hope someone will generate some useful data, figure out what's going on, and file an RfC that deals with whatever the actual problems are. - Dank (push to talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I would run, however it is highly unlikely that I would pass considering my first two attempts were complete failures. Plus, I'm nowhere near as active as some would like, although I never saw how inactivity correlated with poor admin decisions. I think, though I don't have any statistics for it, that wikipedia is not as popular as it was 4/5 years ago. That, and how RfA has a reputation for being brutal, stopping potential applicants. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

One big problem that I personally have encountered is that there are several non-admins that I believe are suitable for adminship and would offer to nominate, but I won't, as I don't want to see them get destroyed at RfA and leave, which would deprive us of their very useful service. So the problem isn't just with potential candidates not wanting to run, but potential nominators not wanting to nominate for the fear that the nominee will get their shit wrecked. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this kind of argument is wearing rather thin nowadays. Whether we at WP:RFA2011 actually launched any formal proposals for change or not it certainly sent the right message to those who were determined to disrupt RfA and/or turn it into a drama fest; we're also more active now at telling the trolls where to go with their votes. I think it's more a case that some would-be nominators are afraid of losing face if their nominee fails to get the mop. However, with very few exceptions RfA does what it says on the tin.

It's also interesting to note - something that WereSpielChequers might not yet have noticed - that participation in discussions here at WT:RfA has dropped in direct proportions year on year to the drop in promotions. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kudpung here, I'm just not seeing this broken soul destroying process that RfA keeps being referred to anymore. Sure it has a few issues here and there but when was the last time you say a drama filled RfA where a candidate who was good enough didn't receive the tools? Of the RfAs this year candidates have either received the tools or obviously not been qualified, of the two users who had debated RfAs one is still editing as strongly as before their RfA and though the other has dipped that's more likely because they're a student. I think the time of horrific RfAs has passed and I would encourage you to nominate a user if you think they would make good use of the tools. Sam Walton (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also should we be weary of those who want the mop? I don't know how Admin nomination process works, but those seeking power of the mop, might not always be the ones who are best in utilizing it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no Admin nomination process. What there is, is completely informal. It's assumed that those who nominate a candidate will have done their homework. Most candidates with a strong nomination from a respected user will pass, though there have been a few surprising exceptions. Those who are seeking power of the mop are generally self-noms and they soon get caught out by the community, although that does not mean to say by any means that all self noms have a dubious agenda. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If someone was seriously "seeking the power" they would get most of the boxes checked and then find a respected user to give them that strong nomination. Anyone with sufficient competence and self discipline to pull it off would probably end up making a good admin anyway. Monty₈₄₅ 14:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I find saying there is no point in trying a poor substitute for trying.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The majority of new RfA candidates are unknown to me prior to their candidacy. I don't know how typical that is but my editing largely revolves around the technical maintaince and upkeep of the project rather that the content curation which may explain why. I'm curious how other editors, admins in particular, go about forming an educated opinion about the candidate and roughly how much time you typically are willing to invest in such a situation. I have my own way, I can mention later. If other people have wondered about this too, it might be worthwhile to craft a page with guidance about how to efficiently form a good opinion on candidates. Jason Quinn (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I would look at the logs of the user to see if they have tried out and have some familiarity with features like uploading, moving, patrolling. Next I would look at deleted content to see successful nominations for deletion. However I would come down heavily on deletion nominations, that get deleted and then make a comeback. (bluelinked in deleted list). This should also show if the user uploads copyright violations. Also I may look at the last few hundred contributions to see if they are automated or significant. If automated, may as well divide the contribution number by 10, especially if they are from huggle. I expect to see at least one article created. Also the talk page for the user is important, to see what people complain about and also history to see if the user is hiding stuff. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Blue links in a list of deleted items may be redirects. But otherwise, you describe the routine proceedings to check the "track record" quite well, Graeme. One should also mention the AfD stats (there is a link in the RfA tool box) which is something that's viewed by many !voters, and causes at times controversy as to how evaluate them.

I'm a bit surprised that if an editor flags an article for CSD on the basis of, for example, being a blatant copyvio or an attack page, and then it later gets recreated as a legitimate article, that you'd hold it against them. Similarly, what about articles that are deleted for WP:TOOSOON, but later get created when significant coverage exists? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking if a user is totally unknown to me I ignore the RFA and don't comment. If I've seen them around and/or interacted with them I base my !vote largely on my knowledge of them and their answers to the questions. I do try to look at a selection of random diffs from their edit history, but I don't dig too deeply. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Like you, I usually !vote only if I know the person, or if the vote count is in the "yellow" range. If the outcome is obvious I usually don't pile on unless I have previous experience with them. In the cases where I do decide to !vote, I look for a clean block log and a goodly number of contributions (I would hesitate to support anyone under 10,000). I like to see significant content creation, although I will make exceptions if the person has focused on a particular Wikipedia function and intends to work mainly in that area. I look for helpful AfD contributions, or helpful work in whatever they have identified as their specialty. I look at their answers to questions and people's comments at the RfA, particularly to see if the opposes seem valid. I look for evidence that they have a calm and civil demeanor, that is important to me. If I have a pre-inclination, it is to support. We need admins, and they don't have to be perfect. Oh, and I do take into account who the nominators are; if they are nominated by highly respected admins who have a reputation for vetting their nominees thoroughly, that inclines me toward "support". --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, I would not favor drawing up a "guidance page" for how to judge candidates. IMO one of the strengths of the system is that different people evaluate the candidate in different ways. --MelanieN (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

With exception of Wikibreaks and the rare times when I might have missed one that was closed early or I wasn't near an Internet connection for over 7 days, I have systematically voted on every RfA over the past 5 years. My criteria are known to be among the most stringent but they are flexible and on that page I already say a lot on what I think about RfA voting in general (It was the basis for my launching of the WP:RFA2011 project). Depending on who the candidate is and who the nominator(s) are, I spend between 20 minutes and one day researching for my vote.

Like MelanieN, I do not feel it would be useful or even appropriate to draw up a guide on how to judge candidates. If it were, I would have written it but all I wrote was WP:Advice for RfA voters which is intended to address voter behaviour, particularly of new users.

A fairly complete list of the criteria of regular RfA voters is linked at the bottom of WP:Advice for RfA candidates. I think it's good that we all have different criteria, but the RfA process is marred by the high number of votes that come from one-off or drive-by participants, especially the fan/vengeance voters, obvious trolls, and those who just don't have a clue what adminship and RfA is all about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I go back and read their interactions with other editors, especially newer ones that don't understand policy well. That generally tells me everything I need to know about their understanding of policy and their manner of dealing with people, the latter being more important because the former is more easily learned. Chuy1530 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The nomination statements and early pile-on support votes already compose most of my research on a candidate's merits, sometimes even in a pretentious way. I do some further research on their positive traits, then I go critical (not necessarily on negative traits, just not focusing on positive traits anymore). Then, I come up with my final decision. Esquivalience ^t 20:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

When did this become OK? I have redacted it. I didn't know that it is appropriate for someone with the mop to make a negative statement of myself for making a non-support statement. When did this become appropriate?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

i'd say you just proved mastcell's point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Since when is saying that a statement says a lot about a person a negative statement? It did say a lot about you, the redaction even more. Chillum 06:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It is an argument against the editor, and not the edit, which based on the image on Spartaz's userpage is not on the high order on "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement". My point is the subject of the AfD by their edit count does a great deal of defending certain articles, but doesn't do a great deal of defending other articles (even if they occasionally do so (just not nearly as often)). To say this is why I am neutral, but not opposed, is my opinion.

I do not see why every oppose or neutral opinion must be challenged. It would not be appropriate, or it appears not to be the norm, for there to be a strong force of editors attempting to rebut even a few support opinions, then why must there be a strong effort to go after those editors with neutral or oppose opinions.

Perhaps it would be better than no rebut attempt occur at all. And let the opinions stand on their own. Unless the idea is make editors think they have made a poor judgement, or that they should not be attempting to contribute to the project.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I've seen rebuttals for both opposers and supporters. It largely depends whether you fall into the minority of public opinion or not. Additionally, I've seen plenty of editors change their position based upon the subsequent discussion. Further, when "challenges" are made, a lot of people including myself, follow those discussions and in some cases reformulate their position on the candidate. When the community is asked to review an editors body of work to determine if there is a consensus of trust, especially for editors with years of editing history, then not everything can be captured or properly portrayed. Since candidates are largely discouraged from "clarifying" situations that have caused editors to oppose, and the very process of consensus usually requires consensus, then I think there needs to be a mechanism in place. Mkdw^talk 07:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The "neutral" comment at the RfA was challenged because it expressed a terrible idea: that an editor cannot be assumed trustworthy of the admin tools merely based on their set of favorite articles to edit. This by itself shows very poor judgment but, worse still, the comment obviously had a political bias and was even suggestive of bigotry. It was so confoundedly bad —and violates the free, open, and neutral spirit of Wikipedia so egregiously—that that Abecedare assumed it must have just been poorly worded and therefore offered a gesture of good faith by asking for clarification. Another editor, MastCell, merely took the meaning of the comment at face value and responded by saying the comment "says a lot about RightCowLeftCoast" while seconded the call for clarification. This in no way qualifies as a personal attack under any reasonable definition. Taking such offense that RightCowLeftCoast redacted it from the record shows these things: very thin skin, and unusual quickness to censure others' views and therefore more poor judgment. And since it was confirmed that the quality of the edits were not being questioned ("the edits are fine"), it turns out that MastCell was right. By the way, RightCowLeftCoast, I looked into the edits by the candidate at Talk:Barack Obama. They fall somewhere around #50 in rank by number of edits on that page and a large number of the edits (only 86) are just reversions of vandalism; so whatever implied accusation you were making with "heavily involved" is tenuous too. I am a little bit stunned that you feel like you were being personally attacked after making your comment. You are way off base here and I think you should reflect on it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Jason said it better than I could have, so I'll simply endorse his post. For the record, RightCowLeftCoast removed my comment—which was obviously not a "personal attack"—in violation of the relevant policy. He didn't bother to notify me of the removal, nor of his decision to discuss my fitness for adminship here, which likewise breaches site etiquette and basic common courtesy. (I became aware of this discussion when Jason linked my username above). I don't want to belabor the point any further, since it's a distraction from NeilN's RfA, but this is very poor behavior and shows poor judgement on multiple levels. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry if MastCell is of the opinion that this is a personal attack, but it is as much a question about their statement as their statement was a question about my statement. Apparently I cannot withhold support of someone at an RfA based on the statements above.

By heavily involved it is due to the fact that the editor who is the subject of the RfA had a large number (based on their edit counts, and not the counts of the page total) of talk page edits on those particular pages.

I sincerely hope that "free, open, and neutral" also means tolerating opinions that a specific editor may not agree with; yet my reasoning for not opposing, and not supporting was called out, and my reasoning questioned. I can be neutral about potential admins while not being opposed to them, unless we're saying that neutral is no longer a valid opinion to hold; if it is, then this needs to be stated clearly.

I am accused of bigotry by Jason Quinn. How am I bigoted if I am neutral, but not opposed. It is a tolerant view IMHO. When did support/acceptance=non-bigotry? Are we all suppose to only think a certain way, or remain silent if our opinions do not agree with the majority. If it is, that does not make it "free, open, and neutral".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

When replying to comments, please read them first. Johnuniq (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If you list a fellow editors most frequently edited articles you can sometimes come to interesting but not necessarily true conclusions as to their interests and biases. Some of my most frequently edited articles are ones where I cleaned up old vandalism, watchlisted it and then found myself dealing with many subsequent vandalisms, without actually giving two hoots about the subject. At RFA it is very useful if an editor goes through the candidate's edits and either says "Support, makes some nicely neutral edits on controversial subjects such as x and y" or "early edits to x and y were a bit POV, but in the last few months the candidate seems to have mastered NPOV" or "Oppose, diff1, 2, and 3 are recent POV edits". !voting based on the subject someone edits without checking to see whether the actual edits are good or bad is IMHO unhelpful to the RFA process. I'm reminded of people who vote based on various statistical measures such as edit count or percentage of automated edits, no doubt that sort of !vote takes less time than actually checking a proportion of the candidate's edits; But I fear it makes RFA a less effective way to sort the suitable candidates from the unsuitable ones. ϢereSpielChequers 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey--maybe one of you kind souls can fix poor old Ritchie333's nomination. Some red flag came up saying "Please substitute the parser function immediately" but I don't know what that means, and there was no "subst" with brackets around to remove. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• I may have fixed it but I'm not sure. Please check whether I did it correctly--thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I do wish someone would take a look at the instructions that appear when you are about to transclude an RfA nomination to the page. In my case, I read an instruction as saying "first transclude, then change the date to a week from today" - and the result was that my RfA transcluded with a label saying that closure was imminent, since I hadn't changed the date. Now it sounds as if something weird happened with Ritchie's transclusion also. I don't even know where a person can look to find those instructions - they appear when you are in the act of transcluding. But if somebody techie enough to find them could take a look at them, I think it would be a good idea. This is a more widespread problem than you might think. While I was learning how to wield the mop, I found that a lot of instructions - for example at New Admin School - were outdated. I actually corrected a couple of them myself, even though I was the greenest admin on the block. --MelanieN (talk) 04:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on your description, you are describing the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate yourself ("Once you have submitted the RfA, go to the top of the page and edit the end date to reflect 7 days AFTER the day you submitted it, by following the directions in the header source code."). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that sounds like the instructions. I believe they are mistaken. Shouldn't they say before submitting the RfA? I know that I followed those instructions and wound up listed on the RfA page as "closure imminent ". One of my nominators immediately fixed it but I felt silly. MelanieN alt (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
        • I feel like those directions in the header source code should be somewhere other than the header source code as well, so that people know what to do beforehand without having to dig it out. ansh666 21:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Please read my description of the problems I had with this process. The instructions have been improved a bit since then, but if the understanding of how to set up timing mechanisms is something that editors should know, shouldn't there be WP:Timers or maybe a section in Wikipedia:Transclusion explaining it? Also, after reading the warning about dire consequences of making any errors at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, a testing page for practising the transclusion of an RfA without the stress of expected perfection on the first try would be helpful. After all, it's not necessary to be an admin onself to nominate someone.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
            • I've not tried this myself but it sounds like a process that could use some clerking to help keep it straight. Would the clerks have to be admins too? If not, the position might be a good one for aspiring admins who could use it to demonstrate competence in managing such complexity. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
              • The problem is that transcluding the nomination is supposed to be a kind of demonstration that the prospective nominee knows what they are doing, so there doesn't appear to be a role for a clerk in the process. (Generally the nominee is expected to transclude the nomination themselves; Anne was unusually nice in doing it for her nominee.) The paragraph Anne linked to above says "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination. A number of RfA contributors look askance at nominees who do not follow the instructions properly. Administrators are expected to read and follow policies. The inability to do this here is a bad sign. If something is unclear, then ask the person who nominated you, put a message on the discussion page of WP:RFA, or ask a user who has nominated someone else. Avoid mistakes rather than making them and then fixing them." That has an ironic ring to it, because the nomination process does NOT have "clear instructions", per the problems described here by numerous competent admins. I really think someone needs to look at those instructions and fix them. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
                • I'm not sure what position you are referring to. Do you mean the test page? If so, it would just be a spot where people could try transcluding blank RfAs and then deleting them again. The only management might be a bot that regularly reset the page to a default state in case it was left in disarray by the testers. Or do you mean someone who transcludes RfAs for others? About demonstrating competence: In my opinion, it is more important that admins be sensible and familiar with policies than that they be technical experts. An admin with little technical knowledge who knows enough to avoid areas out of his/her skill level or ask for help when appropriate, and is good at (for example) closing discussions based on policy and resolving disputes, is going to be just as beneficial to the encyclopedia as a technical wizard.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
                  • Count me in the list of technically competent people who thought the instructions were unnecessarily convoluted. It seems to be a case of plain old bad design; I don't see a way to follow the instructions as written and not generate the big red error. The instructions say to transclude first and then start the timer, and you can't do both at once, so you'll have a giant YOU JUST SCREWED EVERYTHING UP AND EVERYONE IS LAUGHING AT HOW DUMB YOU ARE staring at you until you make the second edit. Which, of course, you couldn't have previewed or figured out in advance unless you closely inspected Template:RfA. Getting this right on the first try is about as relevant to routine admin tasks as a physics exam is to a baseball game. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It's an old cliche, but "me too". I'd always got the impression that RfA transclusions were insanely complex affairs and akin to a puzzle to test somebody's admin abilities. In actual fact, they're the same as creating an AfD or DYK nomination by hand, but with a small additional time-dependent template substitution thrown in. I'm sure I could have done it, but as everyone else has said, I did not want to run the risk of ballsing it up and taking 3-4 edits (all with a summary of "fix" or "fix again" or "this should work") because I thought there would be a peanut gallery pouncing on it, saying "Oppose - can't even transclude his own RfA properly. Not fit for purpose". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this: the complexity of transcluding an RfA may be helping to prevent trolls and other clearly unsuitable candidates from wasting our (and their) time - although some still manage it, while I lean towards the opinion that transclusion, particularly of templates, is such an everyday routine process for admins that they should know how to do it (anyone tried to manually start or close an AfD, just for example?). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I remember the days when there were no scripts for starting and closing AfDs, it were all fields round here, you could leave your front door open, and you could buy fish and chips for the whole family and still have change from £5. To be honest though, it wasn't difficult, just tedious. Black Kite (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I remember the days when the fish&chip van used to come onto our estate and I could get a portion of chips for a tanner: "Six o' chips please!" There weren't so many chippies and take-aways in those days, just as I'm sure the number of AfDs to close has increased dramatically. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, editors tranclude templates and other page elements all the time. However, the RfA tranclusion is more complicated because of the clock-setting aspect, which I have never had to use before or since, and seems to have tripped up a lot of people who went on to become competent admins. There is no explanation of this tricky bit WP:Transclusion, and a candidate or nominator will likely think they are ready for the transclusion if they understand that page. It's like a trick question on an exam so that no one will get a perfect grade. Also, Kudpung, you seem to be saying that in order to save the nuisance of dealing with truly unsuitable candidates, we should prevent candidates whose strength is in people-related areas from applying. But we need more admins willing to close discussions and resolve disputes.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually I also find tone of that whole cited section above somewhat irritating. It probably turns potential candidates (included well suited ones) away rather than attracting him. As long as we have more than enough admins that might not matter in practice that much and just be a minor irritation but if we're ever in need fr admins that is certainly not helping.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Anne, No one, but absolutely no one on en.Wiki is more acutely aware of the problems surrounding adminship and its RfA than I am. I'm in my 5th year of looking for solutions and if the complex transclusion is keeping away trolls and idiots it's doing an excellent job. Problem is too many of those simpletons are aparently very capable indeed of transluding their crap RfAs. Thus, IMHO, anyone with the minimum intelligence to be an admin and all it entails, should not find it difficult to transclude thair own RfA. However, because it's a kind of sport to take people's comments out of context, I will hasten to add that I wouldn't dream of opposing a candidate just because their nominator or someobe else transcluded the RfA. At the moment there are more important issues at stake such as closing down AfC once and for all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

What kind of trolls is supposed to keep away? I mean is or was their any issue with actual troll rfas? Was the page swamped with pseudo rfas of people who didn't be admins or who were clearly unsuited?--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, check out some RfAs and you'll soon see, although many of them get deleted as nonsense before the voting starts. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Where do i find them? The only thing I've looked at is Wikipedia:Unsuccessful_adminship_candidacies_(Chronological) which doesn't look that bad.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I get the idea, but I'm not really sold on this argument. Relative to the time wasted by trolls and clueless newbies creating no-hoper articles, the occasional no-hoper RfA is a drop in the bucket. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That was my impression so far (provided i looked at the correct data) hence my posting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem with saying that is that the process of transclusion itself, which is often what keeps away inexperienced editors, is not what we're talking about here. It's the timer clock thingy (I don't know how it works either, given my obvious lack of having transcluded an RfA), which to my knowledge is not used anywhere on this project other than here at RfA. I don't see how it's helpful in any way to bury it that deep. The people who aren't serious or experienced enough aren't typically going to read or comprehend the instructions anyways. ansh666 10:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

All in all, I found my RfA to be a far better experience than I had ever assumed it would be when you cross compare it against the examples in Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Perhaps it's because the community has decided that opposition needs well found and reasoned arguments, perhaps it's because everyone else had higher expectations of my abilities than I do, perhaps it's because I ignored all vote comments (all of which, from all sides, were fair comment) .... or perhaps it's a mix of all of these and more. Whatever the case, I can only say from recent events that it seems that RfA is less of a big deal than it once might have been. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

It was because you were a top quality candidate, simple as. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the real question there is, what took you so long? ;) Really - if you take out Sarek and me as oddball cases, all the recent successful candidates were obviously qualified ages before they actually ran. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Opabinia, what happened was, a couple of people dragged me to RfA kicking and screaming, so I returned the favor by dragging Ritchie to RfA kicking and screaming. And now Ritchie and I have the next target in our sites... --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I changed the text of ((RfA/warn)) to make it slightly less scary, but this whole thing is set up to use a template that uses a template that uses a template that uses a template, and it's too far down the rabbit hole for me to do any more. I think it's ((substchecktop)) that makes it SCREAM AT YOU IN BIG RED LETTERS. But I'm not sure, and I think that template is used in more places than RFA, so I'm not going to screw with it.

In an attempt to automate this, with intricate template switches for every conceivable mistake, we've guaranteed that people are going to make those mistakes; it's an order of magnitude harder than if people just copied the format from an old RFA. I'm not going to get drawn into a long bikeshed conversation at WT:RFA - that way lies madness - but if you want my advice, delete about 95% of the templates used in this process, have more clearly formatted in-line comments, and make it more manual. It would be easier, quicker, and cleaner. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Kudpung, I'm all for keeping trolls and idiots away from RfA, as I'm sure we all are. What we are discussing here is a much simpler issue: a flaw in the transclusion process or its instructions, such that the initial attempt at transclusion does not display properly because it shows the wrong time. That flaw tripped me up; it or a similar flaw caused problems for Ritchie and Anne and probably others. We all got mopped anyhow, it wasn't a fatal flaw, but it shouldn't be there. All I'm asking for is instructions that, when followed, produce a clean transclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but anyone who was seemingly deserving of running for RFA, in my experience, hasn't had the difficulty of transcluding their RFA against them. I'm by no means an expert at templates and transclusion, but I'm fairly competent. On both of our RFAs, other editors lent a helping hand fixing a few little things here and there without any consequence to the process. The only times I've seem a lack of technical knowledge held against a candidate has been when they seemingly lacked experience and the RFA was only one of many examples. Mkdw^talk 17:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The occasional no-hoper RfA is not a 'drop in the bucket' and I still contend that the complexity of RfA transclusion has the useful side effect of keeping the trolls at bay. However, at the end of the day it's a technical problem, rather than a policy issue that needs a grand debate, so the obvious solution is for someone with the time on their hands and the competence to sit down and completely rescript the whole RfA transclusion process. So instead of us all talking about it and getting nowhere (which is a common ailment of WP management), just someone please just do it or find someone who can. And then we can move on. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• I was thinking about something like this: [5] (should open in edit window, so you can see the inline comments). Obviously could use some tweaking, but the general idea is get away from complicated nested templates and pre-formatted front matter (and resulting complicated instructions), and just let people fill in the blanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Floquenbeam, that looks like exactly the kind of improvement I was looking for. I vote to implement it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I just transcluded my own admin nomination yesterday and yes, the instructions were unclear enough that I had to go back to past nominations and look at diffs. It's not that complex, but it's really something you want to get perfect the first time, lest people start questioning how carefully you edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Neil. So here's another recent candidate - fully qualified to be an admin and coasting to an easy confirmation - who says the instructions were unclear. What is it going to take to get this fixed? I suggest that Floquenbeam should boldly implement his new instructions, since no one else has seemed to want to tackle it. Seriously, we have identified a real problem here, confirmed by many people; let's not just let the discussion expire and the problem continue indefinitely. If something isn't done, I will be tempted to replace the instructions I quoted above - "The nomination process has clear instructions for constructing, accepting, and posting a nomination" - with "The transclusion process is fucked up, so don't feel bad if you get it wrong the first time." --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have some comments regarding the tone of the proposed changes; before any changes are made, if there are no objections, I'd like to make a copy-editing pass. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, some of the other major laguage Wikipedias have automated scripts for transcluding their RfAs. Why not just have a look at those? We don't always need to go off and reinvent the wheel just because someone else does it better ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I want to get more involved. It's asking a lot of Wikipedians to let a closer get involved in any way at all, but it's worked for me before; please say something if you object. I'm going to do absolutely the minimum that seems to need doing, then sit back and see if anything happens. It seems to me the first two steps are gathering data that AFAIK we don't have: how many of the admins who returned from inactivity (i.e. made 30 edits over two months) over the last half year are helping with potential backlogs? And why do so few people run at RfA compared to previous years? (We've got lots of anecdotes, but as social scientists like to say, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote" ... to get an answer that people are going to buy, we need to ask a lot of people and tally the answers.) - Dank (push to talk) 11:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dank. Feel free to nudge me if I can be of any help. I'm currently on a bit of a nomination spree (or rather a nomination request spree) - and would happily help out with other adminship work. Worm^TT(talk) 11:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dave! Consider yourself nudged. This is a diff of the list of active admins since Nov 30. (I'm using that date because the chart here is supposedly good up through November.) For some reason, the net number of active admins stopped dropping over the last six months ... so the question is how many of the admins in that diff who returned from inactivity have been having an impact over these six months on backlogs and potential backlogs. Some judgment calls are needed ... do you want to tackle this? - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll put something together, see if it's what you're after. Worm^TT(talk) 12:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, well after a quick look - I've got a bit of data which might be a starting point - I've displayed it to the right in a graph. Rather than looking at the active admins returning, I've looked at the whole admin group for the past 3 years. The number is how many logged administrator actions have been taken by the entire administrator corp each month for the past 3 years. It's remained fairly consistent throughout 2014, at about 75k per month. Yet, this year, it's picked up to over 100k per month. The massive outlier is an auto script for user-renaming, but otherwise actions have definitely picked up. Worm^TT(talk) 13:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As new adminbots come online, I suspect we'll have all kinds of spurts of activity, but that's not where I'm going. The common thread in all the discussions about backlogs and potential backlogs is that there's no common thread: no two people agree in all cases what to do, who should do it, who's likely to do it, or when we can afford to let it slide. Per the part of WP:CONSENSUS that deals with policy, we need a stronger-than-usual consensus in any RfC to be able to do anything at all ... and that's never going to happen if we keep picking RfC questions that everyone disagrees on. This isn't a criticism ... depending on how the first RfC goes, I might be able to say in the closing statement that there's evidence that we've handled this whole mess better than people generally give the community credit for. OTOH, if we're looking at some simple math, there's a chance we can get broad consensus. Last November, we had the simple math ... we were gaining 22-ish admins a year, of which we could expect maybe 7 or fewer to stay focused for years on the critical admin workload, against the roughly 80 admins (net, whether they did admin work or not) who became inactive each year. No one has even suggested that those numbers are sustainable going forward. Over the last 6 months, two surprising things have happened: that 22 per year has dropped to a projected total of around 12, but the rate of net admin attrition (as measured by editing, not button-pushing) has dropped to zero. That might mean that formerly active admins have heard the call and they're coming back to help out in droves ... in which case, we're golden (for now) ... or it might mean they're coming back just to edit, in which case the problem that was significant in November is twice as bad now ... or something in between. If we don't have the answer to that question, then we don't know whether there's a problem to solve. If anyone wants to frame the question a different way, that would be great ... as long as you're framing it so that a broad cross-section of Wikipedians will immediately grasp that there is (or isn't) a long-term problem that does (or doesn't) need action of some sort. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Btw, my projection of 12 new admins for this year is for first-time admins ... we've also had 3 former admins pass RfA this year, more than usual. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

In my case, I was of the view that the longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more disputes you will uncover, and inevitably build up a closet of skeletons just from forthrightly stating your views. Things didn't turn out as bad as I thought, but there are other candidates who I think would make fine admins but aren't interested in RfA because of concern over past enemies turning up and throwing spanners in the works. Plus, there's a group of people who are perceived as hating admins (I think it's more hating admins who don't contribute to content but block first and ask questions later myself), and nobody really wants to join that "hit list". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That sounds about right. So, multiple choice or free-form? Do we come up with a list of likely answers, including those, to present to the people we're asking, or just ask why they didn't run, and sort the answers into categories later? There are advantages both ways. - Dank (push to talk) 12:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dank, I look forward to looking at your data and seeing what you find. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Dank, as I've mentioned before, I support your getting involved in guiding discussion, but if you do, I believe you should let someone else close the discussion. isaacl (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If things look promising, we could easily get two more closers ... I'd like that, and it would be fine with me if they make the calls. I'm not going to push for any outcome. But I want to be talking with the closers while they're making the calls ... one reason is that I've read everything everyone has said on this subject for many years, and I think it's easy to slip up in a closing statement if you don't know what's going to push people's "buttons". So ... I want to be on the closing team. I'm happy to stop talking now if that's what it takes. This isn't my first rodeo, and I have a sense of how much rope I've got to operate with (in general, maybe not in this case) ... see for instance User:Dank/RFCs. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The answer to the first question looks like it can probably be obtained by a straight analysis of data from Admin stats. But how will data be gathered to answer the second question (about why more experienced editors aren't submitting to RfA's, esp. compared to pre-2010)? --IJBall (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

[inserted] The problem is that people haven't been running for adminship, maybe because of one of Ritchie's reasons above, or they didn't think they'd pass, or they didn't think they had the proper training and experience, or they were happier in whatever niche they had found on Wikipedia than they would be doing admin work (particularly if they had waited long enough that their RfA was likely to go smoothly). I don't have any preference on the polling method ... I just don't want us to waste time trying to solve a problem that turns out to be the wrong problem. All of those different reasons would call for different fixes, if it turns out a fix is needed. - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

The first question posed here is probably simple enough to answer, but what do you do with that answer? The community has no meaningful leverage when it comes to the activities of people who aren't participating in it. Might as well think of returning from inactivity as an essentially exogenous process and focus on matters that can actually be changed by community action. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If it turns out the admins who have come back from a period of inactivity (who are equal in number to those going inactive, since November) represent something new, if there's an unexpected surge of interest by old-timers in helping out in the problem areas, then that does undercut my argument to some extent. (There are other good arguments of course for being supportive of people who might want to help with the workload, but I have to stay silent on all of that.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (until I have an actual RfC to close :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading back over all this ... I've said everything I wanted to say, now. Unless there's an emergency, or I said something unclear or stupid, I'll sit back for a while. Isaac is right, and by tradition, I should say as little as possible. - Dank (push to talk) 23:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Wait, just one more thing. I'm not trying to stop the discussion of other problems, or saying that declining admin numbers is the only thing I want to look at. I'm saying that we'll never get the necessary broad support unless we tackle the big questions one at a time, starting with the ones that are going to be the most persuasive for a broad cross-section of Wikipedians who don't usually think about this stuff (and may not want to think about it). The problem with talking about adminship is, and always has been, that everyone wants to talk about something different, and that's a self-defeating strategy. See for instance the recent discussions (linked here) on unbundling some of the admin userrights, and vigorous discussions currently at WP:AN and WP:VPI. - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've created a structure that may be useful for a future RFC. Each numbered item in the sections can be followed by Support/Oppose/Discuss headers. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 13:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some thoughts on what Fauzan put above: Under "Cause", 1.2 is absolutely not a problem than I have ever seen (it may have been an issue years ago, but it's not one now). "Causes 2.1 & 2.2" are how the process is supposed to work, IMO – I've been editing heavily for two years, and I'm still learning plenty, so I really don't see how the vast majority of editors with under one year of experience and under 10,000 edits can possibly be well-versed enough in policies to be a good Admin. I haven't seen much evidence of "Cause 2.3" being an issue, though certainly within about the last year there seem to have been a number of spectacular Admin flameouts before ArbCom, etc., so it is something to keep in mind. I do worry some about Causes 3.1 & 3.2 – I think if you're an experienced candidate (see: NeilN), they won't be an issue; but if you're on the "greener" end of things, that's when RfA's seem to turn into a cudgel to make candidates feel bad about their contributions to the project... And I think "Cause 4.1" is perceived as an issue, but I have seen no evidence (yet) that it actually is an issue that's affecting the RfA's that I've looked over. On your "Possible Solutions" end, I think I would only support "1.1" right now, and I think that actually has to come from the Admin class itself. All the other proposed solutions I fear would make things worse. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with most of what IJBall said. The only "problem" identified that I think is a real problem is 1.1, too few successful RFAs. By far the best solution for that is for more of us to make it our personal business to identify people who would be good admins and encourage them to run. Of the listed "causes": RfA OUGHT to be difficult to pass for relative newcomers. As for "people who have been here as long as the average successful candidate" and "veteran editors", RfA is difficult only if they have a checkered past or an unsuitable temperament. In my observation, "old enemies" and "past mistakes" (if they are minor) do not stand in the way of an otherwise qualified editor. And I agree with IJBall that there really isn't a big problem with trolls and vandals at RfA. That's thanks in part to people like Kudpung and others who have worked for years to clean up the process. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Cause #1.2 (Structure) is an extremely accurate description of the main reason why RfA is sometimes not a pleasant place, as anyone who has followed the ills of RfA over many years will be perfectly aware. The fact that it is sometimes not a pleasant place is the reason why the majority of users of the right caliblre are not interested in running for adminship. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is it really accurate of recent RfA's though? I gather it was a much bigger factor in the past... But when was the last time that Cause #1.2 was actually a factor in a candidate going down at an RfA (or even having a relatively rough go of it)?... I'm genuinely curious as to when this was a problem, and roughly when it started being not as much of a problem anymore. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: You've said this a few times in these threads and I went looking for the data underlying this conclusion but haven't been able to find it. I was obviously not here for the WP:RFA2011 project, but a poke through those pages turns up data on the properties of candidates, and on voters in the aggregate, but I don't see any stats on the "trolls and drive-bys" issue (something like, number of annual RfA votes per voter? correlation between number of infrequent voters and unsuccessful candidacies?) that might be compared to current data. Did I miss it or did that conclusion come from something else? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis:, @IJBall:, I've said these things many, many times, and not only here on WT:RfA but also in other talk pages and discussed at length over meet ups and at several Wikimanias. Without writing a TL;DR post or an op-ed for Signpost, it would not be practical for me summarise here my and others' many years of research, opinions objective and subjective, and conclusions for those who are late to the party. Don't get me wrong - every new opinion and suggestion is valuable and I accord it utmost attention as I'm sure Dank, Worm That Turned, and WereSpielChequers do too, but the only way to get up to date is to literally take a few hours to read all that was reported and discussed at WP:RFA2011 and read every major RfA of all the ones that both passed and failed over the last 5 years. I don't now if there is anyone who has joined Wikipedia or WT:RfA since is prepared to invest that much time, because as I've said already, even talk in this forum has dwindled at the same rate as the number of RfAs; I don't know exactly what that stat reveals but I'm sure it's significant.

Cause #1.2 might not have greatly swayed the final outcome of many RfA, and as I have stated many times too, RfA usually does what it says on the tin even if it is a week of hell or a walk in the psrk (we get many more of those now, and 100+ supports is a regular occurrence rather than somthing to jump up and down about, but Cause #1.2 is certainly a major contributing factor to the predicament we are in today.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I was looking more for the underlying data than for a summary of it, because data is fun to play with ;) Of the 10 RfAs than ran to completion in 2015:

• Participants !voted in an average of 2.7 RfAs.
• Just under half (46%) !voted in only one RfA.
• The average edit count of the singleton voters is ~32,000. Most are identifiably experienced users.
• Only 15 of the singleton voters currently have under 500 edits. Three of those are alternate or renamed accounts of experienced users.

You can't detect trolling, meanness, or poor research with 15 minutes and a regex, but I would say that the pattern of one-off drive-by participation, where a new collection of participants reset the standards every time, seems to have abated in recent experience. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That's some neat data. Very cool, Opabinia regalis... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable about an RFC that tries to shoehorn something as complex as our RFA problem into one tight RFC with only one short subset of the possible problems and solutions are hardcoded into the RFC. I have listed a couple of dozen of the more commonly proposed changes to RFA at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform but wouldn't suggest trying for an RFC that delves into the whole problem - better to focus an RFC on one of the more deliverable reforms and even then I'm not hopeful we can get consensus for reform. The most positive thing about RFA is that the few candidates who do pass often do so with over a hundred supports. I suspect the best solution would be to identify and persuade to run a bunch of candidates who if they ran now would scrape through on about 80% and then turn out to be good admins. The solution to the inflation of arbitrary standards is to find and nominate some candidates who can prove that 5,000 edits and 15 months tenure is still more than enough to qualify a good candidate for the mop (better still persuade more of the RFA !voters to actually check the candidate's edits rather than casting votes based on some arbitrary statistics). ϢereSpielChequers 20:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Was just re-reading everything said this year ... ugh! Anyone who wants to close, please go ahead and volunteer. You'll need every bit of the time between now and whenever we have something to close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If there's no objections, I'll put my hand up here. I'm more likely to find time to close than actually participate. Worm^TT(talk) 07:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. Reading that again, I made it sound scarier than it is ... some of the tougher RfCs of the last 3 years took months to close ... but it wasn't because closers were working 24/7, it was because closers had different schedules and needed a while to read everything. - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yesterday, I thought of an interesting thought experiment, and I'm curious to see how others would answer the question. Let's imagine that before signing up, a new user spends a great deal of time carefully reading every policy and guideline and familiarizes himself with the overall culture here. We'll also imagine that this user is very good at writing. So, when this person signs up, he jumps right in. Now, suppose that this user is able to bring an article to FA status with fifty edits, and he does this for ten articles. So, after about 500 edits, the user has ten FAs to his credit. He also nominates 100 articles for CSD (a total of 200 edits, due to talk page notifications, !votes in 150 AfDs, requests ten page protections at RFPP, makes 50 reports to UAA, and 50 reports to AIV. He does all this with a good accuracy rate. Now, adding a bit of space for a few miscellaneous edits, this totals to about 1000 edits. If he makes five edits per day, he could do all this in roughly 6.5 months. Now, let's suppose that this user runs for RfA. Would he pass or fail? After all, he only has 1000 edits and just over six months of experience. But, on the other hand, he has almost all the other qualifications that we expect from candidates, and perhaps even more so. --Biblioworm 15:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That, to me, sounds like a model candidate Biblioworm, but unfortunately, devoid of reality. Today's rules are that whilst it is desirable to have a candidate who knows a thing or two about how to author a featured article, sadly, it is not essential. What is essential, it seems, is knowing how to appease the Jimbo sycophants among us who couldn't give a toss about article creation and who care more about how to be lovely to other editors. Once they have been seen to do that, they are then given the tools and then continue to ignore article writing, choosing instead to loiter around ANI ready to console whinging editors who complain about incivility during a content dispute. Having wrapped the complainant up in cotton wool, they then turn up at the featured article writer's talk page, eager to administer their first block. The result is that they then gain the necessary criteria to enter the Administrator's mess and guffaw with their fellow newbies over a glass of whiskey. Now obviously, they doesn't apply to every admin, but if you adopt that path, you're certainly onto a winner. Cassianto^Talk 15:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course I know that such a candidate is unrealistic. That is why this section's title is "A thought experiment". The purpose was to see if a well-rounded good candidate with a low edit count (because of focus) would be judged based on their merits or a quick spot-check of "experience" and edit count. --Biblioworm 15:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to be so patronising, I'm well aware of what the section is called. I was just pointing out that sadly that sort of candidate doesn't seem to exist. Cassianto^Talk 15:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to AGF, but I'm sure many of us would be suspicious of a "new user" who demonstrates an uncanny ability not only to edit but to write articles and get them to FA, request page protection, report to UAA and AIV, tag for deletion, and comment at AFD. --MelanieN (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I can only think of a handful of editors who tick those boxes. Old-school admins such as Wehwalt, Chris and Casliber spring to mind immediately, and of course, now we have the newly elected Ritchie333, who I think will be very good. Cassianto^Talk 16:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Very true. The user would probably fail just for being competent. I've always wondered why we greet constructive, capable newbies with suspicion, SPIs, and checkusers rather than trying to retain them. Of course, such a candidate as I mentioned is unrealistic fantasy, and would likely never happen (not even most experienced user do all that). As I mentioned in a comment above, it was intended to be a metaphor for a focused, well-rounded candidate who manages to be productive with relatively few edits. This could, for instance, apply to those candidates who improve articles with large, sweeping edits rather than small ones in rapid succession, as some prefer to do. --Biblioworm 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

If such a user was to exist and they were able to turn around a featured article in only 50 edits, my only question would be to ask if they had been here before and were in fact a banned user. I don't think a fish out of water could get to grips with policy and writing within 50 edits. Cassianto^Talk 16:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I agree with Melanie – if a candidate magically appeared with only 1,000 edits, but exactly 1,000 of the "right" edits, I'd be very suspicious and thinking to myself "block evading troll"... While this is an interesting thought experiment, I don't think it reflects anything close to what really does happen. Even someone "savvy" in the ways of the internet isn't going to immediately show up at Wikipedia knowing exactly what needs to be done (and how to become an Admin!!). That's why I think, in reality, 10,000 edits is the more realistic benchmark before considering anyone to be an Admin (it'll take 10,000 edits before people even know how to do GA, FA, AfD, etc.) – and, on my end, I'm starting to think it's really more like 20,000+ edits before you're really "there"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. I only have 7.5k edits and already have two GAs (short, admittedly, but a GA is a GA) and seven DYKs, with one currently pending. I've also extensively participated in (and understand) various administrative aspects of the site. I'm currently researching for certain articles I want to work on, with the intention of ultimately becoming much more content-focused. So, I disagree that thousands upon thousands of edits are required to be a good, clueful editor. --Biblioworm 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think my point is that, even with 7,500 edits, you probably don't know all the subtleties and vagaries of the policies and guidelines. I know I don't – I am still coming across stuff either, 1) I thought I knew, but didn't know (or didn't know in enough detail), or, 2) just plumb didn't know!! There's no way somebody with just 1,000 edits, even "1,000 of the right edits", is going to know "all the right stuff" either. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if any user really knows all the minutest details of policy. That's an unrealistic expectation of a candidate. --Biblioworm 17:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, somewhere between "well versed" and "very well versed" in policies and guidelines, then. Sure, it's unrealistic to expect someone to know all of them. But an Admin needs more than a superficial or cursory knowledge of them, and I don't think you can possibly get to the required knowledge level until you've been poking around here for a while (i.e. a year or more, and probably more)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

There are more than 50 official policies and a couple hundred guidelines (not including WP:WikiProject advice pages that may be treated more or less like guidelines). I don't think that any human has ever read them all. Apart from the basics of the core policies, what admins and other good editors actually need is (a) to know how to find out what the "rules" are, and (b) a willingness to do so. It's more important to "know that you don't know" the policies and guidelines in detail than to know the ever-changing pages themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

FWIW article creation and content expansion are not the only criteria for becoming an admin. Many of those who vote in RFAs also expect participation by a candidate in AFDs, CFDs etc. Some also like to see involvement in RFCs. While none of these is an absolute necessity it is difficult to show that one has an overall understanding of how Wikipedia works if one has only created articles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, 1000 edits is pushing it. (Does this person never, ever make a typo? Or 'waste' an edit on a dumb post like this one?) But I'm pretty sure that back in the mists of ancient history 2006, people with six months and 2000-2500 edits and a content-heavy record were passing RfAs without a problem, and most of us turned out fine. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that a) users who passed RfA in a time of higher 'standards' turned out to be systematically better admins, or b) learning the policies, guidelines, and common practices that actually matter has gotten any harder.

If I were going to put anything in the 'causes' section in the above thread, it'd be that the apparent standards for new admins have unnecessarily inflated beyond the available volunteer time of otherwise capable candidates. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the flip side of that is: just because this is a "volunteer" project is no reason to lower standards. But it's a fair point – ultimately, the people who will be the best candidates for Admins are those who have... more than the profile of just a garden-variety "volunteer". Which may end up being a problem for a "volunteer" project... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Its a tough question, but if the entire community can't find anything wrong with the editor, including at the almost certain to be filed SPI, I would support. I have only once opposed an editor requesting a permission for being too good at policy for their edit count, and that was for edit filter manager; that editor has since passed RFA, and I would have supported them if I hadn't missed it. The previous editing question was a major source of opposes, though they had many many more edits than suggested in the hypothetical. Monty₈₄₅ 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Two words: hat collecting. ansh666 21:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

From who? --Biblioworm 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Your hypothetical candidate. I don't think anyone would just do that without a clear goal of becoming an admin. ansh666 23:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• Just a thought: if anyone were really good enough to achieve 10 FAs in 500 edits, why the heck would they want to mess around with a mop? The best content writers are the kings and queens here. Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to those who step up to look after reverting vandals, spotting and dealing with copyvio, shutting down edit wars, deleting garage band articles, smoothing out squabbles and all that, but none of that is really the big deal with Wikipedia. The big deal is that there are fine articles that people find on the top page of a Google search, or can jump into from the Kindle reader on an iPad, and learn stuff. They had to get written. So I think the big question in this thought experiment is: do we give too much recognition to adminship as a status, and not enough to a great track record in content? (By the way, many of those fine articles never get nominated for GA/FA. That they get written is what matters.) --Stfg (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• I think hat collecting is the pretty obvious motivation of such a track record, or at least an unhealthy ambition to become an admin. I'm always extremely suspicious of new(ish) users who start making an undeniably prominent participation in meta areas. Often they start quietly at the VP, then go through ANI and then Arbcom (as an uninvolved editor) then end up commenting here at WT:RfA. It generally takes RFA reform-obsessed users like me and a tiny handful of others who regularly frequent those area (or at least watch them) over many years, to recognise these trends. I'm still a firm believer that people who are genuine admin material are the ones who came (at least at first) to add content and/or create new articles rather than to police the project from the very beginning of their Wiki careers.. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• A user that is willing to read (or already knows) most of Wikipedia's 200+ policies and guidelines, knows about AfD, NPP, etc. in his/her first 1,000 or so edits, uses his/her prolific writing skills for solely unpaid writing (who would take the time to promote 10 articles to FA in 500 edits), and acts so precociously is either a sockpuppet or hat collector. Esquivalience ^t 19:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• The only person I can think of who was like this was Pastor Theo, registered to admin in less than six months. And of course he turned out to be a sock. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
• For all the comments about shooting down "non content creators", absolutely no one brought that up at my RfA. My significant content contributions at the time were the following; not starting but writing most of Zoya Phan, inau, and Autobiography of a Geisha, and creating the short article Noh Poe. Yeah, I added a couple of sentences to a few articles here and there (e.g. Mariano Rivera, Chihiro Iwasaki), but that was it and I openly said as much then. Why I got no trouble at all, as opposed to a great deal of fine candidates (I'm happy to give names), I couldn't tell you; all I know is that I'm not so remarkable that this should be the case. As of yet I haven't been a significant contributor to a single DYK, GA, or FA, and I don't expect that to change in the foreseeable future (I couldn't possibly care less about some arbitrary designation of what's "the best", and as to the article I've put by far the most effort into I have absolutely no intentions of ever submitting it to any of these processes because, for reasons that should be fairly obvious, even if it qualifies I'd prefer it to remain obscure and low profile). As far as I can tell I've done very well as an admin "despite" this, and I fail to understand why anyone else would be different. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

You Blade, are just one of that rare breed of Wikipedians that is the almost perfect Sysop material, that's why your RfA was so successful. The trolls and anti-admin brigade of that era stayed away from it - probably because they couldn't justify making any of their snide and snarky comments, and there was an excellent turnout of highly experienced editors who must have been seeing you around a lot or appreciated your hard work on some complex meta projects that you and I were trying to box through. It was just a shame that one isolated editor (someone I know personally and whose work I appreciate and he's actually a really nice guy) dropped a single fly in the ointment that became rather a long oppose thread. I wasn't so lucky on my RfA although I also finally passed with flying colours and some of the noisy ones (including an admin or two) have since been desysoped, but I hadn't really done a lot of content work either, and I certainly haven't done much since ;) We need more candidates like you - can you help us find them? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have a couple of people in mind, whether or not they're willing to do it is another matter. I hope I can convince at least one of the users I'm interested in. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to nominate User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao for adminship. It's over eight years since I nominated anybody, and the procedures have changed considerably in that time. I created the subpage; it redirected to "Albert Herring" and then disappeared. It doesn't show up on the RFA page. What's going on? David Cannon (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That was my old username - I changed it about four, five years ago. That probably has something to do with it. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The first RFA page was redirected to the old username. When you created the second one, it added to this existing RFA page rather than creating a new one. Just remove the redirect "code" from the RFA. I've removed the redirect "code." QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there are further steps required to complete the nomination. They are all detailed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have added the RFA of Ser Amantio to this page, but I can't get the message saying "No RFXs since" to change. I would greatly appreciate it if someone else could get the RFA to display properly. Everymorning talk 19:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you follow the usual steps to create the nomination? Those on Nominate? The markup looks different from the one of other RfAs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's yet another example of what I have been screaming about for more than a month now (see above, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Clear as mud): The instructions are not only unclear, they DO NOT WORK as written. When is this going to get fixed??? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Since that process was set, scripting is now available - I wonder if someone can write something to simplify the procedure. –xeno^talk 20:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• If in doubt, add bureaucracy. The process has become insane. No wonder nobody wants to run. It takes a PhD in civil servantry to untangle this mess. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like Xeno has put it back into working order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I was half-considering to let it run in the previous form. Maybe we should return to that 2003 format for a month as an experiment. –xeno^talk 19:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

+1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too. I was hoping this was an intentional thumbing of the nose at all that convoluted nonsense. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 - and put the questions back down at the bottom again. I really liked that... Risker (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

And separate out the "voting" from the "Discussion" section (the current way still makes no sense to me!)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us try (also making sure we have at leat couple of nominations during this month), I do not see how it could harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

ansh666 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Me too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oftentimes I and others have to go in to correct a faultily indented comment on an RfA page. Guys, the right way to indent in a numbered list is to place a hash first and then the indenting colon(s), thus

#: Indented comment

Anything else breaks the numbering. A curious fact is that a very high proportion of cases of this error seem to be committed by admins. No, I'm not on an admin-bashing trip, but please could y'all take note of this. --Stfg (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

*I've never broken the formatting myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:47, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• • • • • • You got da skillz Dennis. --Stfg (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's easy, I can't believe any admin would make a silly mistake like that on talk pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

1. 1. (refactored) Amateur^s — Mkdw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• And admin Ritchie333 never forgets to sign his posts ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. duly noted. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

#:#:#:What do you mean, we admins have perfect formatting. --'''[[User:Jakec|Jakob]] ([[user talk:Jakec|talk]]) ''' <small><small>aka Jakec</small></small> (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Put the Number sign first. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

: Like this? Sam Walton (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's very simple. Whatever combination of colons, hashes, and splats is already used, copy that and add a colon after those. This is not just aesthetics: there are accessibility issues. Similarly, don't add a blank line, this will break the list markup. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

1. Think of '# first' as in 'put the # in the first column in a punch card'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)