requests For Adminship/Archive 132

We've been down this road before with disasterous effects. Those questions are good and fine for fun, (Heck they might be something to be added to the Admin Coaching process) but they have so many traps in them that regardless of how they are answered you are going to get something wrong. They are great questions for starting a discussion or stoking conversation on various issues, but I would not suggest anybody answer them as part of an RfA. They are perhaps the one set of questions that I actually oppose being asked---I don't even mind the dumb questions like "Boxers or Briefs?" as much as the AGF Challenge! The AGF Challenge is designed, IMHO, not to AGF but to trick the responder when asked in this setting. Again, I think they are great questions in a different setting, just not as part of an RfA process. WE've had bad contentious results in the past when people were pointed to them.Balloonman (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)As an FYI for those who are interested, I did notify Fill of this discussion about his questions.

I agree, have even agreed vocally in a recent nomination. Superb exercises, wonderful thought-provoking challenges. RfA is simply not the right place for them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree too. Having looked over your challenge, I've no doubt at all that I'd fail it too; it's unfair to be asking people questions like this, where every possible answer is wrong in some way. — iridescent 16:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed 110%. RfA is about finding out whether we trust someone to be an administrator, not whether they can answer what are essentially 'trick' questions. We need fewer, simpler questions at RfA, not more complex ones! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:46, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the questions that are asked need to be "simpler" necessarily, just more concrete. To be fair, User:Filll has given a very sound rationale for why he created the AGF challenge, and why he finds them appropriate for RFA, on the link I provided in my last post. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
RFA is already convoluted enough. These don't determine anything except whether you can go back find a correct answer and copy/paste it in. Malinaccier P. (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm torn. I saw Balloonman's warning at the different RfAs, and other editors have also recommended against answering them, but I do have an opinion on these things, and I'm not afraid of answering complicated questions. I am concerned, as mentioned, that really complex questions will always result in one or more opposes for something in there that you either missed or didn't get entirely correctly. Enigma ^message 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Which is why I caution against answering them. Regardless of how you answer them, you will miss something or perceive the solution differently than somebody else. These questions are well designed for starting discussions---and in a discussion forum (or admin coaching scenario) I would have no problem with them. In a forum where you will be judged for your answers, I think it is not AGF to ask questions that are designed to have no 'correct' answer.Balloonman (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't mean to say that the questions are bad, just that they are inappropriate for RfAs where the answers will be pulled apart, often unfairly due to the ambiguous nature of the questions. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:05, May 28, 2008 (UTC)
I can only smile. I don't really know what to say. I would be more specific, but I can't. Enigma ^message 01:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to report that even after I took the challenge and answered two of the questions, no one noticed, and the people that opposed for it predictably didn't really care. Enigma ^message 00:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it's like my comment here was a jinx. I actually received feedback a few minutes afterwards, and I do doubt that it was due to someone reading this. Enigma ^message 00:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question, in my opinion. As you probably are aware, User:Kim Bruning was the person who suggested answering these exercises as part of the RfA, not me. Since then, a couple of others have asked candidates to consider them. After pondering it for a while, I decided it was not such a bad idea.

For one thing, if all candidates have to answer these, it pretty much levels the playing field, does it not? So they are not particularly discriminatory in that case, are they? All they do is let the people supporting or opposing them have a little more information about their readiness, their knowledge and their reasoning power. Is that a bad thing?

If this leads to people in the future having to prepare more carefully for a run at an RfA, is that a bad thing? I think pretty clearly that it is not a bad thing. Many admin coaches require similar sorts of practice in contentious areas such as closing threads at various noticeboards for a week or two. That is only reasonable, given the complexity of the job they will be undertaking and the demands and responsibilities placed on them.

Also, why is there drive to make things "simpler and easier"? Will the duties that admins are asked to perform and questions they will be asked to answer after they become admins be simple and easy? I think not. If the goal is just to pump more admins through faster, we can do that easily enough. Just lower the approval level percentages required for "passing". It is that simple, people.

I certainly do not intend these to reduce the number of people being awarded adminship. In fact, I want more people to get adminship.

Also, as has been pointed out a few times, there is no "right" or "wrong" answers to any of these. However, I have also personally witnessed a fairly large number of new administrators who do not know Wikipedia policies. I have also seen a lot of new administrators who have very limited exposure to assorted problems and controversies on Wiki English. Yet, after we award them the tools, they are supposed to all of a sudden be magically endowed with some sort of magical reasoning power and knowledge ! Frankly that is just ridiculous. And we pay a heavy price for it in terms of driving off established and new users. And discrediting the organization. And creating bad publicity for WP.

And these are not "trick" questions. They are typical of the kinds of situations that arise, over and over and over. Do we not want to know if we can trust the reasoning ability and knowledge of our candidate admins in these sorts of situations? I have talked to many experienced editors and admins. And every single one has told me that the answers to these should not at all be in question. And I think that is true, for the most part.

User:Durova, who has successfully coached several through RfA, has even asked me to produce a special set of "BLP Challenge" exercises, which I have done and which is being edited before release. The goal is to educate and confront potential candidates with the kinds of challenging questions they will face as admins as they get ready for adminship, and request adminship. And the goal is to increase drastically our number of admins.

But just blindly approving more uneducated and unqualified and inexperienced admins is not particularly productive or useful. We would like admins who at least have had a minimal exposure to some of the difficult questions that arise on Wiki English. And we would like admins who know a bit about Wikipedia policy. And we would like admins who can apply policy creatively and usefully.

That is the point of these assorted Challenge exercises (The original AGF Challenge, the new AGF Challenge 2, the upcoming BLP Challenge and the upcoming AGF Challenge 3, with more to come). To demonstrate some knowledge of policy and ability to reason and to get some tiny bit of exposure to the dilemmas on Wikipedia in a safe, entertaining accessible format.

There is no way to "fail" the Challenge exercises. And there will be disagreement with every answer by someone else, but that is also true "in the field" as an editor or administrator goes about their tasks. This is just part of the bargain one makes when becoming an editor on Wikipedia and particularly when seeking and then being awarded adminship. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me consider what we want to know about our admin candidates:
• knowledge of policy: Believe me, it is a disaster when a new admin does not know policy and then starts to threaten vastly more experienced editors based on their ignorance. I have seen this a few times. If we can reduce this or expose it ahead of time so it can be corrected, so much the better.
• temperament: There are currently some admins who it is claimed have the "wrong" temperament to be administrators. If we can expose this ahead of time and avoid the unbelievably drama-laden and difficult process to desysop or retrain an admin, so much the better
• reasoning ability: There are several admins I have run into who have pretty doubtful reasoning abilities. Of course there are some great ones as well. If we can try to get a little more information ahead of time to decide who is best suited for this task, so much the better
• exposure and experience: The AGF Challenge exercises and other Challenge exercises constitute minimal exposure, to be sure. But they are more than we demand at the moment, and I hope we move to require more experience of various kinds before we hand over the tools.

Are we that sure that the current methods are choosing the "best" candidates out of those standing for RfA? I am not convinced that they are. And I suspect a lot of others might agree with me. If we have a few more questions that probe a little more deeply so we can decide who is better suited, then it is to our advantage.

What if we are not getting enough candidates through? There is nothing sacred about the current method. In fact, every sign we have points to the current methods as being hopelessly inadequate and flawed and producing unsatisfactory results. We select editors who on purpose are inexperienced in a lot of areas because they want to get the largest percentage of "support" votes. This is just wrong, because it means we are missing out on a lot of talented editors. So is there a problem with experimenting with other methods? I would sure hope not. What if we state that we will declare the successful RfA candidates to be those that rank in the top 1/3 of all candidates over the last 3 months? (Of course, the person closing the RfA will still have some discretion of course). If that is too few, what about those that rank in the top 40%?

If we find that we are not getting enough candidates with experience in area X or Y or Z, or intentions of working in area W or V, we could create quotas for those areas with different requirements, and a certain fraction of the new admin positions set aside for them. There are a lot of ways to skin this cat.

Just asking people what their favorite colors are, or if they prefer vanilla or chocolate ice cream, and what they intend to do after they get the tools, really is a bit silly. Let's try to see how these people might perform in real situations. Or at least, let's try to expose them to a variety of realistic difficult situations and pick those who we think have the best outlook about these situations.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You've convinced me. I retract my above sentiment. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

AGF Challenge response, summarized

We want MORE admins that are MORE experienced and MORE knowledgeable and MORE temperamentally suited for the task. Not just MORE admins that are clueless about policies and have no experience.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My response, summarised; questions like this in an RFA context cause unfair "oppose, didn't answer question X correctly" opposes (unfair as there's no correct answer) and are causing perfectly good candidates to fail RFA because some voters equate "didn't do what I'd do" with "didn't give the right answer". — iridescent 18:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a comment on this, but Iridescent summarized the first part of it while I was writing it (sorry for the redundancy).
The problem isn't really with the questions, asking them can probably provide some insight into the candidate that the regular questions can't. The issue is that with the current atmosphere in RFA, people are likely to oppose for any minor disagreements, which are bound to happen on a question where the correct answer is open to interpretation. Some commenters aren't likely to look further into someone's contributions, if they can find things to disagree with even on the nomination page. Even if a majority of the people would agree that the answer is completely correct, it could still hurt someone's chances to pass, since any oppose comment is (simply put) worth three supports. On the other hand, if you keep asking the question, maybe people will eventually figure out that just disagreeing with someone on an issue isn't always a good reason to oppose. - Bobet 18:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with Bobet. The problem isn't the questions themselves; there's certainly nothing wrong with answering them at all. The issue is with how open-ended the questions are and how that leaves candidates many ways to gather oppose votes. I also echo Iridescent; these are inappropriate in an RfA context. GlassCobra 18:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be a 'head-nodder', but I agree here as well. The questions are thought provoking and can only lead to self-improvement if proper thought goes into answering them and analysing the responses of others. However, at RfA, where opposes may be garnered based on questions with no right answer, they are inappropriate. Fantastic for admin coaching, not so good for RfA. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:38, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) with Filll)I think what Filll is implying (correct me if I'm wrong please Filll) is that RfA is broken. If opposes are getting "garnered based on questions with no right answer", then we need to fix RfA, not the questions. I'm coming around to this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree that RfA needs fixing (hell, it needs fixing for more reasons than this!), but it will most likely be difficult to do so, as I said, such questions are great for admin coaching and developing reasoning abilities, but not so great when your responses will be judged and scrutinised. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:48, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Yes the RfA is probably broken. But we need to think of what we expect of an RfA, and how we can best get that out of the RfA. If all you want is to get the maximum number of candidates through, then just pass them all. And forbid the asking of all questions.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well if the problem is not enough candidates getting through for stupid reasons, then change the rules to get more candidates through.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about not enough getting through, it's about whether the questions are appropriate to RfA. If we desperately needed more admins, we could do a number of things. However, what I feel these questions do is cause people to oppose based on 'wrong answer to Q7' or 'I would answer Q8 very differently', when there really is no right answer to them. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:45, May 28, 2008 (UTC)

Well but let's face it; there are some more right ways to answer them and some less right ways to answer them. And frankly, if we choose those who answer the more right ways rather than the less right ways, then that is good.

And if we make them part of the RfA process, then they will become part of the admin coaching process because people will have to prepare for them. And that is good.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any examples of a significant number of opposes based on a candidate's answers to Filll's AGF challenge? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Wiki: Requests for adminship/Philosopher comes to mind, although it did eventually pass. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed that situation. There are some things to note:

• Just because people said they opposed based on his answer does not mean that is reality. I have often opposed but not wanted to tell anyone why I opposed, because of private information etc. So just because they say that, does not mean that is the reality

• I saw nothing wrong with his answer to the AGFC exercise, which was quite sensible

• We have no evidence yet that Philosopher will actually be a good admin. But we do not have lots of examples of admins who do not know the rules, have bad judgement and unsuitable temperaments and other problems. Let's wait for a few months and see what transpires.

• Philosopher made it through with no problem. If that was enough to stop his bid for adminship, maybe he was not the right candidate.

• Worrying about the threshold tells me that we have to change our method of picking admins. For one thing, change the threshold if not enough are getting through.

I could say a lot more, but this is just silly.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper76. I was reminded of an oral physics exam decades ago. I thought I was well-prepared, but the examiner caught me on the wrong foot during the first minute. We spent the entire half hour agonizing over that one question, and unlike Philosopher, I failed. So I certainly understand the sentiments of caution expressed above, and it's not "just silly", Filll.
Still, I would trust the community not to grade the answers with a narrow mind, and I trust the candidates to think more about these questions in the future. All in all, I believe the questions are helpful and should be allowed. It is fine for candidates to refuse the challenge (that would not be a reason for me to oppose), but we shouldn't encourage them one way or the other, but rather watch how this evolves first. fwiw ---Sluzzelin talk 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict, re to Filll)I don't find any of this silly, especially if you (and other editors) plan on continuing to add the AGF challenge to RfAs. And, I'll apologize right front, Filll, because I was a main opponent of the addition of your questions on the RfA I bluelinked. Again, I've come around. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to cave as well... but if we do have these questions, I think we need to have some sort of disclaimer or something attached to them. Eg introduce the questions as discussion type questions that may not have a correct answer, but is intended to see how people approach issues? I would include that in the section that is added to the RfA because there will be drive byes that just see the answer and oppose without really thinking about it.Balloonman (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
If the question has an automatic disclaimer though, doesn't that defeat the purpose of it in the first place? The questions are all hypothetically optional anyway...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the AGF challenge should be an optional series of questions, and not replace the mandatory ones. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure no one is suggesting here that the "standard three" are to be replaced. The AGF challenge questions are optional. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hypothetically optional, as you said above. :) I think that's a bit of a problem. I took the AGF challenge in response to a request at Wiki talk: Civility and I enjoyed it (thought provoking), but as I noted there it was pretty time consuming. I think it might be a better idea to ask RfA candidates to respond to a couple of these rather than the total. There was nothing seriously at stake in my responses, but it took me several hours anyway to think through and reply to everything. I think it might be just as enlightening to offer a couple and might even encourage deeper response. It's true that a candidate can choose to answer some, but not all, but then it's likely that people are going to be reading something into that silence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, the AGFC should be optional, as I will explain in a minute. The good side to the AGFC is that it simulates heated discussions. However, this is also it's downfall. A hostile editing enviroment is very difficult (at best) to emulate, because it has several variables. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that Filll's statement that "Just because people said they opposed based on his answer does not mean that is reality" should pass unchallenged. A lot of folks on Philosopher's RfA said they opposed because of his answer to Q4. I think that their statements should be taken at face value. Not to be overly clever, but AGF says we should take their statements at face value unless we have a substantial reason to doubt their veracity. Darkspots (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, tell me what was so wrong with Philosopher's answer?--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was anything wrong with Philosopher's answer. I liked it, personally. Not my point. I'm just saying that more than a handful of folks opposed him because of it. I think they opposed him for the reasons they stated, not some other unnamed reasons. They opposed him because they thought the answer to the AGF challenge question was lousy. I feel like you're brushing aside those opposes, saying they happened because those folks had some other reason they didn't want to talk about. That doesn't sit right with me. Darkspots (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. Maybe they should have opposed him. That is the whole point of an RfA. It is not some sort of party you know. --Filll (talk | wpc) 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah I went back and read it again. Well there are some things I would disagree with. They are small things in his answer however. I am impressed he thought of a couple of larger things that others did not. But still, the question and his answer uncovered a bit of shakiness in his understanding which is a good thing. It is good for training purposes. It is good for examination purposes. I do not think that was enough that I would oppose him personally, but for some it could have been. We should not be trying desperately to try to hide any bad information about any candidate so they can pass. That makes zero sense. We should look at all failings and shortcomings soberly in the cold light of day and make a judgement.

As I said above, do we not have problems with admins now who have a variety of faults? Who abuse power? Who are unCIVIL? Who do not know policy? And so on? And the community screams bloody murder about it! Well far better to detect any signs of problems now, and correct them if possible, or train editors appropriately to address weaknesses, or even try to weed out potential problem admins. Once we have given them power over the community and cannot take it back easily, heaven help us.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have not heard anyone "screaming bloody murder" about anything. Also, I have only encountered one (out of several) uncivil admin. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You're one of the lucky ones. ANYWAY... as for Filll: first of all WP:TLDR , second of all, isn't it really just up to the candidates wether they answer or not?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I am far from lucky. Getting back on track, yeah, it should be left up to the candidates whether they answer or not. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never contended otherwise.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

We want MORE admins that are MORE experienced and MORE knowledgeable and MORE temperamentally suited for the task. Not just MORE admins that are clueless about policies and have no experience <-- Yes we do. But I fail to see how the AGF challenge addresses this. If anything it may prevent us from getting the former. Wizardman 01:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do (suddenly) see the difference, Wiz. It's the difference between "who can pass Rfa" and "who can be a good admin". Any editor in good standing, assuming they've never been involvd in any heated discussions related to content of Wikipedia, can pass RfA, myself included. But seriously, do we want that? Or do we want admins that understand the intricacies of this place, and based on their experience, are willing to delve into contentious areas? I want the latter. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes moving away from an issue one doesn't know about is the best option, and you can't except a candidate to know everything. I'm all for asking any (reasonable amount of serious) questions people want, but I just hope the people who comment on the discussions can give them the appropriate weight after all the commotion here. There can be plenty of reasons to support or oppose a candidate, irrespective of their answer to one question. And since the 'agf challenge' questions come from a small subset of questions where one can choose to answer whichever they want, and can prepare for them in advance (maybe even with an admin coach, of which I'm not a big fan), they're not necessarily the best way to determine if someone "understands the intricacies of this place". - Bobet 02:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've given it more thought. I'm not convinced that asking these questions will help us get quality candidates. In fact, I think just the opposite will occur. In my recruiting of candidates, some of the top candidates that I check with respond with a blanket refusal because they don't want to undergo the inquisition. Candidates should be judged first and foremost on their contributions to wikipedia, not on some questions that somebody came up with because they think the question will magically give insight into how a candidate thinks. Again, these questions may be fine in the admin coaching arena, but I don't think they are the magic elixir to fix RfA... in fact, I think they will chase more qualified candidates away from the process. Asking more questions is NOT the way to fix it... all they will do is psuh more into hiding.Balloonman (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to concur with Balloonman. As I have seen in many different Rfa's, not answering a question "correctly" can and often does sink the RfA. Also, if the questions are truly optional, others should not oppose the candidate for declining to answer said 'optional questions. This situation of people opposing because of answering the question "wrong" (and it would be extremely difficult to answer the AGF questions "correctly" enough to satisfy everyone) and other people opposing (at least in part) because of failure to answer optional questions, creates a catch-22 that is impossible for candidates to negotiate without garnering some or a lot of opposes. I don't know why, but as Balloonman pointed out above, many people !vote solely on the way the user conducted themselves during the RfA and completely ignore all other contributions. I would not be opposed to questions such as these being asked if they only purpose was to gauge how the user responds to various hypothetical situations, but many !voters will oppose if the user does not answer the question exactly how the !voter would have responded. Unless we can change this mindset of " I don't care that he's written 14 FAs, reported 1000 users to AIV, and participates in a lot of ANI and BLP discussions, he didn't respond to this specific situation exactly how I would have and thus he will be a terribly bad admin.", I don't think questions such as these will aid the RfA process. Thingg^⊕⊗ 02:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If one answer to one question can "sink" a candidate, maybe they should have had their candidacy sunk. Maybe they should have prepared better. Maybe our criteria for choosing should be changed (like the top 1/3 of the group running this quarter). And I do not know how how others vote at RfA, but I personally put a lot of weight on good judgement and experience and a reasonable track record. I object to this steady parade of lily white candidates with zero experience that I am presented with constantly. I think that is just plain stupid and we have only ourselves to blame for that. Let's tilt the playing field a bit where experienced candidates are encouraged to come forward instead.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How many people dig into the candidates history? I suspect that I am one of the rare RfA votes who spends a decent amount of time looking at candidates---most are drive by's who are looking at a very brief surface for a quick answer. Default questions, IMHO, serve no value---even when they are designed to evoke discussion. People will figure out how to answer them correctly. Being able to answer a question correctly is NOT being prepared for adminship. That kind of training is poor at best.Balloonman (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always had a difficult time understanding the weight put on these questions, especially the ones addressing this sort of hypothetical situation. There is so much concrete evidence of what the candidate has done in actual situations that there is little need to resort to hypothetical scenarios to assess their behavior and decision-making. It's a bit like choosing the MVP of a football league not based on the hours of game film available to you, but by asking them to write a paragraph about what they would do in various situations. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is great reasoning except that we get candidates that have never been involved in or exposed to contentious areas or difficult decisions at all, because to do so would ruin their chances at admin. Then after they become an admin, we expect them to exhibit solomon-like judgement and deep knowledge of the rules, when we never required it before, and in fact have essentially required that the candidates avoid any of these decisions or learning experiences. Let's correct that. Otherwise, I am not convinced that we are choosing the best candidates out of those that are in the running.--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the kind of people who we want as admins, I think it's unreasonable to expect a new admin to act in a similar way to those who have been here for a lot longer. What we need in a new admin is someone who is willing to do the more tedious tasks such as the backlogs at WP:AIV and WP:CSD etc, which will free up the more experienced admins to take on the more complex tasks. The last place I want to see a new admin is in a contentious area where they are likely to run into trouble. I think the most important attribute in a candidate is the ability to learn from their (and others) mistakes, and a candidate who admits that there are areas they have little experience in could be more useful as an admin that someone who tries to be an expert at everything, and then falls into one of the tar pits at WP:ANI. Kevin (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So if an RfA candidate says exactly that, that they would rely on the expertise of more experienced admins, then that would be a good answer, right?--Filll (talk | wpc) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
A good answer yes, and probably what any new admin would do. But answering with "I'll go get help" (which is the secret correct answer to every challenge), will garner more opposes than ignoring: "Oppose. CandidateX is unwilling to work in contentious areas", anyone? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Then if they don't have that kind of experience, do what I do, OPPOSE. I routinely oppose candidates due to poor communication skills or lacking evidence thereof. Questions don't show anything---it isn't a short cut to actually reviewing candidates.Balloonman (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No it isnt. It is just supplemental information. And more information is always better in this situation I believe.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll responded to one of the opposes, but anyone who thinks questions are optional should take a gander at my RfA. I answered every single question, including one that was made in bad faith. There were still opposes based on failure to answer Filll's questions, even though I had asked people to wait because I was in the middle of working on them. I have now finished answering two of his questions, although I somehow doubt it's going to help my case. Enigma ^message 17:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The one thing that bothers me is that if it's optional, then should people really oppose just because someone doesn't want to take the AGFC? That really defeats the purpose of an optional question, because then someone will answer just so people won't oppose just because they didn't answer the question. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I agree. It is stupid. What is optional supposed to mean anyway? It highlights the cesspool that these RfAs have turned into. That is why I advocate something different than a 75% passing rule or whatever it is. Suppose we have about 3 new candidates per day. In 4 months, we will have about 360 candidates. Let's rank the percentage "scores" of these 360 candidates, and find the score for the 120th-ranked candidate. If our current candidate is equal to or greater than this 120th-ranked candidate's score, then promote him to admin. If it is less than this 120th-ranked candidate's score, ask this candidate to try again later. If we want to appoint more than 120 of this bunch, use the score of the 180th-ranked candidate, or some other point. And then update it for each new candidate that comes along, using a moving window. So if there is longterm score inflation or score deflation, we will not get too many or too few candidates. We will always be trying to pick the best of the bunch according to our admittedly imperfect criteria.--Filll (talk | wpc) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't go as far as to call our current RfA process "a cesspool." On the contrary, I think we are headed in the general direction, and just need to tweak the system some, but not too much. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ, in light of Enigma's RfA and previous RfA's in recent times. The process is quickly falling off a cliff. Supports are thin (even though it's the default position), opposes have become drive by "per above" cherry picking. Optional questions are absolutely not optional. When was the last time somebody was borderline 75% but passed? Lately I've been seeing a flood of 90 and above passing, and everything else easily below threshold, or SNOW closed. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wisdom. If there was any doubt left in my mind that the process is severely broken, it's been removed. Enigma ^message 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So help us fix it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Fill, that's a tremendous idea, sincerely, but what ends up happening is a flood of discussion with great ideas, yet no real substance. No, I'm not saying that that the discussion itself is without substance, but that it's ultimately not fruitful. Nothing changes. Perhaps we need to get some crats actively particpating in these discussions to help implement changes. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I did. I can't do any better than sacrifice myself and my reputation. Enigma ^message 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent and edit conflict) It's difficult to fix something as important as RFA, and I agree that it's starting to fall apart. However, I don't think it's really the process' fault. Until someone comes up with an amazing solution, we'll have to stick with the 70-75% discretion range for bureaucrats and keep with the traditional method of RFA. As I see it, there are a couple options: 1) Everything's fine, leave it as it is; 2) RFA is broken and we'll keep using it until a fix is found; or 3) RFA is broken, shut it down and no new admins until a fix is found. The problem is, the community can't even decide which of the three options (albeit only a very small minority would settle for the third) describes the condition of RFA, let alone come to a consensus on what to do about it. Useight (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Useight essentially echoed/alluded to what I was trying to get at above, but with more detail. Yup, those seem like the current options, and they are never decided upon. The pertinent question then is, is there another option? How do we implement change? Can we get crats involved, do we take it to their noticeboard? If that is futile, another straw poll to see if there's consensus? Well, that usually results in a near 50-50 split, or something likened to our current RfA threshold. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As Wisdom said, there have been some great discussions here, but nothing came out of it. We can all agree about a few things. RfA is broken to some degree. How to fix it is controversial, but again, the regulars at this talk page could come to an agreement on certain points, and have in the past. It hasn't led anywhere. Enigma ^message 00:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. As one of the RFA regulars, I've read/participated in a lot of those discussions. A lot of people have had ideas, but it has always been impossible to please the vast majority (as it would take a serious majority to change something like RFA). I've thought about RFA a lot, racking my brain on possibilities, but the community will likely never come to a consensus on anything. However, I think the first step is to compile a comprehensive (or at least as exhaustive as we can) list of the possible other ways in which selecting admins can be done. Then go from there. But, then again, it could just end up like it always has before, a lot of talk, zero action. Useight (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• RFA is not an exam, and not an award. The contributions of the user are here to indcate the candidate's judgment and all. These artificial questions can not indicate anything on the candidate's judgment and all. If the candidate's contributions are not sufficient to make your mind on the candidate, then oppose. But it's certainly not answers to some questions that will help, unless you're not afraid to be fooled. That it may open new territories unknown to the candidate, possible, but then it's better to ask a personalized question (one of the AGFC why not, but a question adapted to the candidate). Asking questions for the sake of it brings nowhere and has a lot of nefast consequences as mentioned above. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA and noms thereto should not be a contest, but I also think the more admins the better, as long as they meet the RFA standard; consider all the backlogs we have for admin work. There have been proposals for 'fixing' RFA for years, but few ever get implemented as most of them don't get enough support. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in a couple of the cases from which the questions are drawn. At least, the ghost in the machine one. I also suspect that I am the model for the "I make my own rules" one [1]. See also this [2]. I can tell you that the setup in the Challenge is nothing like the "real life" situations in those two cases. So I suspect that it is nothing like actual situations in the other questions. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

In lieu of the thank-spam that so often gets sent (and which I don't care for), I'd like to extend my most sincere thanks to those that commented on my RfA. I will work daily to never cause those whose expressed their support to regret their decision. Thank you all. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're very welcome (and most deserving too!) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Congrats on your unanimous approval! xenocidic ( talk ¿ listen ) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I saw that redlink that you hurriedly fixed :P. But congratulations. If you ever need some help while getting the hang of the tools, my talk page is always open. Useight (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hah, yeah. Forgot the "s". I appreciate the offer, though right now, I just need to get all the buttons + addons to appear on the screen! Need a two row setup for them. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Log off, log on, otherwise Ctrl + F5. Should work. Then, you can delete the main page...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Lol, no no, my problem is that I have too many add-ons and the new buttons are spilling off the screen. And shhhh, I'll delete the main page when no one is looking ;) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done, Huntster. Keep up the good work. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen in a number of RfA's going as far back as my earliest days as a Wikipedian people opposing on the grounds that the nominee "just wants to be an admin too badly". I'm curious as to people's opinions of this logic, as it doesn't quite make sense to me. To draw a parallel, I really want to complete my doctorate, but I don't expect to be denied it because of that fact. Thoughts? – ClockworkSoul 03:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see your doctorate (good luck!) as a very different thing to adminship. A doctorate is recognition of your research and analysis skills, while adminship gives a degree of authority over others. I imagine that opposes due to wanting the tools is because of a concern that the editor wants to have that degree of authority over and above a desire to improve the encyclopedia. Kevin (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that logic is it's somewhat backwards: Administrators aren't authorities. They're editors just like the rest of the editors. Wikipedia isn't meant to be hierarchial. Ergo, the users who oppose based on "wanting it too badly" have the very perspective they are opposing the candidate for. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's backwards to some editors perception of admins. An admin can prevent you from editing, therefore it's not unreasonable for someone to see that as a form of authority. I know that admins are supposed to act in accordance with the will of the masses, but there are some who don't see it that way. Kevin (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You don't officially want it too badly until you've broken the law to get it. Basic rule of nature. I ran a red light one time for a McDonald's Iced Coffee, for example.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 05:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Some can want it too badly. The problem is that being an administrator doesn't make one better or worse than somebody else... it doesn't grant one power/authority over others. We are still volunteers. That being said, some people don't see adminship that way. They see the word Admin, which is short for administrator, which is often associated with governing body. Admins do have power (our buttons), we do have responsibilities (to use our buttons responsibly), and whether real or imagined, some perceive us as having additional authority. When somebody who perceives us as haveing additional authority wants the buttons because they want that authority/prestige, then there is a problem.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 07:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What do you personally take as a sign in these cases that a user wants it too badly? Is it a particular set of behaviors? What kinds? I don't mean to push: I'm just being intellectually rigorous so I can further refine some of my own ideas. – ClockworkSoul 07:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't speak for others in all cases, but I think the usually-unmentioned distinction with this sort of opposition tends to be between "reasonably wants adminship to better help the project" and "obsessively wants adminship because it's a shiny badge of absolute authority." Users may be concerned that a candidate appears to be collecting trophies or trying a power grab. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just an off the topic comment: I really want my doctorate as well. Give me another year : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, thanks a lot Wisdom, :P) I think people equate "wanting it too badly" with "power hungry" and "block happy" or "delete happy". My assumption is that those who oppose using the "wanting badly" rationale are opposing because they think the candidate will be too quick with the trigger. Useight (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good luck, Wisdom! I can see how some may think that, but is there any actual evidence of it? I've been putting quite a lot of thought into it lately, and I'm struggling to find any real reason to think that "wanting it too badly" is a legitimate exclusive reason to oppose on an RfA. I can see, however, how it may support support some different, primary reason for opposing, especially in cases where the applicant is very impulsive, entitled, or immature. – ClockworkSoul 06:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I see you currently attend Stony Brook as well. Very interesting. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I do indeed! My lab is in the BST, in the department of pathology. It broke my heart when they removed the coffee place from the second floor. – ClockworkSoul 07:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I believe that a situation where someone who wants to have power over others and seems to excessively exhibit that desire is a reason for concern. Just as I think someone who really really really badly wants to be a police officer is a reason for concern. I have no data to confirm that there might be a problem and it would be an interesting thing to study. However, I think that it might be a reason for concern. I would not discount someone automatically because of this, but given the opportunity for abuse, I think it is something interesting to ponder.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fill is right on the brevity of such a feeling in regards to admin support, as in it shouldn't be the sole factor or even the biggest factor. But it is definitely, at least to me, a huge factor.

Let's say someone has been trying for years to get it, has been nominated several times, and just keeps trying and trying. I think that's a little suspicious and it leads me to believe that they may want it for the wrong reason. Beam 21:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in a bit late here. I see fewer of the power hungry candidates than I see those desirous of a shiny badge. Administrators are a select group of editors that are seen to have more de facto status by many and de jure status by a few. There are, and always have been, editors who seek adminship as a visible symbol of trust and respect. How though you pick between users who want the bit because it would be useful for their work here, those whose trophy shelf has a gap and those who desperately want to block Blnguyen because monkeys scare them....is tricky. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a discussion on refining the wording of RfA boilerplate taking place at Template talk:RfA#Proposal to change the following sentence. The current proposal is to change the sentence introducing the questions from:

It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

to:

Dear nominee, please answer the following questions:.

The Transhumanist 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't suppose it's a big deal which way round it is. However, written the way it was, it was more of a statement rather than a request. The candidate may need a little more self-motivation / gumption, but that's all I can say. I'm not bothered, whichever way it is. Lradrama 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure how important the above proposal is. However, there's no harm in rewording it to be more accurate. The way it reads currently carries the implication that somehow not answering the questions might be acceptable, or at the very least, not held against the applicant in any significant way. We all know that's bullocks of course. I think it should be changed for the benefit of users who are experienced, but completely unfamiliar with how RfA works. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's recommended that you... seems a bit of a guide to those who wouldn't no how to create a good impression of him/herself on Wikipedia; i.e. those who are probably to inexperienced to run for a RfA. Lradrama 19:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Equally though stating it in the way suggested makes it seem as if the questions are far more important than they really are - as if a RFA is a written test where demonstrating your ability to answer questions gets you a pass. That gives a totally wrong impression. The one real issue in a RFA is "can the community trust this candidate?" Written questions which range from complicated puzzles to asking for your favourite colour may or may not help answer that question but in the end virtually all RFAs come down to the user's history. Personally I think it would be an improvement to encourage people to ask questions on the user's personal talk page rather than on the RFA page. They could link to answers there if anything of interest came out. That change would retain focus on the RFA page on discussion of the candidate, where it should be. Dean B (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of the "Dear Nominee" part, but those questions, while technically optional, simply must be answered in order to pass an RFA. Changing the wording to be more accurate is probably a good thing to do. Useight (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Where's the evidence that you can't pass RFA without answering these questions? Christopher Parham (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't keep you from passing, but you can damn sure expect an oppose from the dude who asked the question.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The evidence is that if someone doesn't answer the three questions, they're not going to get enough support to pass. It's not like they're not allowed to pass if they don't answer them, they just won't get enough support to pass. Useight (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, the question I asked is what evidence you are talking about. As far as I can see the last reasonably qualified candidate to refuse to answer the questions passed with room to spare. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That would be the exception, not the rule. I'm not going to debate with you regarding users that passed without answering the questions and users that failed when they didn't answer the questions. It'd be completely pointless because it wouldn't result in anything and there's more productive things we could do. We're way off the topic of a possible change in word choice. Useight (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Every question that goes unanswered is grounds for more opposes. For one, the person who asks the question usually isn't pleased that it gets ignored, so that person will likely oppose. I think the RfA you speak of is somewhat different. For one, the candidate was pretty flawless otherwise. Also, they provided a somewhat cogent argument for not answering, which would be different than simply leaving all the questions empty. I think if we did a test with at least somewhat-qualified candidates, and they all ignored the questions, the vast majority would fail. Obviously not everyone is a stickler for the questions being answered, but enough are. Enigma ^message 05:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Often, though, every question answered is also a ground for opposition. I've been following RFA for a long time and I'm not sure that it's to a candidate's benefit to answer questions if they have a solid contribution history. The questions are more likely to put a wrench in the works of a nomination than to grease the wheels, in my view, and they are well avoided. Candidates who do answer these standard questions may also feel pressured to give a correct, rather than honest, response. Again offering the option to skip the question entirely is helpful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you look back through say the past three months of unsuccessful RFAs and write down for each the two main reasons cited for opposes, I'll bet not answering questions won't come up once. The vast bulk of opposes relate to the user's history, and cite diffs or refer to diffs cited by others. That's the issue RFAs revolve around. Of course not answering a question guarantees an oppose from the person who asked it but it rarely goes much wider than that. I think we need fewer questions and more people taking a careful look through candidates' histories. Dean B (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought we were discussing the main questions, not the optional ones offered by individual users. Not answering the latter is tolerated more. Not answering the main questions, however, would almost invariably sink an RfA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I was trying to say. Useight (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That shouldn't matter. Just because some people wouldn't support because a candidate didn't answer a couple questions does not mean it should be codified into what many people would consider the official rules. These questions should remain optional, period. --Rory096 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not being codified per se, it's all in the semantics. If the wording is changed then we prevent a potential whirlwind of a disaster for the candidate. This is especially important if they are new to the RfA process. I don't like to see people disgruntled. In fact, I think it should be recommended to the candidate that the answers be somewhat thorough, as lackluster answers tend to engender pile on opposes right away. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It absolutely is being codified- it's telling the candidate they have to do it and its removal is telling voters that it's required so they should oppose if they're not answered. We don't need to tell the candidate they'll likely be opposed for short answers any more than we should tell them that they should have a decently long nomination or correct formatting. All of those things are true, yes, but telling candidates is unnecessary and adding them to the template would just encourage opposers. --Rory096 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Never put much thought into it, I suppose, and still don't really think it's a big deal. The old/current statement sounds like one of those sentences that's been argued over and reverted so often it loses any semblance of coherence or significant meaning; the new/proposed statement reads fine and has a more personal, human feeling. Doubt common practice will change much, either way. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

see here Enigma ^message 00:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Enigmaman, I do beleive that counts as canvassing. Shame on you. But, yeah, WP:NOTNOW for sure. See, it just doesn't have the same sort of ring to it as WP:SNOW--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone's gotta do it, because I won't. Enigma ^message 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would, but I participated in it, so I'll let someone else do it. Useight (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I took a crack at it. I think I did it right.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My instructions. Enigma ^message 00:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well it was nearly right, 3/6. :-/ Anyway, I notified him and added his RfA to the unsuccesful cat now.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 00:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
:o Enigma ^message 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Uh... not sure what I'm expected to do about that... does it make a difference?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I was surprised to see it, that's all. Enigma ^message 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is wonderful. Kudos to all who worked on it . Dlohcierekim 14:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This may sound a little impertinent of me, but I'm contemplating undertaking some research and developing an essay for the community. You see, my line of work is in the development, auditing and analysis of systems and processes. Due to a recently cancelled holiday approaching that I still have the time off booked for, I was contemplating spending my time doing something productive. I would like to undertake some research into the RfA process, why people believe it is flawed, what problems have been encountered and what solutions they would suggest for overcoming these problems. I would then like to amalgamate these into a single cohesive document, looking at the entire adminship process from end to end and providing recommendations for improving the process if appropriate.

In terms of scope, I would consider the following areas as part of this research:

• Candidate selection: Is the curent process of invite or self-nom apropriate?
• Admin coaching: should it be disbanded, maintained as optional or made compulsory? Should some kind of pre-nom mentoring scheme take place?
• Nomination: Should the current nom+com be kept, or should something else such as a debate-only phase or a support and oppose declaration be considered?
• Advertising: Should canvassing for input be encouraged or discouraged? Should input come from a jury-selection system or similar?
• Election: Is it better to have a pure vote, a pure debate, a debate then vote or a concurrent debating and voting process?
• Declaration: Should an RfA be closed through a simple summing up or an interpretation of the election? What rules should be used? Should an Arbcom style process be used?
• Probation: Is this a good idea? Should it be considered? Should any conditions be attached? Should it have a minimum/maximum length?
• Recall: Should it remain as an optional process? A condition of an RfA?
• Omissions: Anything that isn't covered by the transition from editor to administrator.

Should people generally be happy for me to undertake this research, I would ask for submissions either via my talk page or via email. This is so that concerns, issues and suggestions can be unified and presented back to the community in one single solid document. I would also ask that contributors provide links to examples of concerns or reccomendations so that I can cite them when presenting the report back. Under the GDFL, I would also ask that if a contributor is willing, I would identify that person as a contributor to the report although this would not be compulsory.

So, if you think this is a good idea and you're happy for me to undertake it, please let me know. Of course, any findings from the report could be studied seperately with a view to implementing them as the community feels appropriate. It is also entirely possible that the community may feel that the reccomendations are not appropriate for implementation, in which case the RfA process will have at least been examined and any concerning areas aggreed as an acceptable risk. With all that said, I'd appreciate your thoughts and comments on carrying this work out. As I've sad earlier though, please contact me directly should you wish to contribute your thoughts and opinions on the RfA prcess.

Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 19:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! Be prepared for massive opposition to anything though, not because its justified, but because editors like to massively object to anything put in front of them. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I object to Gazimoff doing this report. Who's with me!?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but do you object massively? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's your prerogative to write a Wikipedia essay - just don't think it's going to change much in the way of the process. However, a cohesive, well thought out analysis of RfA might be an interesting read. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand this and I don't think for a moment that anything will change overnight. But hopefully, with careful in-depth analysis, concerns can be addressed and recommendations put forward. It would be entirely up to the community to decide whether to act on those or not. At least, by performing this analysis, change could become an option. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea and I thank Gazimoff for volunteering to organize and undertake this project.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

My serious response is that I don't think it could hurt and there probably hasn't really been much extensive cohesive research done on the RfA process, although the process has been discussed ad nauseum. I can honestly say, though, that If I get a few paragraphs in and it looks like the same stuff that I have seen discussed for the past few months, I'm not sure what additional value it will add. Although you can certainly try. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. And I'm almost naive enough to think enough people may finally be annoyed with RFA to the point to not only allow, but support, change. Lara❤Love 20:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It does seem to be the season of discontent and divisiveness...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I also think this is a good idea that needs exploring. Just don't give up....SynergeticMaggot (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Gazimoff, a potentially good reference point from about a month ago would be WP:AMP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I was originally joking but with a few tweaks here's my honest (and awesome) suggestion: I say do away with the RfA. If you get 10 (or 20 or w/e) Admins to sponsor you, you then become a nominee. But you're not reviewed by anyone and everyone you are reviewed by some board or beurocratical (sic) committee. If you pas, you become an Admin. If you abuse your Adminship you lose it, and if it's severe or repeated you lose it forever. And as a punishment to the idiots that sponsored you they have to either give me money or some other punitive measure. And, of course, because I came up with the idea, I am now an Admin. Beam 20:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If some new ideas for reforming RfA seem promising, there is no reason that we might not have a second track to adminship that people could choose. Just as currently a candidate can choose to be subject to recall or not. And currently a candidate can choose to answer optional questions or not. We could try these alternative paths and see how things progress. If they are clearly superior or favored by the community, the current method could be replaced by an alternative procedure.

I think the problem with changing is that people are not really quite sure that any new method will be as good as the current technique and might be appreciably worse in various ways. So rather than demand a huge change all at once for all candidates, let's see if any ideas look interesting enough to try on some small scale.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So I get no money and I'm not an admin now? :( Beam 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I like your idea in that it's so much easier to desysop an admin, but it's even more prone to corruption than the current one - get ten (or twenty) admins to be your friends, and bingo. Also, another bureaucratic committee to determine adminship? I'm sorry, but that process is infinitely worse than the current one, and that's saying a lot. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh man, a committee to determine adminship, that would be approaching a cabal for sure. As for the report, perhaps a comprehensive document would get the ball rolling on some changes around here, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Useight (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you're right. Perhaps I should be the sole decider. Adminship decided via dictatorship. I'm wicked neutral so it's a good idea. Beam 22:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Filll has a very good idea in having the processes run tandem and have the candidate chose which process they want to go through. Very good idea, indeed. Lara❤Love 00:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I have heard many people rant against RfA; I always thought they were a bit on the fringe. The current RfA is showing me that the current system of !votes is probably nonfunctional. It seems to have been rendered that way by IRC etc.
• I am beginning to support the idea of abolishing RfA.
• I am beginning to believe that I would support an easy-in/easy-out system, in which it's easy for people to get the bit, but (crucially!) equally easy for it to be taken away. I need to spend time thinking about this.
• Ling.Nut (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This idea does seem to have a fair amount of support, so I'll go ahead and implement it. Later today I'll have a page up containing information on the review process, how to participate and so on. Once that's done, I'll invite contributions from far and wide. I'll even debate adding my email address to the page so that users can contribute completely anonymously. After two weeks, I'll write up a report based on submissions and present a series of recommendations. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 07:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN..."While RFA is our most debated process and nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with it, literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus on what exactly is wrong with it, nor on what should be done about that." Kudos to someone that actually comes up with something thats both better and gets implemented. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's one of my thoughts. There is a lot of criticism, but it's almost always directed at one section or element of the process in isolation, resulting in suggestions that can cause problems elsewhere in the process. I am hoping that a thorough, end to end review will serve as not only a record of all current concerns, but provide some solid and well thought out recommendations. As for implementation, that would not be for me to decide, but if the review is conducted properly the community should have some options to consider. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, the draft review process is up at WP:RfA Review. Feel free to go and take a look and discuss methodology, baseline, etc. Once the baseline is complete, I'll start gathering information. Many thanks for your interest so far, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Given the current environment and culture on Wikipedia, I think a mandatory question of all RfA candidates should be:

• Are you aware that you will be be the target of harassment and death threats because of your position as an administrator? How do you intend to cope with this when it happens?

--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... no. Just no. Receiving "death threats" is not a given and this would just increase the levels of hysterical paranoia visible on the wiki in recent months. naerii - talk 18:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Plus it has nothing to do with being an administrator. Fill, was this a serious suggestion that you really think needs to be discussed here? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never really noticed Filll until he posted his AGF Challenge earlier this week. Then he really impressed me with his responses... while I don't agree with the AGF Challenge as part of the RfA process, he had rational well thought out reasons. The last couple of days, he has become---shall we say more pointy/belligerent? I'd say that is what this question is---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is of course pointy. Not that belligerent, but if you threaten someone repeatedly, he might respond. How about that?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, since my very favorable first impression, it has gone down hill quite rapidly because you are being pointy at several places, just to be pointy. I recognize this may not be your finest hour, but I really wish you would think about your pointiness more.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 19:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to know that your first impression of me was favorable. However, that is not the impression you gave me of your impression of me, for sure. More like complete loathing and disgust. Something similar to the impression LaraLove implied she had of me, but maybe not quite as bad as LaraLove doubtlessly feels.

However, you should know where I got all those AGF problems from; from real experiences. You think I obtained all those experiences painlessly? You don't think there is a long trail of people that hate me frantically and would love to have me suffer a long slow painful death for things like suggesting the New York Times is a reliable source? If you do not think that, then you do not know much about Wikipedia I am afraid. And that is the whole point of the AGF Challenge; to reveal a bit about its darker corners to those who do not know. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Filll, not that I'm awfully fond of you or anything, but I do think you are going a little off the deep end here. If there are specific issues, please let ArbCom know privately, and contact the Foundation for IP data to be passed on to law enforcement. If you are seriously threatened in some way, I would point out that its only a website and that you should not take any chances and withdraw from the project, or, as I have done in the past in response to similar problems, commence editing under a new username and with substantially changed focus.
If, however, this is merely a statement of possibility, I suggest that it is unhelpful, as well as not respectful of those who have actually faced such problems, not a large group of people. I note seveal others on this page, and on the others where you have made similar statements, have indicated as much. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly RR, you have exhausted your welcome with me, and I do not appreciate your harassment and what appears to have every characteristic of stalking, as well as your irrational rants and nonsense. Please bother someone else for a change. Maybe I will have a discussion with you when you can demonstrate to me that you have something productive to contribute.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• shrug* I think you need to read up on what stalking actually is. And I bother lots of people, not just you. :)
If any of my statement above reads as irrational rants and nonsense....
I think you're coming down with a case of wikistress. That last post was really OTT rude. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It's a stretch of the imagination to assert that administrators will be the subject of either off or on wiki death threats. And if it does happen, you contact the authorities or the foundation as all threats are to be taken seriously. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that every administrator got a death threat at some stage... ridiculous question, sorry. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It suggests to me that Filll has received death threats. And Pedro received threats earlier in the week. Having heard from other admins who have received threats, it's certainly a concern candidates should be aware of, though I'm not sure a question is necessary. All admin candidates should be aware of the potential for threats, stalking, outing, and being the target of ED biographies. Lara❤Love 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lara is probably correct with her surmising. However. Fill, were you proposing this question so that candidates will be aware of what they're getting into, or another question on which to judge the candidate? I ask only because if it's the latter case, it has no bearing on one's ability to handle administrative duties on Wiki English. If it's the former, there are other ways to go about it. Disclaimers for one. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply that no administrator gets threats, i'm aware of those that affected Pedro earlier this week. However, mandatory questions should affect all candidates and I don't think threats come under that category. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 18:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, plenty of non-admins are subjected to threats and to offsite harassment. Conversely, plenty of admins are able to maintain a low profile and are not really targeted at all. So it's misleading to suggest that this sort of treatment is a by-product of adminship itself.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Oh, I didn't even consider this was being pointy. How naive of me. I was thinking of it more as a "Hey, this is possible, will you be able to deal with such a situation and are you willing to take that risk?" Hopefully my original take is the correct one, otherwise this is ridiculous. Lara❤Love 18:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well a disclaimer is a good idea too. But asking the question makes sure that if and when something bad happens, then we have some record of them been made aware of it and them acknowledging it. For legal purposes. This is a cesspit and getting worse. And our current attitudes and culture just encourage it. So it is better to be prepared since we seem bound and determined to continue down this path.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are higher profile than others. And say no more often. And so I think they are targeted more often. Of course I have no statistics on that, but it is a reasonable supposition to start with.--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems quite morbid to me that we'd be preparing for the legal ramifications of someone being mangled or murdered over Wiki English. I think a disclaimer somewhere highlighting the various possibilities would be appropriate. And not as some sort of legal fallback for the Foundation, but for the safety and awareness of candidates. While threats are not limited to admins, outing is. And two of the three outers I know of have stated they want to out all admins. So that is something that admins candidates should be aware of, if only to give them a heads up to keep their private information private. Lara❤Love 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Because of our current careless climate and atmosphere, we are going to have a killing or two with almost complete certainty. Many of our policies encourage it. So let's just accept that and get ready. We have no one but ourselves to blame since we condone and encourage it. But dont worry about that, lets just prepare for the inevitable since we seem not to care about it.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Okay, so this is clearly pointy now. Uhm, there's probably a more appropriate venue (or a few) for this. What policies are in need of updating to no longer "condone and encourage" the murdering of our admins? Lara❤Love 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that our policies are designed to bolster harmony rather than sinister discord. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I would beg to differ. There is plenty I could say but maybe this is not the right place for it. --Filll (talk | wpc) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't a mandatory "death threat" question is a good idea. Perhaps the disclaimer, though, wouldn't be bad. Some admins are higher profile than others and will take more flak (such as those who patrol [[CAT:CSD] and WP:AIV), than others. Personally, I've never received a death threat (but my userpage has been vandalized 31 times), and I think I'm a somewhat well-known admin, or at least one that is quite integrated into the community. Useight (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) As i'm not an admin, I can't really state facts on the matter. I'd love to hear the opinions of several admins on the matter and see what consensus says about such a question? I'd be much happier with a disclaimer though, just for the record. I don't think we'd be doing any favours by scaring off potential candidates by having to answer such a question. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs? 19:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is probably prudent to avoid legal trouble to do so. Probably we should contact Mike Godwin with help on how to draft a suitable question and/or disclaimer to protect the foundation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Wikipedia epitomizes the phrase "public domain". I mean, IP addresses are visible for all to see, something that is generally kept hidden from other visitors to a site. What does this mean? All users who make the decision to contribute to Wikipedia are taking a potential risk, which is likely intuitive anyway. The disclaimer might work, as I suggested before, but honestly, I don't generally feel that the Wikipedia community is naive enough to believe their work won't be scrutinized. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is really needed or useful, and it is not worded in a factual way. The vast majority of our administrators are not receiving death threats. If we must have a disclaimer along these lines, it should appear on the "create an account" page, not RFA. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know? I know several that get them. Or other assorted threats. I do not think threats are so uncommon for admins. Not in my experience. Admins are loathed. Very few admins that used their tools would ever be reappointed. Ever.--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
My experience is much the opposite, I have little sense that admins are loathed and I expect that the vast majority of existing admins would be reconfirmed under RfA. Obviously it is unfortunate that editors would receive threats or intimidation of any kind but this query gives the impression that this happens to the majority of admins. You are individually welcome to mention this problem to prospective candidates but I don't see that we need to make this a mandatory question.

With all due respect, then you know a very different version of Wikipedia than I do. And from what is documented at User:Filll/WP Challenge.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this really relevant to RfA, or did you just want to get it off your chest? naerii - talk 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is relevant. RfA candidates should know what they are letting themselves in for. And we should have some record that they acknowledge that fact, to protect Wikipedia and the Foundation.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been an admin on 6 wikis over a span of nearly two years. I have not (touch wood) ever received a death, or otherwise threat in any shape or form. Al Tally ^talk 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have plenty to say to that but I think I will hold off. I will just say, "Oh is that so?"--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

@Filll — So surely a disclaimer is more adequate. As for the record of acknowledgment, how about expanding the acceptance line to include the reading of such a disclaimer? Although, this is pretty similar to the terms of service that comes with pieces of software; which, let's face it, no one reads. Regards, CycloneNimrod ^talk?_contribs?

Not a bad idea, really.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

For someone who is disgusted with the fact that Wikipedia is run in such a way that its admins receive death threats, it seems strange that you'd be trying to make changes to protect the very Foundation that couldn't give a shit about what happens to you. Lara❤Love 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I do hold out hope that things can be improved. Or would you prefer to have things continue on their current course, or even contribute to making things worse? I know what my choice is.--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the RFA nom is the place to bring this up. There are many "low-brow"/wikignomish administrators who have not had to deal with that kind of nonsense. I doubt we should consider all new administrators as potential haterrazzi targets. It depends what categories of admin work you get involved with. I pretty much agree with what naerii said way up top...it would cause needless paranoia. We must remember that we aren't training grizzled Marines or paralegals here!¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 03:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

All I can say is based on my own experience as an admin who is neither particularly low nor high profile (sort of in the middle, I guess), I have never received any death threats. Or any other sort of threats. I suspect this is why I don't feel such a question is necessary. But I recognise admins (or, indeed, any editor) who have received threats simply for volunteering their time on Wikipedia are best placed to determine whether such a question is relevant - after all, they have been through this. Has any work ever been done to see just what proportion of admins have received threats? Neıl 龱 11:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I've never been threatened with death either (after ~1500 blocks, iirc). Don't think it's appropriate for RFA, though maybe WP:ADMIN? · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)