requests For Adminship/Archive 215

If it is an "official" shortcut to here, it should say so. If not, I would prefer it to redirect to WP:NOTBROKEN. I have checked "what links here" but of course most of them are RfAs not gnoming like this, so regular admins here are probably better placed to make the call. I just bring it to your attention.

Best wishes

Si Trew (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm a liar and this is odd, because WP:BROKEN is a redlink, as you see. However, in the search box on Mozilla Firefox when I put it on Wikipedia to search, and type in WP:BROKEN, it immediately comes to here (not the talk page but the page itself). That's a little odd isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 8 does the same (IE is so obtuse these days in hiding stuff I can't even find a menu on it let alone a version number), but I assume that it is the same WP back end search engine. As I say, I would prefer it to link to WP:NOTBROKEN, but perhaps tying myself in knots I don't want to break the search (however informal) that WP:BROKEN heads you straight to RfA, even though the link is red and I would be perfectly entitled to make that link. I assume Google Chrome and other search engines will do the same since obviously it is the back end i.e. the Wikipedia search engine doing it, not the browser client. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, when I said "regular admins", I am not an admin and do not want to be. I meant it to mean people who frequently use this page and so know its habits as opposed to admins that do other stuff. It was not in any way meant to imply I was an admin, regular or not. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The redirect is Wiki: Broken. Skipping a few technicalities, Wikilinks are case sensitive but the search box is not, so it works to enter WP:BROKEN in the search box. It's only two months old.[1] It was mentioned but not officially nominated at Wiki: Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 16#Wikipedia:PITCHFORKS. You can nominate it for deletion or retargeting at Wiki: Redirects for discussion. Many pages have a lot of WP redirects which shouldn't all be listed on the page. This one has no real uses at Special:WhatLinksHere/Wiki:Broken and is certainly not "official". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BROKE exists and redirects to Wiki: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I've created WP:BROKEN, which similarly redirects to Wiki: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I'm going to retarget WP:Broken to WP:BROKEN, for consistency. I hope my boldness here is not excessive, but this change makes WP:Broken into something of use to an average editor. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
You can't have a redirect going to a redirect. I changed WP:Broken to go to Wiki: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. GB fan 18:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm must be slacking. Three RFAs running, all of which seem to be off to a great start, and I haven't ever come across the candidates before.  7  04:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I found the whole "I've never heard of any of these people" thing weird too. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If it's any consolation I have heard of both of you! Dpmuk (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You wait weeks for an RfA, then three come along at once. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I knew Dpmuk before from hunting Tobias Conradi socks, but the other two I didn't recognize either. It's not just you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Out with the old, in with the new I guess. Need some fresh blood as I can't believe the backlogs at UAA and AIV sometimes.  7  00:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Why so many questions at these recent RfA's? They're creating such a wall of text that they're no longer useful, in my opinion. Between the 3 RfA's ongoing right now, there is an average of nearly 20 questions per RfA (if you count all of the sub-questions as individual questions, which they are regardless of whether or not you label them 9a, 9b, 9c, 9d), and the RfA's aren't even halfway over yet. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to impinge on anyone's right to ask a question of a candidate, but perhaps we should be focussing on asking relevant questions rather than boilerplate, general questions about well-known policies. In other words, questions should (in my opinion) be used to get clarification on specific issues/opinions relevant to that candidate, rather than being a pop quiz about random WP policies, particularly when those policies have nothing to do with the candidate's stated area of interest. —SW— ^converse 14:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether you follow wt:rfa, but this happens on occasion. A string of rfas will have 20 or 30 or more questions on them, and then someone will broach this question, and then there's a discussion here about the merits. You might want to poke the archives on the issue. That said, I'm not saying it's wrong or right that it happens, it just does, and they usually have a common denominator of some sort. /shrug --Izno (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec)This is one of those perenial questions. It's not an explosion, but a norm to have way too many questions. IMHO, unless a question is dealing with a specific issue/edit/etc related to a specific candidate, then it probably shouldn't be added. I get tired of the cliche questions that are adked of every candidate.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm inclined to agree. A lot of the general questions could easily be avoided by a brief look at a candidates contributions. Their approach to AfD, for example, can probably be (better) established by looking at their past 20 AfD votes. I will occasionally ask a question where something I have seen concerns me, and I believe that it the best use of questions at RfA. I'm sure some will disagree, but I can't see the use of so many generic questions. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree that the sheer volume of questions is pushing that section into tl;dr territory. I like to ask questions occasionally, but if there are already more than (say) eight, I really try to restrain myself. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
IMO, more RfAs should have the same number of questions mine did (6, including the standard 3). This isn't a Senate confirmation hearing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, though we're rapidly approaching that level of verbosity (albeit with somewhat more intelligent discussion; at least we haven't gotten as far as Sotomayor's hearing... yet). At the very least, I'd like for each question to actually ask one question, not 3. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not only do I disagree, but I would like to see my my questions added as standard since most of them deal directly with the tools and responsibilities the prospective admin will likely deal the most with once gaining the tools.
I've seen so many pit trap questions or ones related to current events, that I set out to write ones that would give a better idea about the candidate, yet stay as neutral as possible.
I sincerely don't believe it's beyond the pale for a candidate to explain these. Honestly even the act of explaining is good, since explaining to others (newbies, potential block warnings, why you decided to IAR, or whatever) is a practice that the prospective admin should get used to. - jc37 00:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that asking a candidate to explain when it would be appropriate to block an editor only tests the candidate's ability to navigate to WP:BLOCK and paraphrase it. —SW— ^babble 03:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I understand and am sympathetic to your opinion. However, since placing these questions over the last several years, I find that that perspective hasn't been borne out overall by events.
And further, just getting the candidate to take that moment to summarise them is a good thing. Sometimes what's fluid in your head becomes clearer when you have to actually convey it to others. (It's one of many teaching methods, by the by.)
That aside, if they were part of the standard questions, the candidate could even answer them before taking the nom "live", and if anything just that act might help them better understand what they're asking for in the tools. - jc37 03:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Why is it that when I ask 4 questions to serve the purpose of learning more about the candidate, I get a message on my talk page saying that that many questions is disruptive and here there are all these editors asking a millions questions per person? Something isn't right here. I think editors should be limited to 1 or 2 questions per person to keep the number of questions down to a minimum.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 516,985,867) 00:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We could get rid of most of these extra questions by adding a general question as follows:

4. Have you read all of the pages at Wiki: Administrators' reading list recently? Note: There is only one correct answer to this question, and that is "Yes". If you can't answer "Yes" honestly, leave this blank, go read those pages, then answer "Yes".

I think that covers most of the bases. (Yes, the wording is funny, but the sentiment is totally serious.) Sven Manguard Wha? 03:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think RfA is more about testing the understanding of the policies rather than making sure that the candidate has read the policies. I wouldn't take more than a few hours for a new bie to read the entire list of policies. But, understanding and applying them in real situations is more important. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
NO it is not. It is not about "testing the understanding", the persons understanding should be present in their edits and contributions elsewhere. We don't need to test them. You should be able to get all you need from their actual contributions, the only time that a question should be asked is if you've done your homework and need something clarified. The only way that this is a test is to try to trip somebody up, which serves nobody any good.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. And so is everyone else : )
There's a LONG standing common practice at RfA that people may support or oppose based on pretty much anything they want. So, by extension should be able to ask whatever they want - as long as it's concerning the topic of the page, that is: A request for Adminship. Therefore anything regarding adminship (the tools and the responsibilities thereof) should be within the purview if the questioners, period. And that includes how the individual interacts with others, as well as their past editing history, as those could be indicators of future action. Where I think questions go too far is when they get into things like "do you like bavarian creme or raspberry?" type stuff. - jc37 03:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
My purpose in starting this thread wasn't to restrict you or anyone else from asking questions, nor was it to define the types of questions that are "acceptable" at RfA. I'd just like to get you thinking about whether it's necessary/helpful/efficient for one editor to ask seven additional questions of every candidate (as you've done for the last 3 RfA's); and furthermore, whether it's necessary/helpful/efficient to pose a question about page protection (for example) to a candidate that has expressed no interest in protecting pages or working at WP:RFPP. —SW— ^comment 14:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh a good discussion revisiting issues isn't necessarily a bad thing : )
Not speaking for anyone else, but in my humble opinion the questions I pose are ones that concern what every admin ends up being at least asked about once they are an admin. This is regardless of what they plan to do as an admin. (Best laid plans of mice and men, and all that.) As I recently said elsewhere, if an editor is "happy to help", then why wouldn't they help when someone is asking for help? Plus ppl change and grow in experience as they edit. And eventually they may find themselves helping out in regions of Wikipedia that they never thought they would. (I think this is likely true of all of us.)
And while we all like to say "adminship isn't a big deal", apparently removing adminship has been clearly shown to be a very big deal. So it's better to be proactive and find out any potential issues before hand, then have to deal with the potential drama after the fact.
We're basically interviewing candidates to do a job. What interviewer doesn't ask questions of a candidate for a prospective job, regardless of whether they have the candidate's prior history laid out before them?
As I said before, I think my questions (which, except for the last, are all basic to what I think every active admin deals with on a fairly regular basis) should be default to every RfA. If they were, then they could be answered before the RfA goes "live" (is transcluded here).
Let me ask you this: presuming you don't, why don't you like the questions I posed? Do you really believe that admins do not regularly deal with these types of situations? Or is there something else I am missing? - jc37 16:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't like the questions, but not because I don't believe that the majority of admins will need the knowledge you're testing by asking those questions. I don't like the questions because, like I said above, they don't test anything apart from the candidate's ability to paraphrase policy pages, and the sheer volume of questions creates a wall of text with little value. Asking a candidate, "when is it appropriate to protect a page" neither guarantees that the candidate won't improperly protect pages in the future, nor does it necessarily test their knowledge of protection policy. If the candidate happens to know the correct answer, they'll answer correctly, and if they don't know the answer, they'll just go look it up and then also answer correctly. In either case, we get a correct answer, so how can we use this question to gauge anything? I suppose the third possibility is that they'll look it up and answer incorrectly, in which case the question might have some minimal value in determining whether or not the candidate is completely incompetent.

In my opinion, questions that are asked at RfA shouldn't have an answer that is spelled out somewhere on a policy page that you can copy and paste. Such questions have little value. Valuable questions are those that expose a candidate's knowledge of and experience with unwritten norms, and situations that are decided more by intuition and experience than by a rigid application of strict rules. Your question about how consensus is determined is probably the best of the seven questions you've been asking, since gauging consensus is something that is only possible with experience. —SW— ^express 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
If the candidate happens to know the correct answer, they'll answer correctly, and if they don't know the answer, they'll just go look it up and then also answer correctly. In either case, we get a correct answer, so how can we use this question to gauge anything? - Fair opinion, but believe it or not, to my recollection, that hasn't actually been the results. You might be surprised at how often people who read the pages linked to in the questions still come back to RfA with a mistaken perspective on them.
Anyway, besides consensus, the ones on blocking and on IAR, seem to have the widest mistaken opinions from candidates. If they pretty much get the idea that page protection is only for certain situations (typically certain types of multiple editing wars), then that more fits your thought, though even that is misunderstood by candidates at times (and often can be a first clue to whether an editor has WP:OWN tendencies). And that's another thing, I have found that by asking these questions, it helps "edumacate" the candidates a bit. They may learn where their mistaken perceptions of policy are, and (hopefully) even potentially change their behaviours to match. a win-win, imo.
I kept the scenario one very basic intentionally. I have seen a myriad of these, but they so often get lost in the miasm of specifics to a certain situation. This kept it broad enough so that they could show the basics without getting mired in detail.
And the "why do you wish to be an admin" is one that I hope has the candidate be a bit self reflective. For one thing, all too often it is suggested to our editors (due to other websites and their expectations, among other things) that adminship is the next rung of the ladder. if you're experienced at editing you get it as a "prize" for being around so long. One of the things I'm hoping they discover ahead of time is that adminship is work - lol.
I don't necesarily expect you will change your opinion, but I wanted to try to explain the reasonings at least : ) - jc37 18:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that answering the questions does not really tell us anything about the candidate. All it shows is that they are able to look up a policy and recite it to you. You can probably achieve the same thing by just asking them to read the relevant guidelines (akin to what Steven said above). I don't think that those question are intrinsically wrong, and they probably do provide some value; I think the issue might be that, when there are 20 questions all asking the same thing, we're not really learning anything new. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, if we make the basics be standard questions, it might just prevent the duplicates, and actually cut down on what are essentially repeat questions. And we might see more specific requests for clarification, rather than the gotcha scenario questions, as well. - jc37 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That might work, as it we'd get the benefit without having the questions asked 20 times. We'd need to determine a set of questions which is broad enough but as succinct as possible (with brevity being the more important); your set would be a good starting point. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
As long as they also stay neutral, fine by me. - jc37 18:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be more worried if we were getting more "gotcha" questions, where you're damned whichever way you answer, or where there is some crucial trick you have to "get". Sven's question is a totcha, since followup Q can expose that the candidate missed a clause somewhere. I'm also not a big fan of "how would you close these current discussions" questions, as that's a lot of pressure if someone isn't even interested in that area. General exploratory questions asking how to "interpret" policy (not just read the page and spew it back) should be OK. One thing in particular though - if someone adds a question, or worse yet, one of a series of canned questions, which covers the exact same damn ground as another one 3 above, the second questioner should be contacted and asked to srtike it themselves. I think it shows great disrespect to a candidate if someone is so eager to ask their own very important questions that they can't take the time to read what is already there. Franamax (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this as well; once you actually are an admin, you have to rely on your own judgment a lot more than the policies. In some places, I play a lot looser with blocking people than in others because that's what the situation calls for; there's nothing in the blocking policy that tells admins when to use article protection and when to block people in a specific situation. There's no way to ask a question that would encompass that without either being vague to the point of unanswerable or asking the candidate if he's stopped beating his wife. Once you actually become an admin, you can't just go by the book; this is why I like RfA questions which don't look for any definitive answer (the one question I ever asked at an RfA was "When would you use IAR to speedy delete an article"; no good policy answer for that, so the candidate had to come up with something expressing his personal view on it). I'd push for a reduction in the number questions which only ask the candidate to paraphrase policy or respond to an example in a vacuum (because actually having to delete pages or hand out blocks is totally different from RfA example exercises); that would eliminate many, if not most, questions that people ask now, but it would force people to ask questions that would give more insight into what the candidate is actually thinking. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well just for laughs here's my take on this.

Are multi-part questions calling for several paragraphs of explanation an acceptable substitute for actually checking the candidates contribution history? No. If you are too lazy to do the legwork, don't particpate in RFA.
Is it ok to make your preffered set of questions de facto standard questions by pasting them into every single RFA? No. The community selected the current standard questions, copying the same questions into every RFA is a back door end run around following a proper, consensus based process.
Is there anything we can realistically do to curb these problems without creating a new rule that has the potential to stifle legitimate questions and debate? No. I wish there was, but I don't see how we could do that. Our only other option is to keep pointing out to users who persistently do such things that much of the community finds it obnoxious and that it is not helpful to the other RFA participants. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Not speaking for others, but I do indeed check edit history. But that almost never tells the whole tale. - jc37 02:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting to read the above comments, and I think that (for now) they have persuaded me. Having said that, my opinion on RfA tends to jump around, so we'll see where I am later. I think the merits of these questions will depend on what we think they'll tell us and whether or not we think the information we get is useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights above expressed a helpful evaluation of administration, which leads me back to the idea that the most important thing we are judging is a candidates judgements and trustworthiness. They are best evaluated through looking at a candidates past contributions and asking questions where potential problems or issues seem to arise. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see candidates ignoring these gratuitous questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

While I think that would often be a good idea, the sad reality is that many people would oppose a candidate for not answering a question. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Just popped in here for the first time in many months, and was surprised to see that there are no current RfAs. My memory is that usually (a few years back) the page looked more like WP:FAC, and would have a huge backlog of cases; some with merit, some without merit.

Just interested why this would have changed... are entries being closed through WP:SNOW far more quickly than before? Or are the instructions now so good that frivolous or not-ready-yet applications are rarely made? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Having recently gone through one myself (successful, on the second ask), I can confirm that they are not massively pleasant experiences - the close scrutiny of edits and the dragging up of some from years ago (at my first RFA someone complained about an edit made 4/5 years previosuly!), the sometimes-borderline aggressive questioning - I know we need to make sure we are giving the right editor the right tools, but it all combines to be a very off-putting week of your life. GiantSnowman 13:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? Our last candidate completely ignored his RFA after the first 2 days and breezed through anyway. It's only as off-putting as you make it.--Atlan (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring your nomination does not really instill confidence in your desire to become an admin. GiantSnowman 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I meant ignoring, as in answering the questions and then let it run its course.--Atlan (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Which is what I did - though it still doesn't mean it was a stressful week. GiantSnowman 15:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I can imagine it would be quite stressful when episodes from your Wiki-past that you might have chosen to move on from are dragged up over again. I was involved in one of the entries on WP:LAME about six years ago. That would not doubt get pride of place!
Anyway, notwithstanding that I'm still not sure why the trend would be for fewer RfAs. I wouldn't have thought the unanticipated prospect of a stressful week would be enough to put off most chancers or medium tenured 'pedians who think they're admin material. The figures at WP:RFAU#Archive are quite astonishing - from over 500 a year in 2006/2007, down to just 88 last year. Something must have changed...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
We have also seen a massive decline in new editors, over all editing and more editors are leaving along with the issues with the process itself. All these are contributing factors IMO. Unless we can somehow stop eating our own young and running off editors, both old and new, and make the RFA process more friendly we are going to be in for some tough times. It wouldn't surprise me to see a significant decline in the status of Wikipedia over the next 2 - 3 years. --Kumioko (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem is finding articles to write/work on. Most of the low hanging fruit has already been picked. In order for somebody to add to the project, they have to know something that has gone unnoticed/touched for years or be an editor type person.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well thats partly true but it also doesn't help when the new article is summarily deleted as non notable (strangely there is a discussionon this currently brewing at the Village pump I think). Personally the notability rule has always been a bit of a dubious one because what is notability and how does it affect me. I personally think all Medal of Honor/Victoria Cross receipients are notable others may not. I could personally care less if we deleted every Soccer/International Football player article but to others this is a big deal. I personally think that we should be paying less attention to notable and more attention to Verifiability and references. There are plenty of topics that are "notable" but we can't find 2 references. On the opposite there are a lot of what we would consider non notable topics you could easily get to FA status with the amount of available content. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree... In poker, there are people who are one hit wonders. They won a WSOP bracelet and then disappear from the poker work entirely. IMHO these people need articles if for no other reason to say, "hit the big one and did nothing else." People are going to wonder about that... and having a redirect to the parent article doesn't answer that question. Sometimes you need an article to say, "nothing else is known about this notable person." (Again, several Poker Hall of Famers are in the HOF, but the people who put them there are dead and all that is left are anecdotes/stories about them... nothing reliable.)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Much of the problem with the RFA process is not in editors lack of desire to get or use the tools but in the process itself. As was said above, its usually a needlessly unpleasant expereince, full of insults, arrogance and frequently causes the editor to leave. I know many editors, myself included who are capable of using all or most of the tools but do not desire to go through the experience. If they should appear or could be requested in pieces as some can, then that would be a much much better thing to do. As I have said many times and have taken much criticism for it. We do not need a lot of admins, we need a lot of people that can do that various admin things. Even those with the tools rarely use them all and most specialize in one thing or another. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Support the comment by Kumioko. If there is a serious problem with lack of admins, something should be done about explaining to grunt content editors like me why it would be a desirable thing to do. I'm perfectly content with editing articles I'm interested in, without being dragged in to resolve disputes that I don't care about. There seems to be a view that becoming an admin is some sort of "promotion". That's a complete myth to many of us - it seems to be a highly undesirable position, to me and presumably to others. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
As I've commented in the past, anyone who can be trusted with one administrator-only tool can be trusted with all of them. If someone is trustworthy and has a demonstrable need for one or more administrator-only tools, he/she should become an administrator. If there are administrator-only tools that he/she doesn't need, the community should trust him/her to not misuse them.
The problem is that segments of the community have developed unreasonable expectations of admin candidates. The idea that adminship is "no big deal" has faded, leading to the aforementioned unpleasantness at RfA (to which many users understandably don't wish to subject themselves).
In addition to creating needless complexity, splitting the administrator-only tools would encourage opposition to trustworthy editors' adminship requests ("You can just get tool x and tool y separately, so you don't need to be an admin."), reinforcing the perception that it's a big deal. —David Levy 16:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I do actually see your point here and I would be inclined to agree if the process itself wasn't such a painful thing to endure. Additionally, using myself as an example. I have no desire to go through the process again (I tried it several years ago) and under no dilusions that the community would likely not approve the submission anyway due to my very outspoken stance on several topics, especially recently, so there is little point in wasting my time applying. That aside, I would argue that as an editor with more then 300, 000 edits, more than 5 years experience, there are few templates I can't figure out (even the fairly complicated ones), etc. there are few tools I wouldn't be able to use correctly although I would probably rarely if ever perform a block, protect an article or any number of other things. It would have been very beneficial to me though to be able to edit a protected article or template, be able to move a file or be able to do several other things that are restricted to adminnistrators. None of which, IMO, do I need adminship for. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The ability to edit protected pages requires a certain level of trust. If a user possesses such trust and can demonstrate a need for the tool, he/she should become an administrator. Just as we trust admins to refrain from editing complicated code with which they're unfamiliar, we can trust them to refrain from using tools that they don't need.
That the RfA process is painful to endure is a big part of the problem. It hasn't always been, and it shouldn't be. —David Levy 16:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
With respect. I agree that there are many tasks (such as blocks and revision deletions) that require a special level of trust above and beyond what should be given to the average user. I would argue however if an editor has been around a while they shuoldn't have to endure the gauntlet to get some of them. Again using myself as an example, if I could have made the changes I needed too to some of the templates relating to US related WikiProjects fast it would have spared a lot of trouble. As it was I had to do the change in the sandbox and then wait several days to a few weeks for someone to get around to it and sometimes caused unnecessary anxiety. I also shouldn't, as someone with quite a bit of experience have to request an administrator fix a typo in a fully protected article just because I didn't want to get the RFA lashing. I would also argue that, given the painful experience that RFA is known to be, to continue to tell editors that they can never do anything more than basic editing because "the community doesn't trust you" is an assumption of bad faith and is an enabler to the reason why so many editors leave. Of course I don't have any proof to support that claim but as someone who has edited in good standing for years (with the exception of the occassional disagreement with entrenched adminsn and editors with their own agendas) and hundreds of thousands of edits, if I haven't earned the trust of the community by now then I likely never will and should probably take the hint and invest my time elsewhere. --Kumioko (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree, unreservedly, that trustworthy editors "shouldn't have to endure the gauntlet" to obtain these tools — all of them (not merely "some of them"). This is the problem that we must address. —David Levy 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I think part of the reason for the drop in numbers may actually be all the discussions about RfAs. If you've been around long enough to have a fair chance at an RfA then you've almost certainly seen the "RfA is broken", "worse week of your life" and similar comments. Don't get me wrong I do think RfA is broken and I've seen some cases where it must have been horrible to be the user involved but the regular making of comments like that, without any changes to the process, must be putting people off. Bit of a catch-22 that.

As an aside I did watch my RfA for the whole week, there just didn't seem anything I needed to comment on after the first couple of days. Dpmuk (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would also completely agree with that and that sorta goes along with the comment I made above about the RFA process. --Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ghmyrtle's comment about getting dragged into disputes as an admin is also quite right; in the months I've been an admin, I've gotten multiple profane messages regarding my intelligence, e-mails accusing me of all kinds of things (my favorite is being an evil colonialist Westerner trying to destroy India), and requests to intervene in subjects I don't care about at all. I personally find much of it strangely entertaining, and I can't help but laugh at some of the unbelievably ridiculous things I've been accused of, so I actually enjoy it. Ultimately, though, one ends up having a lot of negative interactions with a lot of people, which is something most people don't want to do. And though we often complain about the levels of incivility, it's very hard to bring yourself to do a block that you think even could be contentious. I and a few other admins are willing to because we can tolerate the screaming (from whatever direction it comes), but most people quite understandably have no desire to spend their free time being attacked on all sides. While I can't help but find a certain amount of humor in (for instance) trying to bludgeon some sanity into Indian caste articles, I also know that the vast majority of people don't enjoy it; if you don't, you probably won't like being an admin. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
The bottom line is that everyone's involvement here is voluntary - and, for most people, that means it has to be enjoyable. At the moment, many long-established editors don't find being here very enjoyable, and many newbies don't find it enjoyable either. Perhaps the only people who do find it enjoyable are those admins who get a kick out of ordering people around (and I'm making no comment on what proportion I think that may be). So, if WP is to thrive, ways need to be found of making it a more rewarding experience (and by "rewarding" I don't mean that things like barnstars should be thrown around more freely). Before anyone asks, I don't have the answers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If I may offer a fringe opinion on the OP's question: There are now so few admin candidates because they are expected to be active content creators as well as to have extensive administrative experience. Only Wiki polymaths can expect to get the bit. This in turn leads to the inflated expectations described ad nauseam on this talk page. To succeed at RfA,
• an established content editor is requested to engage in monotonous Associate-Admin work. This diverts their attention from what they joined WP for.
• an established gnome, vandal fighter, or cleaner is requested to engage in content creation, even if that is not what they enjoy.
• taking up work "on the other side" cannot just be done as proof of concept, otherwise the candidate is seen as hat or badge collector.
The polymaths are all admins already or are expected to become admin soon. To expect "the other" editors to live up to the expectations at RfA is only realistic for people that can devote a lot of time, end even those need to be very determined to sacrifice a few hundred hours of work in an area they do not enjoy. I'm not really worried, however, because as soon as the lack of admins becomes apparent, expectations will be watered down. There is no crisis yet. --Pgallert (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Good points all around. The question of whether standards are too high has been discussed extensively on this page in the past, but the truth of the matter is that way the community has applied the standards has not been static. While RfA candidates are expected to be polymaths, as you correctly note, and while that has been the standard for a few years now, saying so doesn't give us the whole picture. For all the RfAs that are unsuccessful due to opposition over lack of experience, there are at least as many where the bulk of the opposition finds a specific event or tendency in the candidate's history to justify their opposition. This recently withdrawn RfA is an example of voters discovering something specific about the candidate (in this case, repeated misidentification of edits as vandalism) and citing that as their reason for opposition. Now, Christine (the candidate in question) appears to have had the experience generally required of today's applicants for adminship, and she may very well have succeeded if there wasn't an issue with something specific from her on-wiki history. I am not saying that those opposing RfAs for such reasons are necessarily wrong. What I am saying is that, depending on the time when the RfA occurs, voters might be more inclined to oppose a RfA over something like that, or be more inclined to gloss over it and see the forest for the trees. (And to a lesser extent, under certain circumstances, voters might be willing to cut candidates a little more slack on the polymath-status requirement.)
Pgallert, you've written that standards will become a little more lax once the number of administrators declines noticeably. However, I think that this already happens on a smaller scale each time there is a period of appreciably fewer successful candidacies. Fears of new-admin droughts play into the community decision-making process in a significant way, or at least that's what I suspect (I'm not exactly working with poll numbers here!). Take a look here and here. There were only four successful RfAs in December 2010 and January 2011. Of these, one was a user's seventh candidacy after a series of highly contentious, unsuccessful bids for adminship; another was itself highly contentious, with a verdict reached only after a 'crat-chat. Meanwhile, there was much consternation on this page about various problems with the process. In the following two months, the community approved a whopping 18 admin candidates, 17 of whom had never run for adminship before. So the question is: Did qualified candidates see the drought and seek adminship as a result, or was the community just more willing to gloss over lesser flaws and approve candidates who on the whole had the experience needed? As I alluded to above, I suspect that the latter is true, and that the community was reacting to the drought consciously or subconsciously. A closer look at those RfAs might help us get a better-justified answer, but that's a project for another day (and probably for User:WereSpielChequers, not me!) But I would not be surprised to see a spike in the number of successful candidacies in the next few months. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi A Stop at Willoughby!
Hyperbole doesn't make your position more plausible.
Nobody has required polymath status.
Instead, a minority of RfA discussants consistently raise concerns about editors who have not written any, say, B-level articles. Having written a B-level article or a good article shows some competences in (a) writing and (b) complying with WP policies----both (a) and (b) suggest intellectual maturity and often show an ability to collaborate with other editors.
Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, KW. Perhaps your interpretation of my comment differs from what I meant. I was using the word "polymath," as I believe Pgallert did above, to refer to users who have proven themselves proficient both in article-writing and in Wikipedia administrative areas. I was not using the word in the usual sense (that is, to refer to a person of encyclopedic learning). If that strikes you as hyperbolic, that's fine. Whether or not there is a "polymath" standard, frankly, is far from central to my position. Please note that I didn't take a position on the merits of any standards to which users might hold RfA candidates. Instead, my position is that those standards are not a problem because the community will strengthen or relax standards depending on their mentality towards the RfA process at the time.
It's true that a minority of voters preferring article-writing experience does not amount to a "polymath" standard. However, the minority that takes up this position is fairly significant. Therefore, when it's combined with the (not necessarily separate) majority of voters which expects significant experience in administrative areas, the result is a community standard which, I would argue, is a sort of polymath status as articulated in my previous paragraph – no hyperbole intended. (And once again, I don't think that's much of a problem.) I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about that. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well then, :) you asked for it! ;)
Seriously, I've made little speeches on this before. Writing ability, either articles or on talk pages, is essential. There are many examples of editors who've passed in the last few months who have been called "not the greatest content creator" or something similar, who have passed, if they have been able to demonstrate positive and relatively clear contributions to talk pages. I typically ask them to pledge not to block me if tell somebody to jump in the lake, but none has! ;D  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've watched this thread for a little while and it has made me smile. The original comment was made 4 days after an RfA closed; it is now a week since the last RfA (according to the thing at the top). The last RfA we had was one of three, which all began within a few days of each other. I am not sure where the notion that suddenly no one is requesting adminship has come from. Three nominations in two weeks (which is essentially what we've had) is not a drought in admin requests at all. If we have no candidates in 2 months we might worry - although, it might just be a dry seaon. Requests for adminship fluctuates: sometimes there are three at once, sometimes there are none. Let's not get worried that RfA is in a lull; I would be more worried if we had a constant stream of ill-prepared RfAs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi ItsZippy!
Most internet writing is non-cognitive, but enables writers to feel part of a group. For example, if you read commentary about a video with Robert Fripp, you will see that most of the young men participating will be making comments about his sitting while he plays guitar. This adds no information to anybody, but allows the writer to feel that he has special knowledge that he can share with everybody.
Given that we share most of our DNA with chimpanzees, we should expect that much of our emotional responses will be rather similar to chimpanzees.
If you watch chimpanzees, you will see that if the alpha male bangs a door, then the other males will start to bang the door.
I almost forgot: RfA is broken! Jimmy Wales's statement is essential reading! There is a shortage of RfA candidates. WP has too few administrators! We should make it easier to silence opposition to candidates at RfA!
I feel much better! ;)
 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Heh, very apt. The RfA talk page does amuse me; I tend to avoid posting here, but seeing such a long discussion about the lack of RfA candidates 4 days after three nominations close was too much for me to avoid. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
There are editors (such as myself) who just don't want to become admins. I suspect there are probably quite a lot of us. And I also suspect that quite a number of us might make very good admins indeed, but have been around for long enough to ask the perfectly sane question of why on Earth would we risk putting ourselves through hell in order to become a janitor or bin-man ... If you;ve been around for a while, you'll have collected some foes. And they will turn up, yes they will, and they'll do that Kipling thing and you'll find yourself having to "hear the truths you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools". Not that I'm paranoid, or pessimistic, or anything. I could make good use of delete and undelete for dealing with copyvios, for which I seem to have a "nose"; I might conceivably use page protect wossname-thingie. It's unlikely that I'd ever use any other part of the toolkit. But go through RfA just for that? No thanks! ;p Pesky (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
@ItsZippy,
It's the same with blogs. Most blogs seem to just be "cut and paste" and linking of others' thoughts. No wonder that many of our new editors just cut and paste what they like.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I guess the reason for the extent of discussion is that everyone has some kind of opinion, it is mildly interesting and serves as a break from editing. So long as it remains harmless (which isn't a given), I'm fine with it and find it quite amusing. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes, just sometimes, a long discussion turns up something or someone new; and a major change or discovery happens because of that. When the discussion doesn't cost anything, and there's always the possibility that some startling improvement might happen as a result of it, it's actually a good thing. Sometimes someone new says something, and everyone sits back and thinks to themselves: "Holy shit! Why did that never occur to me?" Pesky (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

My opinion

I honestly think RfA is what it is due to several factors, including the following:

1.) Historically it's been a bastardised hybrid of consensus and "voting" (as most pages which give extra tool or responsibilities to Wikipedians seem to be in one way or other). So along with that it's always been the case that any Wikipedian may "vote" for whatever reasons they choose, though in recent times, afaik, the bureaucrats have started to discount "because the sky was blue" or "we have too many admins" type "votes". So with that sort of vague definition of what criteria is required for adminship, imagine applying for a job this way. it's one thing to deal with being hired by committee when the committee typically has a consensus in advance of what they are looking for. But in our case, quite often the sky's the limit, both in quantity and in quality of expectations.

2.) The administrator package is a broad package. Unlike how pretty much all the other packages of tools are focused on a certain set of things, "sysop" is all over the place. Plus due to those tools, admins have picked up some de facto responsibilities on Wiki.

And not everyone is going to be good at everything. And that's pretty much what we're asking admins to be. I don't mean at every topic or every venue. But admins are not only editors trusted to do "advanced editing" (deletion, see deleted revisions, editing protected pages, editing mediawiki, and the like), but also as advanced policing the wiki: (protecting pages from being able to be edited, blocking individuals or even ranges of IP addresses.)

And along with these, closing discussions have traditionally been admins' responsibilities. Since typically it's admins who will be able to take action based upon whatever result of a discussion (per having the tools). So an admin not only needs to clearly understand WP:BOLD and WP:CON, but they need to be able to communicate well, and read for content. And those are things that not everyone understands/does well, either.

The argument has been that if we trust an editor to be good at one of these things, we should be able to trust them to be good at all of them. But that's just simply not always the case, and this has been shown again and again. Separately, all these things rate high expectations, and when all required together...

Having the expectation that an editor be good at all these things increasingly raises the bar than if there were separate individual types of admin. And then those who would do well with both advanced editing and advanced policing, could just get both sets of tools/responsibilities.

We're already starting to see some changes along these lines as things like "rollbacker" and other individual rights' packages are being split from the adminship package.

3.) Fear. Two specific ways in which fear affects the process.

First, modern society has set up an ingrained fear of authority. (If I do something, even if it my not be wrong per se, an authority figure can subjectively assess it to be wrong.) And also things like: "Why does the policeman seem to be following me? Was I speeding? I didn't mean to be..." This comes out in RfA in many ways. The general "we have too many admins" to the specific: "I've seen them do such n such and I'm afraid they'd do bad things to me or to something (some edit) I care about. So I want all authority figures to agree with me, just to be on the safe side.

Second is fear of abuse of the responsibilities and/or tools that go along with being an admin. this latter wouldn't be much of a "big deal" except that to remove adminship from someone seems to be very difficult and rare. So while de-sysopping is a big deal, so will be sysopping.

(As an aside, Sounds a lot like what The US puts Supreme Court justices through, doesn't it? Another case of where it's a big deal to remove one.)

4.) The normal nonsense that would be easy to see through/deal with if not for the previous three sections. Look at me, I "voted" against someone who reverted me, or "voted" for someone who supported my assertion in some discussion. Or the inclusion/deletion debate, or the fancruft debate, or the pseudoscience debate or a specific regional debate or or or.

Conclusion

The Requests for Adminship process is going to be a mess as long as:

• a.) removing adminship remains a big deal
• b.) The vast and myriad amount of tools and responsibilites continue to be lumped together in a single, multi faceted package.

YMMV of course : ) - jc37 22:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Hits the various nails pretty much on their respective heads. Pesky (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow great read - I also concur !Moxy (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The argument has been that if we trust an editor to be good at one of these things, we should be able to trust them to be good at all of them.
No, that isn't the argument. The argument is that a trustworthy editor will use the tools that he/she is qualified to use (and not the others). That's why he/she can be trusted with all of them.
The question shouldn't be "Can we trust this person to use of all of these tools well?" It should be "Can we trust this person to not misuse any of these tools?". —David Levy 08:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
If it were possible for candidates to be bound by they say they will and will not do at RfA, people would have confidence coming forward to ask for the tools for the things they intend to do, and it would be far easier for the community to take them at their word. At the moment there is no comeback if admins decide to step well outside the remit on which they successfully obtained the tools. —WFC— 10:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that adminship should be granted on the condition that only specific tasks be carried out. I'm saying that administrators need to be trusted to behave appropriately (i.e. to not habitually misuse the tools).
If someone isn't trustworthy, he/she shouldn't be a Wikipedia administrator. It really is that simple. —David Levy 10:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I would, of course, be entirely trustworthy. :D Not perfect at all times (because nobody is), but trustworthy nonetheless. But I just don't actually want to be an admin; I could be extremely useful, as and when, with the few tools that I;d use, but I'm not fretting to be awarded them as if they were some kind of badge of honour. I can carry on perfectly happily without them. Pesky (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy here - I don't expect every candidate I support to be very experienced and highly proficient at everything that adminship entails. What I would expect is that they will be mature and responsible enough not to do the things that they know they're not so good at. I think that this works one way round but not the other. Some people are good at dealing with editors, handling disputes, etc but are not so confident editing complex templates and the like. Maturity is necessary to deal with difficult editors, so these people will, almost by definition, be mature enough not to meddle with things they have no idea about. However, there are some people who are good at editing templates but not good at handling difficult editors. Although some maturity is required here (to ensure they don't write naughty words in the templates), they certainly don't need as much as the dispute-handling admins. These are more likely to meddle with things they don't understand so well, which will be interactions with other editors, which is where accusations of admin abuse come from.
It is for this reason that, regardless of the candidate, I always look for civility and maturity in a candidate. If they're going to regularly interact with editors, the reason is obvious. If they're not, I need to be confident that they have the maturity not to enter such disputes (generally, this is the same level of maturity needed for the first class of admin). So we are left with a disproportionate measure: a 'technical' admin can only be appointed if they have technical know-how and maturity; a 'community' admin needs the same maturity but not necessarily the other skills to such a degree (I know that my distinctions are simplistic, but the point still stands). Although I agree that the authority of an admin can be problematic (and an admin should 'wield' authority in such a sense), it is important that some editors do have authority. We do need people to close AfDs and RfC, to review block appeals, to impose sanctions on editors, etc. Even when the consensus seems to be to keep an article at AfD, generally admins are the only ones to close (NACs should only be for unanimous or near-unanimous verdicts). Adminship is about the extra tools but it is also about authority. That is not to say that it is a 'position' or that admins are in any way more important; rather, it means that, because they have the backing of the community, they are entitled to make some decisions (of course, the will of the community is the vital thing here, which is why community consensus is enough to overturn an admin action).
I think that it is good for Wikipedia to have trusted editors in authority positions (using the term 'positions' lightly), provided that such users can be trusted to use the authority solely for the benefit of the community (and, on the whole, I think our admins do). For this reason, the primary purpose of an RfA should be a question of trust. Do we trust this person to deal with people well, do use the tools well, to discern when and when not to act 'as an administrator', and to know which areas of responsibility they should avoid until they learn something more. This will mean that we have fewer technically minded admins, which might be reason to unbundle some tools, but only the tools which would not have any significant community interaction. Once we get into community interaction tools (deletions, blocks, perhaps page protections), we are in a position of an admin not only having to judge consensus, but having to discern which courses of action are best taken with certain editors. I therefore see adminship as primarily a community role.
Key idea (if it's tl;dr): Being an admin is no big deal, not because admins shouldn't have any authority at all, but because they simply enact the will of the community - whether through direct consensus, through consensually agreed policies, or simply because they have been selected by the community. Adminship is not decision-making position (like ArbCom is), but is does require the ability to work well (or at least tolerably) with every editor that one may come across. The trust is not about whether they'll use the tools properly, but about whether they will interact with the community, in their use of tools and exercise of authority, properly. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Adminship is not decision making position (like Arbcom is)....." Did you mean policy making? Adminship is very much a decision making position, and countless thousands of decisions are made by admins who keep the project running smoothly. Adminship is not a big deal re status, but it is a big deal in maintaining the site. Moriori (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I meant (the frailties of the English language let me down). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the big questions

Okay; so if we need more mature, insightful, intelligent and trustworthy admins, how on Earth could we tempt people who would make good admins, possibly using only a small selection of the admin tools, to actually want to do so? Even though I know I'd be completely trustworthy etc. (and so do the chaps and chapesses who know me well, I expect), I can't currently think of anything which would actually tempt me to go through RfA, because I'm perfectly happy not being an admin, and don't actually want to be an admin, no matter how useful I might be in that role. Bearing in mind that nothing's likely to tempt me, personally, how could we tempt others? Pesky (talk) 09:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If established editors conversant with RFA criteria in general could look around and offer to nominate editors who might be already indulging in administrative areas, there should be no issues. If every such established editor and all active administrators were to, in good faith, take up a target of submitting one RfA nom per year, there should be no dearth of applicants. Wifione ^Message 10:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, if you don't want to be an admin, that's fine. I for one do not buy any of the doom and gloom predictions about too few admins. In fact backlogs have been surprisingly low lately. There just aren't a lot of nominations right now, leading to essentially the exact same conversation we were having last year around this time being repeated again. February/March seems to be a time when very few users are thinking about running for whatever reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, I think we've all got the "I don't want to be an admin" piece from your goodself - indeed it's starting to look a little like a bit of Hamlet. I'm genuinely confused with your comment "Bearing in mind that nothing's likely to tempt me, personally, how could we tempt others?". You seem to be implying that if we can't "tempt" people into being admins who have (Ad nauseam) stated they don't want to be one then we have a problem? Clearly that's not a problem. As Beeblebrox states above I think there's a myth around this "too few admins" concept and we don't need to "tempt" anyone. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

"Truth in advertising" suggests that RfA might well be named, at least for candidates with strong "negatives", as "Request for Admonishment"!
Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we should call it Wikipedia:Request to be thrown in front of a bus. Here's a video of my RFA. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
1. Support - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Pedro, sorry if I'm appearing Hamletish! Seriously, I'm a bit commitment-averse, due to having too many already in Real Life. I don't want to feel obliged to do adminny stuff, as well. (If I wanted it, I'd have applied by now.) With the "how could we tempt others" thing, I was thinking not so much of people who have explicitly stated that they don't want a mop, more of people who have never applied for it but would probably make good admins and have no serious aversion to being one. There must be quite a few longstanding and clueful editors who would fall into that category. I take Beeblebrox's point well; this does seem to be a bit of a dead time of year, anyway. It's something of a shame that some kind of automated hunt-out-good-admin-candidates tool doesn't exist which could suggest to probably-good candidates that they might want to think about it, some time.
@KW: clever! I can almost feel a parodical song coming on ... (and here's one I made earlier about why I don't want to be an admin - constant pestering!) Pesky (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I fear that any publically-announced tool to shortlist probably-good RfA candidates would be subject to endless bickering. (Do we filter out candidates with less than 1000 edits or 10000 or 100000? How many blocks is too many? Are lots of AN/I edits a good thing or a bad thing? Is an FA a prerequisite?).
Far less dramatic (and probably less work) would be somebody doing the same kind of exercise offline, with a couple of hours in Excel. For all I know, somebody could be doing that already. bobrayner (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
As Beeblebrox said, I'm not convinced that there is a dearth of admins at the moment. If there was, we would notice and see lots of problems, rather than just hear about the supposed problems every time we look at this talk page. To be honest, I'm not sure that we will attract good, capable admins by tempting them. On the whole, those people who would make good capable admins either are, or will apply in the future. Those who do not want to be admins who might make good admins will not apply unless they change themselves and, to be honest, I only want admins who actually have a desire to serve Wikipedia in that role. That's not a desire for power, but a desire for what adminship really is (with all of the trouble that brings with it). Someone who does not want the stress and potential conflict will avoid this as an admin and may well be less effective. We do not have a lack of admins and tempting people into it will only bring us those who want adminship for power, rather than to serve. We're fine as we are for now. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I would get away from thinking that a FA should be a prerequisite to being suggested as an admin candidate. I've been an admin for over 4 years now, and I have never been involved in the FA process. If you can look at a candidate's contributions list and see some items that are in boldfaced green type, and they represent well-written paragraphs with reliable sources provided, that should give you sufficient confirmation that the person knows how to contribute content to Wiki English. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can we all agree that the practice of a user asking the same questions of every RfA candidate should be strongly discouraged? If a user believes that the list of standard questions needs to be expanded, then that user should obtain a consensus (here) for adding those new questions to the standard RfA template, instead of unilaterally inserting 7 additional identical questions on every RfA. I don't think we need to go so far as to impose a limit on how many questions a user can ask, but asking the same questions at every last RfA is essentially an end run around getting a consensus for extending the standard questions. If I'm over-reacting here, please don't hesitate to let me know, it might just be that this is a pet peeve for me. —SW— ^confabulate 00:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You're over-reacting, I think. It's a practice that has been common from time to time for at least five or six years, and not just common but accepted for much of that time. There may not be consensus to change the standard questions (although that has happened too), but its convention that editors have generally free rein to pose their own additional questions as they like - with exceptions limited to obvious trolling or disruption. Nathan ^T 00:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me the way to get consensus for new standard questions is to ask them oneself, and if others find the answers informative, someone other than the poser of the questions will suggest they be made standard. And otherwise, the asker will eventually get tired and stop posting the Q's. It's a problem that solves itself. Franamax (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll leave it alone. Thanks for the comments. —SW— ^converse 04:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I wish to discuss the subject of the rather fast WP:SNOW closures that have become more and more common at RFAs during the years. I think this is something worth discussing, as RFA, in my view, is a process that gives the candidate valuable feedback, and I think we should let only 'crats perform SNOW closures when they see it appropriate. An obviously failing RFA should not be grounds for a fast, non-crat closure. The user can at any time withdraw if they so chooses, it should be their choice whether to withdraw or not, not ours. If bureaucrats feel they should WP:SNOW close a RfA, I got no problems with that, but we should leave this choice to the candidate and the 'crats, in my opinion. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 15:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I managed to get a crat's opinion on SNOW closures when I last did one (thanks Deskana!) and since then I haven't made another SNOW closure. I'd happily do away with SNOW closures all together. Worm^TT · (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I partially agree with Snowolf however, if the RfA gets too ugly that it could possibly drive the candidate away, I would then see it as appropriate to perform a non-'crat closure in an attempt from driving the candidate away from WP.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,233,690) 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If someone wants feedback on their editing, Wiki: Editor review is thataway, it's not what RFA is for--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Snowolf (ironic name, by the way), are there SNOW closures that you believe were made inappropriately? Please point them out. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you I performed this innapropriately. I believe this RfA would have gone under WP:SNOW as well.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,389,826) 15:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll speak up and say, yes, that was inappropriate. For one thing, you were the first opposer - you shouldn't have closed it. It was a NOTNOW situation, and a more helpful note could have been left on his talk page, so as not to discourage him. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Traditionally, SNOW closes were fairly rare. The only time we used it was when dealing with an RfA that turned nasty fast and the candidate likely didn't get a chance to close it. But if we were dealing with an established candidate (eg one not eligible for NOTNOW) we let them face the music as they wished.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest that anyone that closes it as snow the candidate would be allowed to reverse to let the RfX play through.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,637,564) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Candidates' objections to SNOW closures are redundant. WP:SNOW is simply an invocation of WP:IAR; you're deliberately ignoring process for the "good" of Wiki English. If it's a probably NOTNOW situation but it's borderline, it's only appropriate to leave it open, if that's what the candidate wants. But if a candidate wants the RfA to run its course but is met with massive, pile-on opposition, it should absolutely be SNOW closed, regardless of the candidate's wishes. There's few things less productive than seven days of trashing an editor. Swarm ^X 02:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Often times we do allow SNOW candidates to revert the close---or at least ask to do so. There are generally two types of candidates whom we SNOW. First, the borderline NOTNOW candidate. The person who ran but clearly doesn't have what it takes but doesn't really fit the NOTNOW Criteria. This group, when they are SNOW'd generally stay Snow'd. Second, the experienced candidate who pissed off the wrong community or blew it somehow or has been blindsided by some petty issue that they had no clue would bite them in the butt. This group, we will generally let them undo the SNOW if they ask. These are the users who have been around and know what they were getting into when they ran---generally, I suspect, from candidates who are considering a future run. Some people think that by letting others trash them at RfA, that it helps to wipe the slate clean and get a clean start. There is also some notion that you want all of the negativity to come out in the first RfA. By letting everybody trash you in an RfA, you can then address those issues in your second RfA and say, "This is how I changed/addressed those objections."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 14:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts from me:

1. Do not WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW close RfAs that you have opposed. Ever. No exceptions.
2. I agree with all Deskana says in the diff the Worm supplied above. I think there should be fewer such closes and that RfAs should be allowed to run a little longer before they happen. It's now rare for RfAs to be closed early by crats - not just because there aren't many of us, but because WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW closes happen earlier than we'd usually close them early. That seems a bit odd- I'd sort of hope other users would be more tentative in closing RfAs than we would, not less.

WJBscribe (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with Will and urge non-crats who see an RFA that they think needs to be closed early in the interests of the candidate to drop a line to crat-l. Enough of us are subscribed that list that we should respond fairly quickly to things that actually need to be closed. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Deskana's comment too, and could not have said it better myself. Some have said he is a genius, actually. I have yet to see that hypothesis be disproved. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Per this thread, I just wanted to remind everyone that we are always in need of more crats and that now would be a good time for anyone who feels qualified to toss their name in the hat to help out. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would second that. There are a number of admins around who I believe would make excellent bureaucrats. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I agree but the standard is too high now and it only those who set high standards themselves for others to follow rather than those who follow others.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would toss my name in there but, I'm not even a good candidate for and RfA yet. I suggest User:WilliamH would make a good candidate.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,558,573) 15:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest User:Moonriddengirl she sets standards which other follow.User: Acalamari who also sets high standards and he had been a candidate several years ago.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
User:HJ Mitchell is another great editor that should consider running for Bureaucracy.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,572,077) 17:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I might consider running after a few more months as an admin; IMO, anyone who's handled at least 50 AE threads without any being overturned should automatically become a crat, because that shows they're sufficiently capable of affording the right amount of weight to arguments. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If there is sincerely a need, I would be happy to help. I have been an admin for some time (though recently back from an extended wikibreak). That said, my understanding is that RfB can be more of a fine toothed comb than RfA. So if any of you would like to go through my edit history, that would be most welcome. (Drop me a note or three at my talk page : ) - jc37 20:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Offered to nominate User: Acalamari and waiting for his response.He is truly one user who meets the high standards needed today.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I think everyone listed above should be informed that they were suggested for this. One never knows who might say yes : ) - jc37 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  Done MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping that those who proposed would (or i would have myself : ) - But regardless, nice job being on top of things : ) - jc37 22:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
You should throw in User:Worm That Turned. This user is no doubt a very hard worker and helps out a lot.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,618,827) 22:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll say neither yes nor no at this moment, but invite wider consideration from the community. Feel free to start a dialogue on my talk page, I'm happy to entertain anyone's thoughts and questions. WilliamH (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Those are all excellent admins, and I'm rather flattered that some consider me to be in similar standing to a list of admins whom I greatly respect. But I won't be standing at RfB—I've made my fair share of cock-ups and bad calls as an admin, and becoming a 'crat would direct my attention away from where I like to think it is useful and into areas in which I have little interest. I'm much happier just keeping the wheels turning than I would be at the dizzying heights of 'cratship. :)
I we're just tossing names around, though, I'd suggest User:WereSpielChequers, and if pushed, I could probably think of a few more names. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Too bad. You'd really make a great bureaucrat.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,630,520) 23:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
How about User:Bwilkins? He could possibly run.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,636,501) 00:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. He is a bully.  — Breadbasket 08:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm honoured to be mentioned, and would do so if the community desired. Obviously I am a good admin when the random, unknown editor above (whom I cannot remember having interacted with) drops by simply to call me a bully :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Breadbasket - this is not the place for unsubstantiated complaints or name-calling. I have never seen Bwilkins act inappropriately as an editor or an admin.  7  09:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but he's ugly and his mother dresses him funny. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
User:OrangeMike is a great admin , very good in policy and he sets standards which few can even go near.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A request. It'll be nice if we don't discuss the actual names here but rather wait for the candidates themselves to come forward or be nominated formally. Some editors might feel slighted that their name is being discussed (and rejected in flat statements) without their even having shown any interest. If you're interested in nominating a candidate, do please suggest the same to them. I hope this request isn't taken negatively. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 10:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a good point, but additionally, cratship isn't simply about giving great administrators more power. If that were the case, I could go on and on with potential crats, and most of the above names would be included. But crats are expected to perform a few specific tasks, and they should ideally have some experience and an interest in working in those areas. And that aside, many great administrators have failed RfBs, some with WP:100 and WP:200 support. Several of our current crats have failed at least one RfB. The last person to request bureaucratship had been an admin for three years, a checkuser for two and a former arbitrator, and the RfB just barely met the threshold. The point is simply that it's not as simple as naming "good admins". Swarm ^X 00:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Despite the length of time since my last RfB (over four years now!), and the fact I have continued to decline running since that candidacy, I really appreciate and find it a huge honor that my name is still recommended as someone who should run (and I have no problem with me being mentioned here without me being prompted about it first). However, I regret to say that I do have to again decline: without wanting to insult the people who want me to run, at this point in time I feel I am happy with what I currently do as an admin and with what I do in the mainspace (I have some things to do this month that an RfB would distract me from). I am, however, open to changing my mind at a later date, especially if in a few month's time MBisanz is still having to perform a disproportionate amount of renames by himself. Thank you again for this. Acalamari 12:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have discussed this with a few admin colleagues, and had decided not to go for it, on the basis of probably being insufficiently qualified and/or not well-known enough. But may I now take the opportunity offered, and see what comments, be they positive or negative, this posting generated? I appreciate that I could just post an application at RfB; this is a way of dipping my toe in the water before diving in.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 23:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for offering to nominate yourself! As you requested for some comments: a brief look at your contributions in the Wikipedia: namespace shows that you've only made one edit at Wiki: Changing username (from Feb 2008 - now), and that was only to request a rename of your own account. Whilst you have made 71 edits to WP:UAA (/Bots included), I'm unsure that this will be enough as CHU is a major part of a crat's job, so a lack of clerking CHU could make it more difficult for users to determine your understanding of the username policy. However, you have made 146 edits to WP:RFA related pages - which is the other major part of crat work. This is, of course, just a quick review, so if you do nominate yourself for RFB I (and other users) would take a closer look at those 71 edits at CHU and the 146 edits on RFA. Hope this helps, The Helpful One 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm absolutely stunned to see my name here, thank you for thinking of me. Having said that, I really don't think I'm the right fit for a crat, I don't touch usernames and have strong opinions on what should be happening to the RfA process. What's more, I doubt I'd be active in the role - I have far more interesting things to do on Wikipedia, like helping new and disruptive editors improve. Finally, I've recently subjected myself to community scrutiny on ArbCom elections, for a role where I felt I could make a difference - I didn't quite meet the grade and certainly didn't enjoy the experience. The last thing I want to do is put myself in the firing line again, in an area which seems to have a much higher bar than RfA, for a tool that's rather over-rated. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• I recommend User:JamesBWatson, User:MuZemike, User:Wifione, and User:Reaper Eternal, only to name a few. They would make good bureaucrats. --Bmusician 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have already asked User:JamesBWatson waiting for his reply.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I also recommend User:Boing! said Zebedee. Bmusician 13:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Was just going to suggest Wifione, nice to see that someone else has already recognised them. GiantSnowman 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks GS, Bmusician. But there're too many other much more qualified editors who should be crats than me. I'll focus more on nominating some capable editors for RfA in the coming months. I'll try and nominate some candidates for RfB too, who I think might make the cut. But thanks surely for the thought. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 14:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of faith, but I doubt I'd use 'crat tools much more than for promoting the rare successful RFA and WP:CHU. I have little-to-no interaction with bots (I've only unblocked User:Helpful Pixie Bot and coded a non-editing bot). Honestly, a few excellent candidates for bureaucrats would be HJ Mitchell, King of Hearts, and User:Alexf. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• What stuns me is that people here recognize one thing, that we need more bureaucrats, but then go on about how they haven't nominated enough people for adminship, or haven't done 1,000 clerkings on the CHU page. This is silly. The "step up" from admin to bureaucrat is a grant total of three new checkboxes in the user rights management interface, and the ability to rename users. Bureaucrats don't even need to know what makes a good admin - all that they should be able to do is set their personal opinions aside when closing RfA/Bs. And follow the incredibly simple policy around renamings, if that's even worth mentioning. Bureaucrat is such an unimportant role that some projects just automatically give all sysops the crat flag. And why wouldn't they? Any person who can be trusted with access to the main page, abuse filter, mediawiki pages, can be trusted with three extra checkboxes and one other interface. Yes, there is potential for abuse, but that shouldn't even be considered when we are talking about people who have already passed an RfA here. Plus, the abusefilter-revert or import rights in the sysop group can do a /lot/ more damage than making your best friend an admin - an action which takes three seconds to revert. The other very confusing thing is why there is a higher threshold for RfB than RfA. Again, three checkboxes, one interface. If there is a need for more crats, some good admins (and by that I really mean any admins) should nominate themselves. The only thing that the community should look at is whether or not they actually want to do the boring and menial tasks that a 'crat gets to do. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I have often wondered that, I never really understood why the standards for cratship are so much higher considering the tools involve very little controversy afaik, I mean apart from renaming users, isn't the rest of what they do just gauging consensus? --Jac16888 ^Talk 22:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Gauging consensus of people who themselves will gauge and implement consensus. It's not exactly something trivial. That being said, I have always wondered why we don't grant 'renameuser' to administrators or at least make it its own usergroup. NW (Talk) 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
      • The main reasons for this are that renaming a user with more than a few hundred edits is a huge burden on the system and can in many cases "break" an account, requiring developer intervention. So it's something that's dangerous enough you don't want people monkeying around with it for fun (think accidental self-blocks with Twinkle). Also, in the SUL-context, you can really screw with users on other projects by breaking or invading their SUL claim. MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Which is why I suggested making it a new userright (assignable by bureaucrats). The crats would still continue to have it, and are assumed to have read all the relevant policies based on the fact that they signed up to run for the position. Administrators who want it could just confirm that they understand the relevant practices and policies. There is the issue of security being an inverse function of the number of people with access, but I think we can trust most of our active administrator body who sign up for it to not screw it up. NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
          • That doesn't sound like a bad idea. - jc37 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm still concerned with handing out a power that people don't really understand and don't realize how dangerous it is (as in, you can actually damage the database or lock the wiki doing it wrong). Things like abuse filter can't break the project because they're coded to stop a user from doing something stupid and can't result in harm to the underlying data structures. Renameuser, because it's old and buggy, can do that. We give out crat based on stupid criteria that have nothing to do with the mental stability of the user, but the threshold is high enough that it weeds out most people who may be good admins, but shouldn't be trusted with something that can break things. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Nod, but if getting this user right is per the community, the same as rfB is, then there shouldn't be an issue. - That said, since this has SUL wrapped up in it, maybe this right shouldn't be locally given at all... - jc37 00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
              • Or we could just nominate people like WilliamH and Acalamari to the existing post of crat... MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                • Maybe. But I still see an issue with that—it's totally inefficient from a persons willing to do the job versus persons able to do the job standpoint. I think I would be trusted to be able to handle renames without breaking the wiki more than twice. But passing an RfB? I would be very surprised if I could do that. NW (Talk) 03:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                  • Ok, if this manages to get passed, I'm gonna be annoying as all hell that we give the right out to wikimandarins who are known for their bland personalities and dedication to boring processes like bots, renames, arb clerking, mentoring/adoption and the like. Regular contribution to WT:RFA or WP:RFC/U or heaven forbid WP:AN would be a huge disqualifier to me in handing out the permission. Even anti-vandal work is of the wrong mindset for this kind of job. MBisanz ^talk 03:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                    • It somewhat amuses me that being involved in WT:RFA, which many would consider useful for one area of 'crat-ship, is problematic for another area. Surely the solution would be to improve or remove renaming at a dev level, rather than linking a boring personality to who uses the button. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                      • I would consider WT:RFA participation neutral for the RFA component of RFB and negative for the Bot and Renames components. Being highly active on WT:RFA usually means wanting to change things or being highly involved in WP-politics. Renames and Bots work specifically because they are so boring that Wikipoliticians don't bother to be involved and therefore don't fuck things up by importing their political disputes into those areas. Have you seen some of the inane disputes on this page about the propriety of asking certain questions, the need to speed-snow close RFAs or what sort of votes should be disallowed/required? I'm thrilled that sort of political infighting hasn't made its way into Bots and Renames because crats have historically gotten their office by being so boring they don't tick off any factions on this page. MBisanz ^talk 14:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                        • I don't recall you offering up your boringness as a key attribute in the Steward elections. Although following your logic Stewards would need to be even more boring than 'crats ;-) QU ^TalkQu 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
                          • That was certainly what I was trying to convey! And yes, Stewards should be, and shockingly are, more boring than 'crats. They pretty much live to do rote tasks and avoid conflict. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Jac16888, I suspect the explanation is quite simple: the set of users that say we need more bureaucrats and the set of users with highly specific RfB demands are distinct, with very little intersection. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 23:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• There is one simple way to fix this, stop processing frivolous rename requests from people who rename 7 times. And no Ajr, given the controversial crat closures in the past and the fact that enwiki has no simple way for the removal of the sysop flag, it's rather normal that the standard for 'crat be so much higher. We're all here trying to solve a problem that really could simply be solved by performing renames only when the previous username is offensive, problematic, etc.. If a user wants to change his name so badly, s/he can always create a new account and link them together, if it matters that much to him/her. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC).
  Completely agree with your thoughts on renaming. If people just made a new account, or were limited to one rename then things would be fine. As to the controversial closures, those happen everywhere. That isn't a reason to make the bureaucrat flag some elusive trophy for the 1% of admins who somehow display a "mindset" that's right for the job. What does that even mean? How is the mindset for closing RfAs different than that required to close, say, the SOPA discussion? I'd argue that closing RfA/Bs are even easier than most community discussions, since there is the general 80% guideline and no issues with implementing consensus.
  In regards to comments above about renameuser being able to cause damage... First, as I said above, trust shouldn't even be considered with trusted users like admins here. Second, far more damage (intentional or not) can be done with rights in the sysop group - such as abusefilter-revert. I also highly doubt that renameuser could cause database damage. I have used, installed, broken and fixed that extension elsewhere and never has it caused db issues. Even if it could, the potential for misuse is incredibly low, especially with those lovely clerk bots at CHU which give most of the information the renamer needs anyways. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

At both WP:Editor Review and WP:Requests for adminship it would be helpful to be able to look at a candidate's CSD success/failure ratio, and maybe even analyse it for trends. However, without administrator privileges one cannot discover correct CSD taggings, as correctly tagged articles have been deleted.

I suggest an adminbot be developed that can generate the raw data and compute the gross statistics. I expect it will run slowly because of how much work it has to do. As such, I expect it to be invoked only as needed, by a user putting {{CSD stats}} onto their user page. This will activate the bot, which will then examine their entire edit history. Once completed, it will create a subpage to the user page and fill it with all the CSD taggings the user has ever made. Subsequent runs of the bot will acquire the last bot-edit of the page and use this as a starting point for regenerating the page (to avoid re-examining historic data).

Edits that have never been deleted can be examined to see if they added a CSD tag. If they did, then it can be inferred that the CSD tagging was wrong. Bonus points for detecting self-reversals.

Articles can be deleted multiple times; I will call each separate existence an incarnation. For all of a candidate's deleted edits, identify the matching incarnation.

• If the incarnation had a CSD tag on it at the time of deletion, examine the candidate's contributions to see if they have added that CSD tag.
  • If they added the CSD tag, it was correctly tagged.
  • If they added a different CSD tag, it was incorrectly tagged. Bonus points for detecting self-reversals.
  • If they did not add any tags, it was neither correctly nor incorrectly tagged.
• If the incarnation did not have a CSD tag on it at the time of deletion, examine the candidate's contributions to see if they have added a CSD tag.
  • If they added a CSD tag, it was incorrectly tagged. Bonus points for detecting self-reversals.

Admins can delete citing different criteria. Bonus points for detecting that. I think that the templates for tagging have changed over time; they must all be detected.

I expect the output to be a bit like this, to simplify munging in a off-line spreadsheet:

Links to deleted page versions are only of any use to admins. In case you didn't guess, this example is fabricated - badly.

Would this be a helpful tool? Have I missed anything? Josh Parris 02:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Last thing we need on RFAs is more stats, imo. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Per Snowolf. Stats can help, but ultimately people need to look at more than just statistics to find out whether or not a candidate would be suitable for adminship. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen your afd results?
(Yes, this is AfD, not CSD, but perhaps it could be done for CSD as well)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Snowolf on this one. RfA needs to be a subjective process. The question should be "Do we trust this User with 'The Tools'?" not "Has this user been over 85% accurate when doing this or that task?". Achowat (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion statistics like this are helpful for other community members to whom the user being considered for adminship is new to make opinion. If I don't know much about a user I may be able to make my opinion about the judgement ability of a user by looking at these stats. --SMS ^Talk 13:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict. There could be a potential problem if someone pushed for a bright-line pass fail mark, e.g. over 85% fine, but less is not fine. However, we need to determine whether the editor is assessing CSDs, and AFDs appropriately. Right now, most people do spot checks, which mean they probably are looking at an unrepresentative sample. A tool which displays all of the relevant tags would see like a step in the right direction.

I'll meet you part way, though. A tool that lists all the CSDs, and whether they were sustained, would achieve my goal of showing all the relevant information. Removing the summary stats would not only make the tool easier to build, but would reduce the temptation to simply look at a summary stat. In other words, I support a tool very much like the AFD tool for CSD, without adding the calculations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Although I welcome the idea of bringing in stats to replace haphazard spot-checks, they can still be misleading, because different editors work in subtly different areas &c. An oncologist will have much worse patient mortality than a dentist. Somebody interested in NPOV-type work on established articles (or BLP, or some other noticeboard-watcher) will have some rather raucous AfDs, and low rates of false-positives are out of reach; but an editor doing lots of recent changes/NPP work could have many more AfDs which are open-and-shut cases, hence their stats would look much better at first glance. So, tools like this should be used with care. (Just like edit counts &c) bobrayner (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I honestly tend to dislike stats and typically only give X!'s tool a quick glance. In XFDs, for example, I generally only try to participate in ones I see as copntroversial, ones I am involved with, or ones I am interested in. This will likely give me poorer "score" than somebody would get by going to 50 AFDs that are snowing and vote in them. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the oncologist/dentist analogy above is an excellent point. I don't know how you'd go about trying to quantify a "Degree of Difficulty". I think article size, and the number of contributions of the creator (at time of creation) might be rough indicators? Perhaps some others? Josh Parris 22:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that tool inspired this suggestion. Toolserver doesn't provide access to article text history, so the software would have to be a bot rather than a tool; that and the very long run time also means it can't be a tool. Well, not of the fashion we're used to. Josh Parris 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• If the user uses Twinkle to speedy delete (and most do), you can find a lot of information by searching through their contributions by edit summary (using this tool). For instance, this type of search shows speedy deletions which were likely declined (because the page still exists), whereas a search for user notifications should reveal all speedy deletion attempts, accepted or declined. It's not quite as easy to use or as thorough as the suggested bot task above, but I think it's sufficient. —SW— ^squeal 14:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, it wouldn't be to difficult to modify some of my existing code to make this bot task possible, but of course you'd have to make me an admin first. ;) —SW— ^comment 14:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
There are plenty of admins amiable to running adminbots; development and testing doesn't have to be undertaken by them. I've written an adminbot in the past, but clearly I don't run it as I'm not a sysop. Josh Parris 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an excellent attempt to generate a cheap proxy; you've identified some of the issues associated with it. I personally wouldn't use it to make any decisions. Josh Parris 22:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a very good idea, especially for files, where a tagging may be correct at the time it happens (for example a {{Di-no source}}, {{Di-no license}} or {{Di-no permission}} could be correctly applied to file, but later correction can lead the file being kept.) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I actually think it's a good idea. Not because I think stats should replace actual thinking on part of the !voters but because I think it's a good way for those !voting to easily have access to all the facts. Those of us who have previously vetted a candidate's contributions in this area know how annoying it can be to trek through thousands of edits to find those containing speedy deletion related ones in order to assess them. The proposed bot doesn't have to "decide" whether a tagging was incorrect or not, I don't think that's actually possible anyway. A simple list of a candidate's speedy-taggings would be more than sufficient and save everyone !voting some time having to research those edits themselves - time they can then better spend on other areas of the project. Regards SoWhy 21:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems like the interwiki for this page is transcluded from /Front matter according to this edit but there seems to be one problem with that: the problem is that the interwikis seem to be related to the front matter, not to the actual requests for adminship. Therefore, we have interwikis on this page linking to the front matters than the actual request for admin pages. Shouldn't the interwikis actually link to the actual requests for adminships rather than the /Front matter? For that matter, most of the Wikipedias do not have a /Front matter for their requests for adminship, so it seems like it would be very incomplete if it was just left like this.--A (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have it? It just seems to be people saying "I don't know whether to support or oppose yet" and just seems pointless to me. GiantSnowman 08:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It shows the level of participation. Ten supports, three opposes tells a story that only a few people have considered the candidate and expressed an opinion; maybe it should stay open longer. Ten supports, three opposes and 25 neutrals tells a very different story - it's been open long enough and people are, having given it due consideration, not broadly in support. QU ^TalkQu 09:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
There are different types of neutrals; the "haven't really looked at it, will come back later" neutrals are, I agree, pretty useless. The "here are a couple of diffs that show some concerns I have with the candidate, although they're not quite bad enough to oppose over" neutrals, on the other hand, are a different matter, and you often see people oppose "per" a neutral of that type. 28bytes (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Haven't made up my mind" is a silly reason to vote neutral - wait until you know what to do and then do it. When I vote neutral it is generally because I'm neutral to the candidate. For example in the current RfA, I've voted neutrally because the editor doesn't meet my requirements - however he also has done nothing wrong to make me oppose. Neutral is therefore the best place for me to be. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Neutrals are meant, in my opinion, to allow editors who don't wish or feel they should support or oppose but nevertheless want to voice opinions and comments that might be useful to the candidate and to other votes. Voting neutral is useful only if one is doing so to express an opinion or comment. The "I'll look at it later" neutral is silly and shows a clear misunderstanding of our processes, in general, I'd go with the "If one has nothing to say, then he should say nothing", there's no need to write "I got nothing to say" :) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neutrals are very useful for closing RfAs that fall into the discretionary zone; the tone of the neutral votes, and the comments that people make in them, can have a lot of sway in these cases. I know I'm not the only bureaucrat that finds them useful. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To be honest I think it is the "ooh, dunno yet" neutrals who annoy me - they just seem to be commenting for the sake of it. Fair enough if you have concerns but not enough to oppose, and want to raise them for a wider audience. GiantSnowman 12:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
As you can see in my RfA neutrals are totally legit, but yes maybe we should add the "policy" on posting at RfAs that "I will change my vote later/I'm waiting to the answer" votes will be indented. (this is an proposal) mabdul 03:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's necessary to add a policy for that. Occasionally venting here about the uselessness of such non-votes is probably sufficient. 28bytes (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with proposal of User:Mabdul as it will be a perfect thing which will perfectly determine the actual situation of the candidate among voters. Yasht101 :) 03:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Although the closing 'crat shouldn't look at the !vote ration (and he is still a uman and will do this), he/she can have a more cleanup up look on the !ratio (doesn't matter in which direction). As I said: shouldn't be included in any policy, but more in that section. mabdul 03:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I disagree, they're pointless sure, but also harmless, 'crats ignore them and that's that, we don't need a policy for everything when it already works fine. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 03:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

" It just seems to be people saying "I don't know whether to support or oppose yet" and just seems pointless to me. "

— GiantSnowman

I strongly disagree. For example, in the current RfA (Mabdul), there are 8 neutral !votes, of which only one is of the type you claim. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
There are of course many good reasons to comment in the neutral column. Telling us you will be back later to actually participate in a meaningful way is not one of them. Saying you won't say support or oppose until they answer the question you asked to your personal satisfaction is also not one of them. If your not ready to say anything yet, there is no need to announce that you have nothing to say. People who make such comments seem to feel that they are vastly more important than they actually are, and that we are all waiting with baited breath to hear their opinions so we will know what to think. The neutral section is for users who have looked over the candidate and the RFA but find themselves unable to come down firmly on one side of the fence or the other, not to update your status like we're on facebook or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I don't think we need a policy, but a grassroots approach of commenting every time you see one of these comments regarding it's relative worth may be effective. Not here, right under the comment in the RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe RFA could be reformed into a selection process where adminiship is granted unless there are really good reasons that it shouldn't be? If you're generally a good editor, have a good history of warnings, good history of tagging files for deletion, etc you'd be granted adminship unless someone can prove you'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior? That surely would increase the number of successful adminships. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a good idea because just like an RfA they will come up with reasons to not grant one adminship so your suggestion wouldn't work. Now let us go back to sleep.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
By good reasons I mean things like vandalism and dramamongering and such. If a person is free from those sorts of disruptive things then they should be given adminship. That was in keeping with the original description for selection an admin by Jimbo at WP:NOBIGDEAL. Isn't that the policy anyhow? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
See Wiki: PEREN#Adminship PumpkinSky talk 22:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
That was back then when Wikipedia wasn't as complex as it today. Potential admins today need to have a lot more skill and experience here as well as be able to demonstrate the shit load of policies we have here. They need to be able to demonstrate good judgement by participating in back stage discussion such as MfD and perform accurate closures. This stuff didn't didn't exist back then which is why adminship is to get back then. Adminship gets harder and harder and harder every year as the bar always gets set higher.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If you re-read your original proposal from a different perspective, you'll see that what you propose is exactly the way RfA currently works. Candidates pass if they have a good history, and they fail if someone can prove they'd be untrustworthy due to bad behavior. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I thought the same thing Scotty.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the way the IP may have been meaning it is that it should be more of an automatic process. In other words, no need for nomination and all the questioning. However that would not be allowed, it would be more damaging to the encyclopedia than good.--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I mean that someone who applies for adminship should be granted the bit unless there is a majority vote not to accept them. Questions would be included but it would be a much friendlier environment, not the CIA-level examination that it currently is. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
But it has to be like that, it's to determine how the editor would react in certain situations and to get their views on how they would handle Wikipedia's policies--5 albert square (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the community needs to trust the user in question, not just some of them.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not the process itself that's out-of-line; the process is actually very efficient. What's out-of-line is the way that people interpret the candidate's edits. People often pick one small error in a candidate who's well qualified, and they oppose over that small error. These "nitpick opposes", as I call them, often lead to a pile-on that causes the RfA to fail when it otherwise would've passed. Granted, not all people are like this; there are many that oppose for perfectly justifiable reasons. But there are also many who like to nitpick, and it'd be very difficult, if not impossible, to stop this nitpicking from occurring. There needs to be reform, yes, but it's not going to be as easy as changing the RfA process. Don't get me wrong; I respect you for wanting to help. But changing the RfA process isn't what needs to be done. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not who easily opposes a candidate. There was even a time where I wrote a big bold statement in the oppose section to all the opposers stating how ridiculous their opposes are.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a random thought: Should we make it policy that opposes cannot occur if there is only one of the following: Content work (as long as at least ten DYKs have been made), RPP, AIV, comments at ANI/AN, past incidents if they are at least 1 year behind the candidate, a dirty block log if the block is at least 1 1/2 years behind the candidate, CSD (unless there have been like >20% bad tagging).--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The bureaucrats take comments such as those into consideration and have stated as such. And the proposal itself has been shot down on this page more than a few times, usually for that reasoning. --Izno (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we have to do something to reduce their weight. I'd still close an RfA as unsuccessful if like 50% of the commenters all oppose because of a lack of CSD tagging.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember several discussions about removing the support section and only have an oppose/neutral and discussion sections. - jc37 05:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

So... I don't know anything about bots, but it seemed like this would be a good task for one - The past RfA lists: Wiki: Successful requests for adminship, sub-pages of Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies, and Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). These pages are currently updated manually, resulting in conflicting numbers when only some of the many numbers to update are updated. As I said, I'm not sure if it is possible for a bot to update these, but I thought it was worth a shot to see what people think. "Pepper" @ 17:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, actually. 28bytes (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Such a bot is running in Russian Wikipedia since at least 2007, so that it must be pretty much possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone even use the alphabetical list anymore, Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies? The individual letter pages seem to get an average of about 1 page view per day, if that. A bot task for this would require very few edits, almost so few that it no longer falls under the bot definition of "performs repetitive tasks that are tedious to do manually." Crats should be able to keep up with this workload without a bot. However, if it results in greater accuracy, I suppose it wouldn't be a bad thing. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind most of the withdrawn or snow-closed ones have no crat involvement at all, so changes are pretty good that a step might be missed. Whenever I tidy up after a withdrawn one I often notice a nearby error in the alphabetical list, so I wouldn't be surprised if a bot found hundreds of errors or omissions on its first run. 28bytes (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I created a new tool that might be useful to people researching an RfA candidate's contribution history. It's quite similar to (and was inspired by) the popular stalker tool. You put in two editors, and it will find the pages that both editors have edited. The twist is that this tool sorts the results based on the minimum time between edits by both users. In other words, if both editors made an edit to the same page within a short time, that page will show up towards the top of the table.

The general idea is that when two users edit a page within a short time, chances are high that they have interacted directly with one another on that page. Therefore, instead of just returning a list of common pages edited by both users, it returns a list of pages where two users most likely had some direct interaction with one another. For instance, if you remember that you interacted with an RfA candidate at some point, but can't quite remember when or what page it was on, this tool might be able to uncover that information quickly. The tool also allows you to view both users' contributions to one particular page in chronological order.

The tool was just created today, so it still needs some polishing. But, feel free to try it out and let me know your thoughts. http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteract.html ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 00:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder: would this be useful in investigating possible meatpuppetry (separately from RfA, I mean)? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, this is intriguing! Arsenic, Max Clara, Pomegranate, List of common misconceptions, Walt Disney, Computer network, Santino Marella. Could make a nice murder mystery out of that. 28bytes (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what articles Jimbo and Larry Sanger have followed each other to? Ah. Imagery of nude celebrities; that sounds about right. 28bytes (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the tool definitely has potential uses outside of just RfA; like Tryptofish suggested, in sock/meatpuppetry investigations when two users who follow each other around and contribute to the same discussions will show up very clearly in the tool. Obviously, it could also be used during investigations into stalking accusations. Or, just for curiosity, like researching Jimbo's celebrity porn viewing habits.   ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 00:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It would be nice if the tool showed a diff to the edit with the minimum time. It's easy to determine that edit for some pages, but not so easy on ANI for example. Graham87 08:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
This would be useful in other Wikipedias, can you make it work for not only enwiki? ♪ anonim.one ♪ 09:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I am *so* techno-illiterate, so forgive me if this is obvious... Is this tool installable yet? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Graham87: I made a change to the timeline view which makes it much easier to see how much time elapsed between edits. Take a look.
• Anonim.one: I've had several people ask me to make my tools available on more than just enwiki, and I've done that for both the user contribution search and the edit summary search. However, looking at the logs, almost no one uses those tools for anything other than enwiki. And, it's a lot more work to make a tool for all wikis as opposed to enwiki. So, at this point, I have no plans on making it available on other wikis unless there is a sudden rush of requests.
• Shearonink: Installable where? It's just a webpage, you don't need to install it anywhere.

‑Scottywong| speak _ 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Great idea! I trust it has received your usual excellent implementation! :)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  The indication of the amount of time between the edits in the timeline is a nifty idea! However, in this case comparing my edits to those by Orderinchaos, the timeline doesn't show all our edits to ANI. Perhaps some pagination would be a good idea? Graham87 07:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  Also, the username fields should probably automatically capitalise the first letter of the entered usernames. Graham87 07:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

• For use outside RFA, it may be helpful if the tool states which editor edited that page first in the summary without checking the timeline. You may put a asterik or some other indication (to the user's edit count for a page) who edited the page first. --SMS ^Talk 07:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Graham: I probably should have mentioned that the tool is currently limited to looking at your most recent 50,000 edits (so as to no bog down the servers, and so that the page doesn't take ages to load). 50k is somewhat arbitrary, I'll experiment with raising that number and see what the effect is. SMS: That shouldn't be too much trouble, I'll take a look at the code later today. ‑Scottywong| express _ 13:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
A few quick updates: I tried raising the limit above 50k. For the example you give above (Graham87 and Orderinchaos, combined total of over 180k edits), it took nearly two minutes to analyze all of the edits without limit. By comparison, it took under 30 seconds when it's limited to 50k. So, I think I'm going to leave it limited at 50k for the time being. I've also included the edit count of both users at the top of the page, with a warning if either of the users has more than 50k edits. I've also auto-capitalized the usernames. Finally, the page edit count for the user who first edited the page now shows up in blue. Thanks for the great suggestions. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! However I'm still wondering which edits caused WP:ANI to come up as the first entry in the report for Orderinchaos and I; they aren't listed in the timeline. Graham87 09:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a minor bug in the timeline view, where it was starting from the earliest edits instead of the latest edits. Fixed now. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 18:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks! Graham87 08:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, another similar problem: this comparison between Jimbo and I says that there was a two-minute time interval between us editing Jimbo's talk page, but the timeline doesn't show it. Graham87 08:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the timeline shows the most recent 1000 edits by each editor at the moment. Adding a "Next 1000 →" link (when either user has more than 1000 edits to a page) is on the todo list. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 13:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
So in other words, people using some automated tools could avoid all scrutiny ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Two things I would like to see added: First, a button to select ALL named spaces. And Second, places to add a date range (or alternatively the last X days.) For users who have been around for a while, there is going to be overlap. but that overlap might be years apart. Or to have that date spread that is used for sorting purposes included in the report.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Just played around with it a bit... I really would like the ability to limit the time frame. I did a test using an article that I worked on years ago with another user, and those edits came up at the top. I'd rather have more recent edits brought up.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably not a bad suggestion, and should be easy to add. Not sure what your comment about avoiding scrutiny means. And, there is already a way to select all namespaces or just one. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
The avoiding scrutiny was a joke, give a person a tool and they could rake up 50K edits in a day to avoid having their edits reviewed ;-)---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Start/end dates added. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 20:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• Experimental version for up to 10 editors: http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/editorinteractmulti.html ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I've renamed this thread. Whilst I think this tool could be very helpful and thank Scottywong for his work, I think "digging up dirt" is exactly the sort of confrontational approach to RfA candidates that needs to be avoided if RfA is to have any chance of becoming a healthier environment that is less off putting to strong candidates. WJBscribe (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

(No offense, but it's probably also important to have a sense of humor.) ‑Scottywong| comment _ 13:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I honestly didn't catch that it was meant to be humorous, as "digging up dirt" is something very common around these parts. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 13:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Irony. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 15:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I tend to find that RfA is an area where sensitivy and tact are a good plan. The problem with humour, and especially written humour, is that not everyone gets the joke. Venue is important. In this context, I doubt most people thought the naming of the thread was ironic. Probably best to err on the side of caution... WJBscribe (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Template:RfA notice has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. mabdul 10:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Because that is the relevant "Wikiproject" and the decision shouldn't be made by that less editors.

This is an odd piece of vandalism. Clearly there is no truth to it, but perhaps it needs to be spelled out in the associated policy in order to obviate any future confusion. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wiki: Requests_for_adminship#About_RfA_and_its_process. To quote it While every Wikipedian is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections, only editors with an account may place a numerical (#) "vote". You may not !vote unless you register for an account or establish consensus to change the policy. Monty₈₄₅ 00:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
That is patently absurd and against the five pillars. Pursuant to WP:IAR I am going to include my !vote. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I expect someone else will remove it as well, but I'll leave it for someone else to consider. Monty₈₄₅ 00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Removed again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Removing legitimate !votes is WP:DISRUPTION and you will be blocked if you continue. IPs are equal in all things. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 00:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
To be a legitimate vote, it has to be one cast by a registered account. (not that RfA is a vote anyway) Mtking ^(edits) 01:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• I left a msg on their talk page, hoping that might settle things down. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh well, wishful thinking. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You all must have a read of Wiki: IPs are human too. You are officially and formally warned against further discrimination against IPs. 140.247.141.140 (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Though the consensus is that you're trolling, I'll answer anyway. Despite the title of that essay, an IP is not "human", an IP is a "computer" (more specifically a number assigned to a computer, cell phone, printer etc.) and computers don't have "rights". Of course the humans who sit in front of them and edit do and should be treated with respect and they are welcome to edit articles, discuss articles on talk pages etc. However, when it comes !voting in an RFA, we need to be certain that each editor gets 1 and only 1 numerical !vote. 140.247.141.140 is a computer at Harvard University, probably in a computer lab or in someone's office. How can we be certain that the person who sat down in front of it and !voted "support" in Dennis Brown's RFA, didn't also !vote in the same RFA as a logged in user?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't really help, Ron. If it's easy for me to edit from 10 different ip addresses it isn't going to be all that hard for me to make 10 different accounts. The problem remains; banning IPs from voting at RfA just for this reason would be gross overkill. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I've temporarily protected the RfA page to stop IP edit-warring to put the !vote back. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I really tried. I will leave it to someone else to clean up, I'm not bold enough to do that at my own RfA ;) Dennis Brown 2¢ © 01:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I didn't add back the vote. I COMMENTED 1. See? 140.247.141.140 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Clearly trolling, so I've blocked the IP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I revoked talk page access for continuing to troll on his talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've done a little digging and the prohibition against IPs !voting was made with this edit back in 2004. There were some discussions about who could nominate/!vote in the talk page archives for that year including incidents of sock puppets dropping out of the sky and opposing RFAs. As for 140.247.141.140, I think this may be a regular editor (IP or account) who decided to sit down at a random computer at Harvard University and make a protest about IP RFA participation rights.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

We would strike the comments of any non-anonymous user whose first edit was an RfA vote. This isn't "IP rights", it's simple trolling. Don't give it a second thought. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it's trolling. What convinced me was this. Playing the "Ghandi and King" card in response to an editing restriction is an insult to those who have been oppressed IRL. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

One thing I notice is that standards for adminship generally are roughly proportional to wiki size and existing admin count. Think of how easy it would be for people to pass RfA if we only had 10 admins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

At the time of crises, even a little help is well appreciated. But when we have everything, the same help is not even noticed... Yasht101 02:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's getting so hard to make new admins that biologists are considering in vitro fertilization with pandas. →StaniStani  03:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
On small projects (say ones with ten admins as per your example) then there are usually less than 300 very active editors. This means that their work is familiar to everyone. When I check en.wikibooks (a ten admin project) recent changes in the morning there are usually less than 100 edits since I went to bed the night before - so a good solid editor with the right skills to be an admin becomes obvious pretty quickly. Here it is possible to slave away for years without anyone ever noticing your work. QU ^TalkQu 08:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It's also a function of how important the wiki in question is. Because "The Tools" can cause some serious problems if used inappropriately, the amount of 'trust' that is necessary before someone can be handed those tools depends a great deal on how terrible it would be if a rogue admin, say, deleted the Main Page. I doubt anyone would notice if the ru.wikiquote main page went down, but en.wikipedia sees so much traffic every day that it would be a serious blow to the Project ("Project" here meaning the WMF goal of bringing free information to everyone) Achowat (talk) 13:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
WP:IDIOT--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Relevance? Achowat (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Probably that it isn't actually possible to delete the main page... There's a restriction in the MW software introduced presumably after notorious mistakes! QU ^TalkQu 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
That was worth reading though, along with a dozen other pages linked in. Thanks! Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The stocks will still be there if you ever need them ;-) QU ^TalkQu 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a place like this exists, but is there a place where possible candidates could get reviewed by several others? (Editor review is often slow and/or dead) Perhaps this would cause less failed RFA's and allow people to get a better decision of whether to subject themselves to an RfA or not. If this.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely! It would prevent the very likely chance of getting a failed RfA. →Bmusician 13:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The "solution" is to help out in Editor Review. For instance, I've had a review notice up for weeks and I've only gotten reviews from people I've worked directly with. And I'm one of the lucky ones who has actually gotten a review. Achowat (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Granted, I'm as guilty as anyone for not helping out at editor review. Now that I feel guilty I'm probably going to jump on that.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, posting that got me feeling a bit guilty, too. Maybe we should all commit to doing 2-3 by this time next week. Really tackle the backlog. Achowat (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wiki: Request an RfA nomination is where I started and I recommend it. Just pick one of these names (make sure they have recent contribs and are still active), leave a note on their talk page, and patiently wait for a week or so. This is how I found Pedro last year by randomly selecting his name. He reviewed me, make recommendations, told me when to come back, and I did. By that time, Elen of the Roads offered to co-nom, which was certainly not a bad thing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually signed up on that one. What I was more referring to I guess was something like a "Mock" RFA, a centralized place where people ask for what they need to do to improve their chances and can get numerous opinions on what they need to do to pass an RFA hopefully painlessly. It's diferent from editor review because this would just focus on how you would be as a potential admin. I don't know, sounded good to me at the time.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
After I had already talked with Pedro, did what he suggested, and thought I was ready, I started a conversation on my talk page, asked for public comment. I guess it was kind of a pre-RFA. It is archived here [2]. I went to my RfA a couple of days later due to the response (I had been expecting to wait two months, but was talked into going then). One or two made remarks about it at my RfA, but I had the whole conversation on my talk page during the RfA, so there was no doubt it was a good faith effort to determine my suitability. I had put notices on several admin's pages regarding my talk page, but not the RfA (never do that for the RfA), some I knew, some I really didn't, knowing it would get opinions from a variety of editors. Keep in mind, I kept all of this, including my previous conversations with Pedro in clear daylight during the RfA, including the fact that I had notified other admins and that ALL opinions were welcomed. And the nom pointed to it when proposing me as a candidate. This was to insure that they didn't see it as canvassing. That isn't a guarantee that others will view it as appropriate, but the vast majority did at my RfA [3], which had its share of unrelated drama and a higher than average turnout. Your mileage may vary. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
A review such as this is great, since it might point out potential complaints such as lack of article creation and contributions to articles, failure to add edit summaries, or too much time spent at ANI and dramah boards as opposed to editing articles. But even an editor who looks great in such a review might be in for a traumatic RFA, if someone out there is nursing a grudge about the editor's worst handful of edits out of tens of thousands of laudible edits, and complains about the few ill-considered, incorrect or mistaken edits so bitterly early in the process that a number of me-too oppose votes turn up, from editors who echo the complainer without reviewing the totality of the editor's work. Edison (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
It is just best to expect drama. As I say below, it isn't what they bring up that matters, it is how you address it. Embrace the criticism, show where you have improved, keep a positive and calm attitude, and don't be defensive. And don't feel the need to reply to everything, let others who support you carry some of the load. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I had a similar idea that fell flat when I left for college. Initially I proposed creating a Pre-RfA and later some editors proposed turning my plan into an alternate RfA. If anybody is interested, the Pre-RfA idea is on the bottom of Wiki: RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives/Pre-RfA Proposal and the alternate RfA idea is on the top of the page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The way Dennis did it is surely one of the good ways of knowing beforehand, but Denis, probably you are one of those editors who interact with a lot editors here, I don't think I will get a similar response as you got (I mean the number of editors here). I will rather suggest improvement of the Editor review process, by adding more questions and reports so the editor's content contributions, administrative contributions (like AfD, CSD percentage), understanding of different policies (in different scenarios), handling of disputes, etc. are visible to everyone, instead of reviewer digging in the editor's contributions (which mostly reviewers don't do, even if they do they only see recent contributions). And the most important is encouraging experienced editors to peer review the request, instead of leaving the request unnoticed for months (or a playground for vandals as in my case). --SMS ^Talk 18:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The way Dennis went about it was, imo, a good way. Completely transparent and he got a lot of comments because of the note he pasted on well traveled talk pages (I saw it on one and commented). He got some valuable feedback and, while the comments were mostly positive, it wasn't a whole hearted 'go ahead' thing with some clear reservations expressed. That he chose to go ahead was his call (good judgement Dennis!), and many oppose !votes cited the main reservation expressed in the "pre-RfA". I think it is a workable model and, Smsarmad, by judiciously posting on well trafficked talk pages, anyone can get a good response. --regentspark (comment) 18:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me be perfectly frank, I was expecting my talk page to be 50% negative, but I would glean ideas of where I needed to improve. I was completely and utterly overwhelmed by the positive attitudes, and I still am today. And I was no darling of the admin crowd, I had always spoke out against what I felt was abuse, but I tried to do so in a polite and policy based way. Much of what helped me in the RfA was that I had prepared for 6 months in advance, and I learned the fine art of STFU, and applied it to my RfA by greatly limiting the number of times I responded, responding to general concerns as a group instead of individuals, even when addressing individuals. I didn't debate every oppose, I embraced criticism against me. Instead of trying to prove them wrong, I agreed with them (they were right, after all) and showed them what I have been doing to overcome them. When you embrace it, you own it, you take responsibility for your mistakes, admit them and this gives you control over the issue. Kind of like how no one can laugh at you if you laugh at yourself first, they can only laugh with you. It isn't what they bring up that matters, it is how you deal with it. In one way, my pre-RfA didn't prepare me for the objections since everyone was positive, it just let me know that others had confidence in me, which gave me more confidence in myself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I forgot to say: always be honest, even if the answer isn't popular. They see right through lies at RfA, and butt-kissing won't get you through the gauntlet, but honesty might. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
So perhaps we could create a process by the name of something like "Editors looking for opinions on the chances of an RFA?"--SKATER ^{Is Back} 19:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
"When you embrace it, you own it" Yeah, HUG that machete aimed at your neck. Edison (talk) 05:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well not everyone's RfA is all that bad. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Says Mr.perfect :p---SKATER ^{Is Back} 17:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If you really think I'm perfect, a perusal of my talkpage should help dispel that notion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

• There used to be a Wiki: Admin coaching area, but it appears it was essentially abandoned. If you seriously want to help potential editors in their quest to become admins, it might be easier to simply reactivate and/or retool this area. There are no restrictions preventing it from being reactivated, as far as I can tell. I wouldn't dedicate all my time helping, but would be willing to assist one editor at a time that was sincere about seeking adminship and was willing to spend 6 months slowly working toward it. This does seem to be the easiest and likely most fruitful way, by starting a conversation on that talk page. I would definitely change the scope and methods, but the idea of coaching potential admins seems sound, and puts potential admins in plain view, making it easier for others to review their progress and qualifications. A "mock" RFA could be the final stage before the real one, and reserved only for editors that the coach (and others) felt was ready. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• On the subject of RfA's, my first and only one failed. See User:Tomtomn00/RfA/1. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
• People who want to someday be admins might be encouraged to help out on noticeboards that deal with messy problems, such as WP:DRN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually went through Admin Coaching with User:Fastily before he retired, It's one of my biggest regrets that I took that wikibreak. I learned an awful lot from that after my 2nd RFA failed.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 03:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)