requests For Adminship/Archive 231

Basically, the "good" things about unbundling the bit is that users wouldn't have to get chased by the angry mob with pitchforks (aka go through an RfA). So, is the format really the problem? As long as the same people decide, what difference does it make? We still have the angry mob with pitchforks! I now know that, I have 0% chance of passing an RfA (in its current form) in the next five years after I tried to argue with the opposers at Wiki: Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn. Apparently me and several others "badgered" when we argued with an opposer (my continued arguing is not "badgering", but just trying to understand people's reasoning, and it happens very often that I will understand where they're coming from eventually and I'll change my !vote). It seems that WP:AGF and WP:NPA is not applied at RfA. Thoughts? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• People keep saying this, but it isn't true. For ANY editor to have access to the undelete function or see deleted contribs, they MUST pass through RFA or a very similar process. The legal department at the Foundation has made this brutally clear, there are no exceptions. Even if the Crat gave the bit, they would strip it as an WP:OFFICE action, and they have the authority. Dennis - 2¢ 20:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say we shouldn't have RfAs anymore. I was asking if others felt like I do, that the community is what makes RfA broken. Doing away with RfA is the opposite of what I was saying. I said that the community was the problem, not the process. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

My idea. Four times a year we look at how much active admin attrition we have had. Say we lost a net of 3 admins in that time period. We could then look over the last 12 months worth of failed RfAs and promote the top 3. That way those who have the most support can stop attrition. Of course if you passed normally you would still be promoted as normal. Chillum 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
We'd still have to have a threshold. What if we end up in some bleak future where the only passes are obvious and the only fails are new users? What if the "best" candidate had legitimately serious problems? This is too difficult and arbitrary to implement. ansh666 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Beginning to think that the current RfA mech is as good as it gets. "The community" is merely a small but very faithful echo of the real world. Some life processes are shit, be it work, private life or WP. RfA is just one of them. Its perceptions we need to look at big time. a radical change in relationships and perceptions of relationships. I have never got my head around the admin v "us" thing. There are several admins and other eds working on the WW2 page at the mo. Perfect amity, and its hard to distinguish "them" from "us" unless you go on eds talk page to check. Everyone's pulling their weight. Its what happens after the RfA that freaks people out. I dont think there is any immediate admin numbers crisis on the horizon. There were some good stats on that here a while ago. Just my 10p Irondome (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
In most large organisations, it's easier to improve process than to improve culture; but if you change the former, the latter can adapt (though it may lag). I wouldn't advocate change for change's sake, but there's definitely some scope for change. Partly because en.wikipedia has historically been quite slow to change. bobrayner (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's an adminship-related idea I've been kicking around that might make people more willing to support less-than-perfect candidates. My idea is inspired by the fact that non-admins are able to close certain discussions only under non-controversial circumstances. Anyway, here's the idea: admins with over 75 percent get the normal admin powers, as usual. Admins with lesser support (say, 60-75 percent) get the same bits as conventional admins, but aren't allowed to use them in controversial cases. For example, one of these limited admins would be allowed to block a vandal at AIV or UAA, but couldn't carry out ANI consensus to block someone with thousands of edits. A limited admin could handle speedy deletions or PRODs, but not close large and controversial AFDs. They could semi-protect low-key articles affected by simple vandalism, but not fully-protect a highly-viewed controversial article from edit warring. User rights changes could be handled equally by both types of admin, since they tend not to be controversial. Admins aren't supposed to make controversial edits to protected pages anyway, so both types of admin would also use this right in the same way. These are just examples; hopefully you get the idea. If a limited admin does something controversial, the action could be discussed at ANI (not needed if it's obviously controversial) and be desysopped or warned once, then desysopped, or something. The desysopping policy would need to be changed (a good idea anyway IMHO) to support it. The WMF should be okay with this since it's not too much less rigorous than the standard RFA (in fact, it would be a standard RFA, just with lower standards). Also, no technical changes would be needed to support this (unlike unbundling), only social ones. --Jakob (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That seems like it would be very difficult to enforce to me.--Church ^Talk 16:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it would be pretty good if it wouldn't be so hard to enforce, and where would you draw the line? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Percentage of the vote at RFA is not an indication of capability or quality. A person might get 90% one week at RFA, but the next week get 80%. The community is a fickle thing. This also creates classes of admin, something I'm against. It is bad enough we have the impression that admin are "better" than non-admin, we don't need to reinforce that false idea with classes within admin. Sociologically speaking, this would be bad for the community, imho. Dennis - 2¢ 17:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) People would use their own judgement, as they do anyway. If a reasonable person thinks an action is controversial, they can take it up to ANI for further examination. If an unreasonable person does that, they'll be snowed under. --Jakob (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Plus, focusing on the percentage goes against the "bureaucrats gauge consensus" thing that has been the standard for... uh, a while. The standard argument against just having an 'crat-bot do promotions is that it would be impossible for the bot to weigh arguments; a bureaucrat can do that for a binary decision (promote or not-promote), but I think the bureaucrats would be creating a world of problems if we started closing RfAs with "can make controversial admin actions" or "there is consensus to promote to administrator, but not consensus to do anything controversial." And that doesn't even begin to address what we do with all the (edit: silly me, I didn't finish my thought) existing administrators; I guess they all just get the "go ahead and do controversial actions" nod? EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
With all the what? ansh666 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I was wondering that myself, Ansh666. Anyway, I meant the percentages to be a rough guideline (like the current 75% figure for all RFAs), not an exact number. --Jakob (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually finishing my thought before hitting "send" would go a very, very long way towards eliminating confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can we come up with a brand new proposal of a de-sysopping process? Sometimes the lack of such a process leads people to !vote "oppose" or "neutral" at RfA. Looks like a lot of de-adminship processes have been proposed in the past, but can we propose another? What about a simple, RfA-like process where !voters !vote "keep" or "remove" on a page titled "Wiki:Requests for adminship/Removal/Example" or "Wiki:Requests for de-adminship/Example"? Would the community support such, even in this time of desperation? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't mean to be defeatist, but any such effort is likely to fail. Nevertheless, I do think it would be useful to try again, if only to update the list to have something more recent than four two years ago. Gauging the community sentiment periodically, even if we are quite certain it will fail, is not a bad thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC) (amendment: I found something from 2012)

Well, that statement's very encouraging. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• I know it isn't. Like I said, I don't mean to be defeatist. I really don't. But, while I think most people can agree (and we have) that there needs to be a community driven process, moving forward from that agreement to create a system fails every time. It's a very sticky problem, and one that very likely will have rather enormous unintended consequences. Wide swaths of people are rightfully concerned about how such a system would work, what sorts of protections would be in place from malicious attempts to remove rights, etc. It's hard. Very hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Why does it have to be so hard? We can have an RFC on particular desysop requests, and get it closed and actioned by a neutral bureaucrat. The formal structure added could be a page to do it on, a sample format, minimum numbers of people requesting the desysop, and guidance for the closer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The process to get from where we are now to having a working desysop process could be to agree in stages about what we want. For example the first step could be just the simple question about whether or not to have a desysop determined by community consensus. The next step could be to decide on who will close and on what basis. Rules about how people will do their arguments can then be agreed. Then the details about place and structure can be specified. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree this is unnecessarily difficult. It should be a simple RFC/U-type discussion initiated by two or more established editors, one of whom should be a sysop. At the end the discussion is closed by a 'crat using the same criteria as RFA and the user is desysopped if there is consensus for it. There can't be another discussion for at least six months after a no-consensus close, any subsequent emergencies related to the user's conduct can be dealt with via the normal measures (compromised accounts, emergency blocks, whatever). The Spanish Wikipedia has a similar process that seems to work well. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I proposal suggested at the village pump addresses this: Wiki: Administrative standards commission Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Don't forget two of the most recent attempts (which aren't covered in that list above), which were both covered under Wiki: Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept. Jc37 authored one of the plans WP:RRA, I authored the other WP:RAS with help from Coren. Both were open to changes, both were radically different at the outset (Jc's was desysop only, mine has provisions for deysop and other sanctions). The entire event was a spectacular failure, primarily due to no one being able to agree on the most basic of ideas. Dennis - 2¢ 23:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• As the primary author of an earlier spectacular failure, let me ask: what's wrong with asking ArbCom to desysop someone who should be desysopped? A couple of years ago, there was (in my opinion) a real need for a community process, because there were no smoothly-working alternatives. But today, ArbCom is pretty well-attuned to community sentiment about conduct unbecoming an administrator, and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be willing and able to act promptly in response to a complaint. Posting to ArbCom is now a simpler process than any kind of community RfC that I know of. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• 'Fish, I did not participate in the discussion of your desysop proposal: what was it? (Brief summary, please.) Even if the community cannot settle on a standard procedure, why can't there be a "standard" procedure that RfA candidates could volunteer during their RfAs? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Here's a link: WP:CDARFC. As for volunteering, we sort of have the concept of administrators open to recall, which doesn't work too well either. There is no standard recall process, and if there were, then there's the issue of making it recommended for the future without making it recommended retroactively (lotsa luck with that!). There are various individual recall procedures. Some of them are constructed so that recall just will not happen. And I've seen others used to successfully recall admins who really should never have been recalled. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, when you get to design your own recall process, some folks are predictably going to err on the side of not being recalled! I've always thought that a recall process should require at least seven editors in good standing (at least three of whom are administrators) to initiate the process, followed by a RfC-style community vote. Not so dissimilar to the RfA process, but perhaps WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should apply without exception or leniency. I've seen an RfA or two where that might have been helpful to the candidate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Change your seven to ten, and you pretty much have the rejected process that I worked on. It ends up being both easier, and less subject to (insert a better phrase than "mob rule"), to post a request at WP:RFAR. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I would not call a 65% !vote a "spectacular failure"; anywhere outside an RfA, we often call 65%+ with good reasoning a consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• File it under false modesty. I was, of course, echoing what Dennis had just said. But I'm actually quite proud of the CDA proposal. I am absolutely convinced that the discussion it brought about led to an evolution in what the community expects of admins, and those evolving community standards are reflected by ArbCom, and that's why ArbCom is much more effective at desysopping today than it was several years ago. When I first started editing, some admins were kind of Wild West. Today, some of those are gone, and many of the others are on their good behavior. And those who have passed RfA more recently are pretty uniformly trustworthy. Which brings us full circle to whether there are now too few passing RfA. (I don't claim to know the answer to that one.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well done, 'Fish. As for your question, I think it is self-evident we have too few active administrators. Certain areas of the project barely function for lack of adequate administrator help. The Wild West is gone, and that's a good thing. There are plenty of qualified candidates if we're willing to accept something less than perfection and the complete absence of past controversy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I would not endorse any desysoping procedure that did not include a neutral evaluation as to whether there was a policy breach, and for all its faults, that is what ArbCom does in such cases. I've seen too many torches-and-pitchfork brigades, and the leaders of them rewarded, to want anything less. And I don't trust ArbCom to do it routinely, not when I look at how some of them got elected. Suffice it to say that while I am open to the idea of community desysoping, I haven't seen a proposal, or even a concept, that I could support.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• My WP:RAS proposal, which was developed with Coren, an ex Arb, gave Arb a 30 day window to overrule any desysop. They would Approve, Disapprove, Ignore (same as approve). It wasn't perfect, but it has that check and balance. It also allowed for "tool blocking", ie: desysoping for a period of time, say 6 months, to force a break. We have some normally acceptable admin who sometimes would benefit from that, imo. Dennis - 2¢ 13:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• Wehwalt, I respect your opinion and your work as an administrator, but I must disagree with you in this instance: there needs to be some form of administrator accountability to the larger community that includes a process for desysopping. Even the president of the United States can be impeached and removed from office by super majorities of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate; ditto for federal judges, who otherwise serve lifetime appointments. Wikipedia administrators are not so different in that they are selected in a democratic fashion, and we should be able to remove them in a similar democratic fashion when they transgress the community's standards for conduct and playing by the rules. To me, the need for such a straightforward removal process is self-evident. If selecting an administrator is "no big deal," then there should be a process that allows for the removal of the bit by a similar process. The process to remove should be no less difficult than the RfA process by which administrators gain the bit; it must be straightforward for the complaining parties, but it must include a measure of procedural fairness to accused administrator, too. While I have my attorney hat on, I would also suggest that the community desysopping process should include the requirement of "certification" of the specific accusations, i.e., an endorsement of the accusations by a designated subcommittee of administrators, bureaucrats and/or arbs. As I imagine it, if the certification committee does not endorse the validity of the accusations, then the process would not proceed to community discussion and !voting. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• We have the ArbCom already for desysoppings. They are elected democratically by the community. No need to have a special-purpose committee and different set of "process law" for a very uncommon thing. However ArbCom has a history of concentrating on user's behavior instead of actual policy violations and has done at least one pure "attitude desysopping" in the past, so the existing system is not perfect but I fail to see how your ideas would improve things. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• @Dirtlawyer1:, I think you'd appreciate my ideas for a de-adminship process. It addresses your lifetime appointment concern, a similar ease/difficulty between gaining and losing adminship, and the need for certification (without that committee [in my proposal, it'd be the 'crats] actually endorsing the validity of the accusations). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
• @EVula: Just saw this -- I think it's a pretty good framework for a supervised desysopping process, and is very much in keeping with my own thinking on the subject. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Agree. This looks like a good framework. Intothatdarkness 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion: Add a long section to that Q&A part, where you explain how your proposal will solve the objections that were raised to earlier proposals that failed (such as WP:CDARFC). Important: don't just say that it won't have those problems because it is simpler. That's a failed proposal waiting to happen. You need to go through all the specific complaints that have been raised in the past, and there are a lot of them, and explain in specific ways how they are addressed now. And also, how your proposal would be simpler than going to ArbCom, but just as safe regarding "mobs with pitchforks". If you actually propose this to the community, you can expect a ton of pushback, and you need to be prepared to answer it factually and specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• 'Fish, I nearly suggested it earlier, but since you chimed in, I will suggest it now: you and EVula should go to one of your talk pages and put your heads together and discuss strategy. Your proposals are not that different in spirit, and I could be a vocal supporter of either. This needs to happen in some form or fashion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Thanks, but the last time I went through one of these proposals was enough. For the sake of my own sanity, I'll just watch this time. I wish EVula and whoever else might work on it the best of luck. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• PS: I'm actually not convinced that it would really be any better than going to ArbCom. Also, it would be of no use when an admin does 1 or 2 things that are very bad; it only works for 3+. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• Two points, 'Fish: (1) you don't have to be the front man, but it would obviously be helpful to someone like EVula to have the benefit of your experience if he's serious about pursuing this; and (2) the difference between ArbCom and EVula's reverse RfA process is the level of community involvement -- which I believe is what so many dissenters are clamoring for -- because there is community discussion and !voting, with consensus determined at the conclusion. It's a process that is familiar to anyone who has ever participated in RfAs, but with a greater measure of protection built into it before the community discussion begins. Anyway, that's my opinion, FWIW. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• @Dirtlawyer1: and @Tryptofish: I'm totally amenable to hammering out further details about this on my own talk page. I really would like to see this grow legs again, but I'm similarly shy about doing this again (the first version of this, which was much more laid back, went down in flames... but that was several years ago now). If I wasn't the only one trying to make it work, that'd make me feel better about doing a second round with this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
• I just don't have the time to make this something that I would work on, but I do encourage you to pursue it further in your user space. Any time you have any questions for me about it, please feel free to ping me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering how much parallelism people here might perceive between troubles getting new admins here, and troubles getting new reviewers at en.wn.

This requires some explanation, I think.

• Until recently, I never really thought about this sort of parallel between the sisters. There's a long-standing perception at en.wn that we confront problems our big sister en.wp will eventually need to deal with. (This is me struggling to resist temptation to digress.) It wasn't until this summer that I really looked at problems the two sisters share. I watched Wikipedia's reaction to the Foundation dissing the Wikipedian community, and thought (not happily), now they know what that feels like. Gradually shrinking activity is also something the sisters share.
• I've made a particular study of what en.wn needs in order to grow. The pivotal element, I concluded, is that various tasks need to be made easier; especially, newcomers writing articles, and experienced Wikinewsies reviewing articles. The question was how to do this while maintaining the standards inherent in the journalistic ideals that drive the project. (All volunteer projects are driven by idealism; lose that and you're cooked. You may recall we had a fork of en.wn a few years ago; those of good will in both factions agreed, I think, that review difficulty was a problem, but those who left wanted to sacrifice standards — and ultimately their morale tanked.)
• My intended strategy is crowdsourced semi-automated assistance. You can't get there, I maintain, if the semi-automated tools can't be written ultimately in wiki markup. The great strength of wikis has always been that they cut out the middleman: members of the community can just do what's wanted, without having to learn another language (like php, or javascript, or lua), and without having to try to explain to, and persuade, Foundation employees who aren't the ones who understand what's needed and likely have priorities different from the community. So I've been gradually piecing together a suite of tools at en.wn, culimating in templates like {{dialog/text}} (for a text input box) and {{dialog/button}} (for passing data from a page to another page or to some action such as an edit). (Fwiw, the current state of my tools, which I'm still trying to put "finishing" touches on, is visible at n:Help:Dialog.)

What I'm wondering is, how much of a role does the difficulty of tasks play in the troubles over here at Wikipedia? How much, or little, difference could be made here by crowdsourced semi-automated assistance for complicated/tedious tasks? --Pi zero (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Much of the discussion here and elsewhere has been primarily about the RFA process itself and how that might or might not leave an unfavorable impression on potential candidates. What you discuss seems to be more on the editor outreach and retention side of things, which may very well lead to more administrators in the long-run. In the short-run, however, the structure of the process of granting the tools itself has been and will be the topic du jour. As an aside from someone who has Wikinews experience, the process of granting reviewer resembles closely process of granting +sysop over here about ten years ago. A good track record and a few months of solid experience is generally enough. The problem at Wikinews (I know, I shouldn't be saying this looking at my recent lack of activity over there) has been a shortage of active contributors and, hence, potential reviewers. I think that very well might be a long-term problem for RFA, but we don't seem to have any shortage of qualified editors at the moment. The problem, as many see it, is getting them to run. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tyrol5: Yes, it's quite clear emphasis in the discussion is being placed on how the request process works. What I'm talking about is very much long-term (I've been working on my tools for about three years now). It seemed there was perhaps also an undercurrent, glimpsed here and there, of the effort of acting (and acting well) as an admin, which is a sort of thing my interactive-assistance approach ought to help. --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Potential admins probably don't know what they are letting themselves in for, so I doubt the usability of the interface for admin tasks is a major hindrance for new applications. It is possibly linked to the decline in activity of existing admins. On a sister project when faced with 100 copyright violations that needed deleting, which were too old for Nuke, they had to be deleted one at a time via a three click process. That's not only time consuming but utterly tedious. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

All admins and bureaucrats, can you archive this page because it's 74,661 bytes on this page? I think you have to archive this talk page now for over 200K bytes. It will be the 231st archive on this one. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• First, anyone can archive a page. It doesn't take an admin or a bureaucrat. Second, this page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. In fact, the last edit before your edit here above was done by this bot [5]. If you edit this page in full and look at the line "|algo = old(30d)" you'll see that threads are automatically archived after they've gone stale for 30 days. All the threads active on this page are less stale than that. This page hasn't been manually archived in a long time. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Archiving is done by a bot. When a section has not been edited for over 30 days, it will move it to an archive (the max size of which is 200 kilobytes). For more information, see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. I do not believe there is a hard limit for page size, especially on talk pages. ansh666 22:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Allen2, absolutely no need to force an archiving.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That said, it would make sense to switch archiving to Cluebot III because it fixes links as it archives. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

30 days does seem to be unnecessarily long. I am sure that 14 days would be sufficient. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This comment came up at the the village pump discussion:

" Of course, wiki-side, the simple problem with RFA is that !votes aren't ignored by patrolling bureaucrats when they aren't in line with current admin policy. For example, when people "oppose" based on "not enough article improvement edits" or "I don't like this edit they made" or "this edit made a mistake" (an extremely common occurrence) when someone's clearly almost exclusively an anti-vandal patroller or something, it's not at all an argument that's in line with the admin policy (there's precisely zero requirement for admins to make article improvement edits or be generally well-rounded wiki citizens); therefore, they should probably summarily be ignored but in actuality aren't. I, myself, probably haven't made substantial mainspace edits for years—doesn't mean I don't try my best to clear out backlogs—the place where admins are most needed—when and if I have free time. Similarly, RFA questions that are divisive, contentious, or loaded to select for an ideology, much like those posed to political candidates, could also be screened for and removed by bureaucrats or other editors. " - comment by Slakr.

So, is Slakr right? Should bureaucrats ignore inappropriate oppose votes? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's easier said than done. The hard (maybe impossible) part is coming up with a way of deciding which !votes are legitimate and which aren't. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Then by the same token should they ignore support !votes based on a lack of admins or some other concern not directly related to the candidate's qualifications? Intothatdarkness 16:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I feel that support should be the "default"; by this, I mean that a support without a reason should be considered as saying "I agree with the nominator(s), I have no concerns, and the opposes so far (if any) don't convince me" (and this is what no-text supports are currently considered, de facto). Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Is there any evidence that Crats aren't properly judging consensus at RFA? I haven't seen anything that would substantiate that claim. Dennis - 2¢ 16:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  I tend to think not, honestly. This is just one of those things that comes up occasionally, usually focusing on !votes that oppose. Intothatdarkness 17:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need anyone deciding which votes are valid or invalid. Ultimately, when you go down that road, you give the person counting the votes the power to decide the outcome. Disqualification of votes should only be done on the basis of incontestable technical reasons, such as an account being too new or having too few edits. Everyking (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Of course the person counting the votes has the power to decide the outcome, that is what we select Crats to do. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of time, counting those votes is a simple affair as the person clearly passes or clearly fails. It is only the rare times when an RFA is on the threshold does it come into focus. And being "too new" or having "too few edits" isn't a valid reason to discount a vote, policy is pretty clear on that, and I'm kind of shocked to see an admin even say that. Dennis - 2¢ 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I always thought that bureaucrats could discard any votes at their discretion, and have commented here with that assumption in the past. However, my thoughts were that it was for obviously bad-faith comments ("oppose because the third co-nominator is a sockpuppet" when said co-nom is an arb or something), frivolous complaints ("editor has 13 in their username and I'm scared of it"), or opposes without a reason (do I need to give an example? - note, none of these are real, hopefully), among other obvious things. I don't think that they should discard comments like those described by Slakr or contributions by accounts that Everyking describes - the community has accepted that each editor is allowed to have their own standards for RfA, and while new/low-edit accounts should obviously be scrutinized especially on potentially controversial candidates, if legitimate there is no reason to not count them. ansh666 20:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ansh666: It was a bit before your time, but we once had a user who opposed just about every RfA without giving a reason. The worst oppose vote I've ever encountered was basically oppose, she's a woman and I'm slightly afraid of them. Graham87 11:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I am aware that RfA before 2007/8-ish was pretty wild. Thankfully, we have better standards and such now. ansh666 20:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter when there are no RFA to apply the standards to. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• In the closest cases, the crats open a process call a "crat chat", by creating a dedicated page where the crats, as a group, discuss and decide how to close the RfA. One can see in these discussions that they explicitly speak about giving more or less weight to certain arguments, and it generally is in line with the ways that WP:CONSENSUS is determined in other kinds of discussions. After all, WP:VOTE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Should bureaucrats ignore inappropriate oppose votes?" Yes. And we do, but not lightly. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a specifically a problem. There has rarely been a Crat decision that I did not think was correct. I say rarely, but generally speaking I don't see that vetoing certain !votes and that criteria would have resolved those close calls anyway. Mkdw^talk 15:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bureaucrats have been chosen by the community explicitly to consider the merit of RfA !votes during closure. (If they didn't need to do that, we wouldn't need bureaucrats to close RfAs.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is there something awry with the bot that updates the !vote counter? It seems no update has been made to the current RfA since yesterday.  Philg88 ^♦talk 10:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I tried purging the cache, but to no avail. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Now fixed, thanks Cyberbot I!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we find out how those editors who comment "oppose" in some recent RfAs (the current one, and some recent past ones that were not snow closes, but instead genuinely discussed from both "sides") feel about the position that "RfA has become too difficult to pass". Perhaps we could have some sort of poll, asking those particular opposing editors to participate.

Here's why. Given all the talk about "RfA is broken", the question is whether it objectively is broken, in the sense of failing to reflect community wishes, or not. If editors are opposing RfA candidates in spite of believing that not enough editors are passing RfA, then what they say would be worth evaluating for whether we have a problem with getting enough good candidates, or a problem with how RfA evaluates candidates – and it could give us some specifics about what the problems are. On the other hand, if editors who oppose RfA candidates feel that there is not a problem with the RfA success rate, then what they say would be worth evaluating for whether such editors are somehow not typical of the community – or whether the system actually works because the community has high standards. When editors are unhappy about an RfA candidate not passing, we tend to hear from them in these discussions. But I think we ought to hear more from editors who !vote the other way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I opposed one recent RfA, so I guess your invitation includes me. I think RfA is about right. It hasn't become too difficult to pass (and this is coming from someone who recently failed one). We don't really need more admins generally -- although we do in some discrete areas -- so the low pass rate doesn't concern me too much. I've come quite firmly to the view that what Wikipedia is badly missing is article editors, not administrators, and I've changed my own editing patterns accordingly. I think sometimes particular RfAs can get unnecessarily heated, and I accept that puts some potential candidates off, but not in all my time here have I seen any proposals that would fix that without generating more heat or sacrificing important community standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
• I, too, have opposed, so here're my two cents. I don't think RfA is the problem. It has been asserted a number of times, but i've not seen anything in the way of data to back up the assertion. If there is a problem at RfA, it is, as Mkativerata says, some behaviour at some RfAs, but that is a behavioural or cultural problem, not a structural one. The fact that the Foundation requires some form of community scrutiny for the ability to view deleted material to be granted implies that there will always be the opportunity, at least, for that behavioural issue to come to the fore. In the end, though there are some candidates who don't get through, it seems to me that the majority who "should", do (with the caveat that i supported Mkativerata, who didn't). Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 03:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mkativerata and LindsayH, for your helpful replies. Wiki: Requests for adminship/Jackmcbarn just closed as successful, but with a significant number of opposes, so I think that provides a ready-made sample of the editors whose opinions I'm talking about here, so I'm going to poll those who can reply here.

@WilyD: @Carrite: @Fylbecatulous: @GamerPro64: @Hammersoft: @Konveyor Belt: @Jusdafax: @Wee Curry Monster: @Coretheapple: @Intothatdarkness: @Stanistani: @Salvio giuliano: @Andrew Davidson: @Kashmiri: @Sitush: @Mellowed Fillmore: @Lukeno94: @Lithistman: @Rsrikanth05: @Wehwalt: @Rotten regard: @GraniteSand: @Vejvančický: @Neotarf: Do you agree, or disagree, with the statement "RfA has become too difficult to pass"? Why, or why not? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes it is too difficult to pass. There's a myriad of reasons. Lack of trust in editors, despite years of editing. Insane standards (well if you just had 1,000,000 more edits I would feel more comfortable). Lack of a desysop ability. Popularity contest. Inability to promote good candidates over candidates who shouldn't have the tools in the first place. Etc. Etc. Etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, it is not too difficult to pass. I often oppose candidates, including those who are good content contributors. My concern is that being a good content writer does not necessarily mean that the person will be a good admin. Indeed the best content writers are less likely to use the admin tools at all. Let the content writers continue to write content. If you think that they are doing a good job, give them a barnstar. I suspect that all too often, adminship is subconsciously seen as a promotion for good editors, rather than an extension of power into restricted activities. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, the process is not too difficult for the nominee. Since I was pinged to be polled, because of my opposition; (which seems skewed in a valid survey); My motivation in participating: becoming an admin requires "a high level of trust from the community". I have supported some; I have opposed some upon this basis. (Being challenged over my opposes does not bother me, since I have astoundingly grown fangs in WP:FPC)....This: [6] and this: [7] however, really saddened me and seemed quite bad form, since this is a successful outcome for the candidate. Gravedancing at the end upon us opposers makes me wonder if I will participate again. I feel mocked for my oppose, which was not undertaken frivously. I imagine no one has noticed this entry: [8]: #Support - Based on this editors surprisingly vague editing history, I'm changing my vote from neutral to support. Now that WP has such an admin shortage, choosing admins with such a lack of transparent history is definitely the thing to do to further water-down WP's administrative competence and hopefully hasten the projet's demise. Cla68 (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC). Therein lies the tale. Fylbecatulous talk 14:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I concur that this is a skewed poll (if that is what it is). The people being polled recently opposed an RfA and I'm guessing would lean more towards saying its not too difficult to pass. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I fully understand that this poll is entirely skewed, and is not useful as a gage of the views of the community as a whole. I explained my reasons for asking it in this way at the top of this discussion section. I deliberately would like to hear from editors selected this way, because most of the discussions about "RfA is too difficult!" are posted by editors who support candidates and are unhappy about "oppose" comments. I feel that it may be useful to get some opinions that might otherwise not be heard. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't think the process is too hard to pass. Post Wiki Seigenthaler biography incident, it necessarily became somewhat more difficult, and there's no going back. Might be great if we could, but we can't. Standards just had to become higher. I think it'd be great if we had more admins, but the pipeline needs to be patched where it's leaking badly; the 1st edit => 10th edit line, which is where the decline in RfAs originates. WilyD 15:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think that any increase in difficulty (and I'm not convinced that it is necessarily more difficult) comes from the realization that it is very difficult to correct a mistake when appointing an Admin. Should a candidate turn out to be unsuited, we're in effect stuck with them until they decide to give up the bit (or in the very unlikely event that ArbCom takes action). Intothatdarkness 15:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• A case example of this is administrator DangerousPanda. Promoted in January of 2010, he is now before ArbCom over incivility issues. Incivility issues were raised during his first and second RfA (note: he changed his username since). They did not carry the day in his second RfA and he was promoted. Nevertheless, the incivility problems continued. It has taken nigh on four years for it to get to the point of being an ArbCom case. I see in that several problems; (1) Admins are more 'equal' than all of us equals, (2) the system for desysopping is effectively useless, (3) incivility is treated as normal and acceptable, and others. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Hammersoft and Fylbecatulous, and the issues they raise were what bothered me about the hectoring and belittling (example) of "opposes" in that recent RfA. It's hard enough to oppose an admin who is getting a lot of support. (Why antagonize somebody who is going to have power over you?) Supporters jumping on every opposer had the effect of intimidating potential opposers and ensuring that "their guy" gets the tools. He got them, but I think that the behavior of his supporters cast a pall over the results. Coretheapple (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Intothatdarkness that the lack of a recall mechanism raises the stakes (and thus the standards) on the Request For Administration process. I don't think the process is itself too difficult, I think the stakes are too high by overbundling of tools and lack of post-election accountability. It would also help tone down things if the "3 standard vapid questions" asked of every nominee were transformed into ten good ones (including a declaration of all previous accounts) and if voter questions were at the same time moved to a position of less prominence, such as the "Neutral" section. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Asking if RfA is "too difficult to pass" is like asking if a person's "legs are too long." I do think that the process is capricious; I once saw a highly qualified content creator, a real gem, get passed over on totally bogus reasons, while we just saw an editor with little content creation and a seven-year gap in his editing history sail by. The general rule seems to be that if one keeps one's head down and doesn't antangonize anyone, while doing technical or scut work, one can become an administrator. Why more techies and scut-workers don't become admins is beyond me, as the door is open to them even if they haven't created much content. I think one reason there is difficulty at each of these RfAs is that the position is a lifetime appointment, and there are no effective ways of removing rotten apples. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I attended an event recently. At this, one of the speakers commented that the OpenStreetMap project didn't have any admins. He immediately qualified this by saying that there was actually a small core of privileged users who could block and do other admin tasks. But the point was that admins were so low profile on that project that it was easy to forget they were there. I have the impression that we're at the other end of the scale - that our admin corps is too large and heavy-handed. This may be due to RFA having been too permissive in the past. If it is much more stringent now then this seems to be a reasonable response. Andrew (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to note I did not receive the notification. I have no opinion on the question, or what is the point of asking it. —Neotarf (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't get notified either. I just happened to see the section while checking the talk page. Intothatdarkness 20:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Same here, but I'll fess up to seeing this on a certain external website that will go nameless. Coretheapple (talk) 20:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you to everyone who is responding here, no matter how you found out about it! I'm sorry that the notification system is so buggy, but blame that on the WMF software people, over whom I have no control. As for that other website serving as a notifier in the absence of things working the right way here, well isn't that ironic! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't see the notice either and checking the notice list I never received one. No I don't think RfA is too hard to pass but as another commentator has noted its capricious. Here, we had an editor with a seven year gap in their editing history and the answers to Q.12 were vague and evasive. The candidate was asked twice if they'd had a previous named account, the answer hints that they did but they didn't disclose them. That raises a massive red flag in my book. Equally I've seen eminent candidates who'd simply edited in controversial areas, thereby attracting adverse comment from aggrieved POV pushing SPA. Apparently its really easy to pass if you avoid editing in any controversial areas and don't pick up any enemies. Thats what needs to be fixed, RFA should be about the candidates suitability and often it is simply an avenue to pursue personal grievances. WCM_email 13:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of the responses

I again want to thank everyone who replied. As I said earlier, this is definitely not a representative survey of the community, and that was by design. Instead, my thinking was that most of the discussions about how RfA has become too difficult to pass are dominated by editors who supported a candidate and who disagreed with the opposition, so this survey was intended to provide a counterbalance to that. Here is one fish's opinion about the take-away from the responses so far, and of course I invite other editors to respond.

• Not surprisingly, there are varying opinions. But there is a very clear trend of most responding editors saying that they believe that RfA is not too difficult to pass. And it seems to me that the reasons they give for that opinion are reasonable ones. Therefore, it seems to me that some fraction of the editing community, represented by these responses, holds the opinion that RfA standards should be as high as they are now, and there's another fraction of the community whose standards are such that they supported the same candidate that these responders opposed. People can disagree about matters of opinion, but it seems to me that RfA is accurately capturing the sentiment of the community, absent other evidence to the contrary. So I think that when some editors complain that RfA standards are too high, they are saying that the standards are too high in their opinion, but their opinion in balance with the rest of the community is what is setting the standards.

• Two perennial proposals would, if implemented, make it easier for more editors to support candidates: unbundling of tools, and a community-based recall mechanism (or a perception that it is easier to get ArbCom to take care of it).

• Just as some editors who support candidates object to some kinds of opposes, there are editors who object to lazy support !votes, and to some forms of piling on against opposers. There doesn't seem to be evidence that bureaucrats get it wrong in weighing such comments, however.

• Personally, I agree with what Carrite said about the questions to candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard questions

• @Carrite:@Tryptofish: Would you care to propose the new 10 standard questions? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I guess I don't really want ten, and I'm not too bothered by the three we have now, but I think we should add questions about editing under other accounts, since that always gets asked anyway. And I agree strongly that the "additional, optional" questions should be moved somewhere less prominent. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• 'Fish, I could see expanding to five or six standard questions -- including the "all prior account" question. I also like the idea of moving the optional questions to the bottom of the discuss, thereby reducing any tendency to grandstanding. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's see, something like this: (1) How did you get into editing Wikipedia? (2) Why do you want to be an administrator? (3) Have you ever had previous accounts? If so, would you please list them? (4) What's your best work on WP? (5) What are the biggest conflicts you've been involved in at WP? (6) What administrative tasks do you envision yourself working on? (7) What can be done to improve the editing climate at Wikipedia? (8) Have you ever helped a newcomer learn how to edit? What did you learn from the process? (9) Please define the following basic Wikipedia concepts and briefly explain how they apply to Wikipedia today: (a) Civility; (b) Assume Good Faith; (c) Neutral Point of View; (d) Ignore All Rules; (e) Verifiability; (f) General Notability Guideline; (g) Conflict of Interest; (h) Involved Administrator. (10) If you could change one thing about Wikipedia, what would it be? Carrite (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another possibility: (11) What's the biggest mistake you have ever made at Wikipedia? What would you do differently today if faced with the same situation? Carrite (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that 4, 5, and 6 are basically the existing questions. I'd support adding 3, 8, and 11. I'm neutral about 9 and 10. I don't particularly like 1, 2, and 7, because they strike me as the kinds of questions that I don't like when they are asked individually; they don't seem to me to shed much light on administrative (as opposed to general editorial) ability. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I like Carrite's questions 1 through 6. They are straightforward and relevant. I don't like questions 7 through 11. They are vague and full of potential booby traps. In particular I don't like question 9 which seems to call for writing a small book. MelanieN (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Mostly agreed, with the exception that I like #11 and maybe #8 would be okay, and #1 seems rather irrelevant. So for me, 2-6 and 11, and maybe 8. And about #9, this would be my answer: "a) WP:CIVIL b) WP:AGF c) WP:NPOV d) WP:IAR e) WP:V f) WP:GNG g) WP:COI h) WP:INVOLVED". No point in answering myself when everything is so wonderfully explained and demonstrated elsewhere. ansh666 01:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Interested users are invited to comment at Wiki: Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear editors: A number of comments on the WP:RFA page led me to want to look up editing statistics, but all week I have not been able to access these. I am frustrated at not being able to investigate editing patterns, and don't want to make unsubstantiated remarks, so I've just stopped commenting altogether. This is unfortunate at a time when there are two RFAs running. I don't suppose there's any other way to access this information? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I was able to access the statistics right now (from the second attempt).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean Snottywong's tool ? It hasn't worked for me for at least a week and it just failed again. Does anyone known what is amiss? HalfGig talk 21:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
No, I had in mind the tool which is linked from the user contribution page, but now it does not work for me either.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
The popup? That works for me. Does anyone know what is wrong with the Snotty tool? HalfGig talk 22:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

In light of this debate, I have opened a RfC at Wiki talk:Bureaucrats#RfC: Voting crats cannot close. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the present dilemma: RFA is not producing new admins very often. As a result, some people feel that the process needs to be closed. However, there is no consensus to close the process until a new process can be agreed upon. Unfortunately, no consensus can found regarding a new process. While everyone is talking, the discussion prompts the success of a handful of RFA, leading some to claim that there really isn't any problem as good candidate are still getting through. The whole conversation basically goes nowhere. Since the inactivity issues really weren't solved, the new-RFA momentum dies off fairly quickly and the cycle begins again a few months down the road. Does that sound like an accurate summation? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right, Perhaps it would help to construct in one place what everyone sees at the problems with RFA and the good parts about it and then go from there about what needs to be done? To my knowledge, I don't think the community as a whole has ever produced such a list. --Church ^Talk 19:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
@Church: RFA2011 is probably the closest to what you just described. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 20:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
See also, round one of the three-round RfC in 2013. There are no new ideas when it comes to RfA, the 230 archives of this page are a testament to that. benmoore 20:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
The only thing more broken than WP:RFA is WT:RFA ... (also not a new idea). —Kusma (t·c) 20:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

All this has happened before, and all this will happen again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Two or three years ago, I used to get excited about all this for similar reasons. I got over it. If anything, RFA is more gentle now than before, and the "shortage" of admin hasn't caused any problems. We still have backlogs at some things, like closing RFCs, but that isn't from a shortage of admin, it is because it hard, thankless work that often ends in drama so once you've done a few, you lose your taste for closing them. Dennis - 2¢ 17:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a problem yet, but eventually it will be. Even then, I doubt a resolution will be found. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Necessity is the mother of invention. Dennis - 2¢ 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the voters didn't feel that way about FeydHuxtable's proposal. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No, because that proposal was for a tactic: to unnecessarily bring about a state of necessity. All the supporters presumably wanted change. Around half the oppose voters were also prepared for change, even radical change: they just wanted to know roughly what change. Another quarter were looking for incremental change or "tweaks" to the current system. Only about a quarter clearly felt no change was needed. Well let's look for one incremental change that can be widely supported, if only to restore confidence that we can improve admin selection. I suggest bringing forward this proposal for a new application form. Does it look like a goer?: Noyster (talk), 10:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm afraid it would be naive to anticipate getting widespread support for anything. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
No. I've read a lot of the back history of this talk page, and proposals for mandated minimum admin requirements are always rejected. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Noyster's proposal does not address the actual problems. Wherever comments are allowed on an RfA system, some '!voters' will resort to disingenuous tactics or simply be obnoxious. That said, and concurring with Dennis, RfA is a lot less scary than it was when I felt motivated to launch WP:RFA2011, so if that project didn't bring about any physical changes to the system, it sent a clear message to the trolls (of that time), and the mature RfA voting community is now far less tolerant of such behaviour. Anyone who makes stupid comments on an RfA only makes themselves look (very) silly.

Minimum requirements for running for sysop IMO are not needed to be written down; anyone who attempts an RfA by ignoring all the advice pages and last minute caveats has already demonstrated that they either lack common sense, or just don't have the nous to understand what adminship is all about. If anything, we need a set of minimum qualifications for the !voters ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• That's another idea that has been thrown around, and is guaranteed to cause drama. I'm not sure what RfA needs, except more candidates. Dennis - 2¢ 14:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  But don't all the candidate-creating efforts lose steam in pretty short order? Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  I encourage all those who wish to invest effort in identifying and inviting potential candidates to revive Wiki: WikiProject Admin Nominators as a place to record the outcome of your efforts. This way the community can benefit from your experience to try to learn what may work well, and what needs improvement. For example, you can list a profile that you are looking for in a potential administrator, and record the outcome of your invitations, with the associated reasons why they chose to proceed or not. Based on this feedback, further evolution of the administrator selection process can be proposed, if it seems desirable. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Isaacl, a profile of the ideal candidate is actually encapsulated here, with voters' personal criteria listed in the footnotes. Wiki: WikiProject Admin Nominators us is defunct and has been superseded by Wiki: Request an RfA nomination where we have already reported in various places that our efforts were mostly met with "Thanks for your confidence, but I'd rather not run that vicious gauntlet just to obtain a few extra tools." That said, what's stopping you from running? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Some people may use this profile to identify their ideal candidates, and other may use other criteria; the idea is that each person who decides to do a recruitment drive will take note of the criteria they used at the time, and the outcome. It would be nice to have a retrospective of each initiative, so they can be evaluated and lessons learned, regardless of whether or not they lose steam at some point. As for me, the types of tasks that interest me do not require administrative privileges. (This is a good case of where identifying the criteria being used to solicit feedback is useful; as I'm pretty sure that I do not meet anyone's criteria, with the possible exception of those whose only criteria is "seems trustworthy", my response can't be used to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of the RfA process.) isaacl (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Isaacl (and Dennis), there are (generally/very broadly) two types of users who do recruitment drives: those whose nominations badly misfire in spite of being good faith, and those who do considerable research and are genuinely confident their candidates will pass. That said, what actually defines a 'recruitment drive'? AFAIK, those of us who actively look for candidates of the right calibre often share our experiences through the confidentiality of email or face-to-face at meet ups or Wikipedia conferences, and the conclusion is the one I illustrated above.

As a classic example, please see the clear evidence of blatant trolling on a current RfA - you'd be surprised how that kind of thing discourages even the most thick-skinned and highly experienced users from wanting to subject themselves to the process; such !votes add to RfA's rotten reputation and should rapidly be indented by an admin, 'crat, or even any user in good standing, and perhaps with a warning for disruptive editing.

You may wish to review a few dozen successful and unsuccessful RfAs, and above all read up on the dozens of voter criteria listed here - it would save a lot of surmise or conjecture. Bear in mind that that essay was based on the huge amount of research that was done at WP:RFA2011, a great deal of which is still very much relevant today despite the pool of 'regular' voters in the voter profile table having largely mutated over the last 3 to 4 years.

If you are going to take a closer look at or for successful/unsuccessful stats (which I hope you will, because we still need as much objective feedback as possible, especially from users like yourself who are not simply hoping that an eventual reform of the process will make it easier for them to get the bit), it helps to discount the snow and not-now self noms - they don't really belong in the equation.

Thanks for explaining why you do not wish to be an admin - understood and much appreciated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Bags of good stuff there. Maybe an immediate "band aid" solution is a much more heavily policed RfA arena, with any bad faith or trolling or generally crap contributions being swiftly, and very publicly dealt with by existing sanctions. But it should be recognised that those sanctions should be applied to the max in such a sensitive arena as an RfA. A few heads on poles might "encourage the others" who might have similar thoughts, and may add candidate confidence to the whole process. Irondome (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, Irondome, that concurs largely with my way of thinking, but who will be bold enough to start? Aye, there's the rub. I do feel that just occasionally the community still needs to be reminded that RfA is not a free-for-all venue to behave as badly as possible with impunity, or to take strategic swipes at the concept of adminship in general. However, there are those who feel that by doing so would play into the hands of such attention seekers and ultimately encourage them and those of their ilk to do more trolling. They may be right - the majority of participants are one-off !voters; they leave their throw-away vote and often do not even come back to see what havoc the have wrought. It took 6 years to get rid of one persistent disruptor of RfA - perhaps they just left of their own accord because they haven made an edit to the 'pedia for over a year which coincidentally roughly coincides with the time RfA got noticeably cleaner. The actual pool of regular participants being quite small and generally comprised of people who know how to behave and vote sensibly. Sorry to sound like a cracked record Isaacl, but there's more on this too at Wiki: RfA reform (continued)/Voter profiles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You said above Dennis, "I'm not sure what RfA needs, except more candidates". We don't need "more candidates". What we need are competent admins. We already have well over one thousand, often completely unqualified legacy admins. They were appointed years ago when there were practically no standards. They have been appointed for life, until they die. It is almost impossible to desop them, and not one, ever, has been desopped for abusing content builders. Many of them were appointed when they were school children. Do we have to wait another 70 years before they die? Will we be around ourselves when that cleanup finally occurs through natural processes? Content builders have to deal daily with surreal and bizarre interventions by these over-privileged legacy admins who, in many cases have not the faintest idea what it takes to develop non-trivial content, yet emerge suddenly out of the woodwork to block and savage some unwitting content builder. It is a horrible and uncertain environment for content builders to try and work in. This crass self-serving system can have no credibility at all until it is willing to clean up these absurd injustices and affronts to core decency. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think RfA can be a much better process if a few changes were made:
(1) If WP:NPA were to be properly enforced, instead of it being a place where character assassination is positively welcomed. This might require that two or three admins volunteer to "supervise" each RfA.
(2) if !votes would be evaluated by their content and not simply counted (per WP:POLL) so that Opposes based on "you deleted something I wrote" or "you were mean to me once in 2006" and Support based on "you're cool" - would not weigh the same as a well reasoned !vote comment. Pile-on !votes should be heavily discounted. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The 'crats are probably quite good at discounting the rubbish !votes. In any case, it only really matters in close calls. That said, a couple of excellent discussions are currently taking place elsewhere which may well lead to it becoming more commonplace to indent or strike nonsense !votes and trolling, and even topic ban such users from RfA. We certainly need more candidates from among whom ones of the right calibre can be accorded the bit. Fortunately the criteria of most of today's serious RfA voters are a lot stricter today than they used to be, and even if there is currently a dearth of candidates, turnout is high, 100+ supports are no longer anything to jump up and down about and the process seems to be doing the job it's designed for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the criteria is that much stricter, and maybe lighter in some respects that a few years ago, but the odds that minutia or some unrelated point will undermine an RFA are way higher. It is as if we are collectively turning into lemmings, often jumping on unsubstantiated or poorly documented claims. A dumb vote, I can ignore, as others will too. That is why I say "leave it to the Crats". But then you have a disruptive vote, then two or three act as apologists for them "maybe he is right" when that isn't the point, the point being that you don't disrupt a formal process. I would like to think of the apologists as being well meaning fools, but that still doesn't help. We've seen that plenty. I still say that one candidate might get 90% one week, and fail the next, there is no way to really guess the outcome on many of these. There is plenty I could say about other aspects of this weeks RFA, but it would serve no purpose to harp on it here. Dennis - 2¢ 15:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I certainly concur 'that one candidate might get 90% one week, and fail the next' , but rather hypothetically because close calls are nevertheless extremely rare. Apart from a small number of fairly regular regulars, the majority of voters at each RfA are one-offs (and a few newbs who think it's cool to mess with meta stuff) so basically the criteria are set anew for each individual RfA. The regular voters however are the ones who appear to do most of the serious research and naturally enough, when they find a chink in the candidate's armour, it tends to precipitate a lot of pile-ons. Of course, it works both ways: a well stated support vote from a respected regular voter can also cause a pile-on of supports. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I reckon, the longer an editor has been around Wikipedia, the greater the chances one would have skeletons in one's closet & thus the greater the chance one will fail one's RFA. The process isn't for the faint of heart, but it's a darn good test (if you pass it) to toughen one for when one becomes an Administrator. GoodDay (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The converse of that argument of course is that the shorter anyone has been around, the less experience they have and the more mistakes they have made or are still making. Bear in mind that where many candidates have only been around for 1.5 to 2 years, with older candidates we tend to forgive the past and still only look back over 1 or 2 years work. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be honest —this is a mistake I make every once in a while, when it's been long enough for the lesson to wear off from the last time I was too honest— and suggest that in the long term, the social structure of Wikipedia doesn't do a good enough job of teaching users to be good candidates for adminship. The principles of conduct taught are, it seems to me, too simplistic. Assume good faith and be civil? Seriously? "Good faith" isn't part of objective reality anyway, not to mention that assuming things is bad practice both for information consumers and information producers, punishing incivility tends to produce repressed resentments, and encouraging an implicit equation between civility and assuming good faith leads to civility that collapses when dealing with someone who (in some sense or other) is obviously not acting in good faith. I don't pretend that fixing this problem is at all easy to do; over at en.wn, where we have a much easier social challenge because we deal with much more objective material (whereas an encyclopedia summarizes, and therefore unavoidably spends most of its time wading in deep subjectivity), it took us years, and a lot of major social upheaval, just to articulate our long-standing principle of "never assume". I do point out a passage I wrote into that text that I particularly liked: "Treat people as well as circumstances allow, even when (as will sometimes, sadly, happen) it becomes necessary to escort them to the exit. You don't have to naively trust people in order to treat them with respect, or in order to help them learn what they should be doing." --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Treat them with respect" appears to be just another way of saying, "assume good faith" - both concepts pose that the interlocutor is worthy of civil engagement -- neither is about "trust" - they are about handling the basic mistrust due to strangers, as the usual barrier to written communication that it is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
I think I disagree; respectfulness does not imply assumption of good faith. Assuming anything is a fundamental mistake (and encouraging people to do so is harmful to society), and you can treat someone with respect that you know damn well has the worst of intentions. In addition to the inadvisibility of making a directive to be civil one of the pillars of conduct. Civility born from fear of consequences is insincere civility; and when it discourages people from saying what they mean, it's toxic to an information-providing site such as a wiki. (The page on Never assume doesn't instruct the reader to be civil, it instructs the reader not to assume things, and implicitly encourages civility by pointing out that civility does not require assumptions.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
No one has to encourage assumption, it is born of not having prescience, nor omniscience. Whether one can be polite to another when you do not know the other person, it is doubtful it is because of actual respect - rather it follows from the assumption that others should be treated with respect, probably because one thinks that oneself should be so treated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
It is patently false that assumption is necessary, likewise that encouraging it isn't harmful. Assumption isn't something we should be complacent about, just as "truth" isn't an appropriate subject for ridicule (although it gets ridiculed by Wikipedians pretty often, mostly in conjunction with a failure to distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity). --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
What's patently false about it, unless you assume that people are prescient and omniscient - one cannot even form a hypothesis without assumption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
"one cannot even form a hypothesis without assumption." That doesn't square with the verb assume I'm familiar with. --Pi zero (talk) 20:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
To hypothesize is to conjecture or predict the probable, and assumption is to think that something is probably the case - see also hypothesize where "assume" is used several times in the introductory explanation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
In my experience, those are what I'd call academic senses of the words. Try this: to hypothesize is to present as a possible premise for consideration, and to assume is to embrace as true without evidence. The contrast with your definitions is... interesting. --Pi zero (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, we assume that the abstract vehicle of language conveys meaning - or else we could not write the encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Nah, we just hope it does. :-) 
And in that respect also, we're more likely to succeed if we're also conditioning the reader to think critically about what they read. --Pi zero (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the little box/widget/whatever on the right side of the RfA page that lists all current RfAs is empty? (In reality, there are two ongoing ones.) --Biblioworm 15:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And before it went empty, it hadn't updated the count for several days. Who ya gonna call? --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
It's User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, which is updated by Cyberbot I (talk · contribs), which is operated by Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs). Have you informed the bot operator? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is maintained by a bot, Cyberbot I. The bot is maintained by cyberpower678, who appears to be on a wikibreak. -- GB fan 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's functioning now, but it was empty just a few minutes ago. It also said that there hadn't been any RfXs since 00:00, 25 November, 2014. --Biblioworm 16:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
On second glance, however, it's still not updating the count. Now we'll have to find a way to contact someone on an indefinite wikiBreak... --Biblioworm 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been discretely active this week. I'll see what's going on.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  Fixed—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know why Snottywong's adminscore tool hasn't been working and if it can be fixed? No matter which non-admin user name I put in, I get a "504 Gateway Time-out" message. If I put in an admin name it says the user is already an admin (which makes sense). I think the tool is useful but it's not perfect. I have not tried to use it since early this year and back then it worked. HalfGig talk 12:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When I tried to use the "Edit count" tools last week, I received an error message saying that there were issues after database maintenance, and that some Wikis might not work. Maybe the same thing is affecting this tool? It may not be a software issue, but a problem with accessing the necessary data. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I believe User:JackPotte is maintaining that tool now. The error is probably a result of some change that was made on the WMF Labs servers. That's one of the reasons that I couldn't be bothered to continue maintaining the tools myself; things keep changing that break the tools. Usually, once you've developed a tool and worked out all of the bugs, then you can sit back and relax and just let the tool run. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  Done The server performances has evolved since my last tests. Apparently we can't get the account age in a few seconds anymore. So on the 11 wanted criteria, it remains only four ones to get a result in a decent time.
That's why I had asked for some help by merging these scripts into Xtools. JackPotte (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@JackPotte: Another thing, the tool says that the maximum score is 1000, and that over 500 is good, but it doesn't look like it's even possible to reach even 500. Would you mind correcting that? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing that JackPotte. @ Kudpung, see, it really was broken ;-) HalfGig talk 13:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
JackPotte, the info returned is vastly reduced from early this year. What happened? HalfGig talk 13:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I have just tried it on my username - it still returns only four parameters and thus the "score" is very low. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I thought we were discussing another tool. My bad. Nothing alters the fact that no tools work as well on labs as they used to on the ToolServer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Sadly, yes. We were sold another bill of goods by the WMF. I believe JackPotte explained it above: the tool can no longer get the necessary info for 7 of the 11 criteria within the time available, so it was timing out and has now been restricted to the available tasks. I at any rate have been seeing the same thing on clicking the "Edit count" link at the bottom of contributions pages - it was a thing of beauty for a while, but the WMF keeps making changes that break it and now it hardly ever works. At least one recent RfA had a note to that effect. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the edit counters is the most disappointing of all. Rather than just port the main one to labs, the individual who took on the migration in good faith obviously bit off more than he could chew, unilaterally deciding to change the look of the whole thing as well, and when the complaints started he retired with some excuse that he is too busy at school. Kinda figures. Perhaps we should leave serious programming to the grown-ups after all. The edit counter is now all but totally unuseable and takes up to 10 minutes to load (if in fact it does). He can't really be blamed though because the whole Labs project is typical of the WMF boldly undertaking something and leaving the volunteers to clean up the mess. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

+1 to that, Kudpung. But will the Admin score tool be forever unable to access the rest of the criteria, or can it be fixed? That discussion of Jack's tp that was linked said something about xtools, I don't know if that has any significance. (Obviously, I have no idea how these tools work) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

EuroCarGT kindly informed me that the archiving template I used for Czar's request for adminship did not reach the bottom of the page due to the collapse template used for the sixth question. The trouble is, I'm not sure how to fix it. Could somebody who does possess the know-how fix it, please? Thanks in advance. Acalamari 13:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  Fixed - NQ (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
A number of templates will break if used inside a list. Such templates include {{collapse top}} {{documentation}} {{edit protected}} {{navbox}} {{redr}} and {{reflist-talk}}. Most of them involve HTML block structures like
...
or ... which although permitted inside HTML lists, get messed with on their way from the wiki markup to your browser. The breakage might be a misdisplay of the template itself, or there may be a problem further down the page, such as a box ending early, as in this case. I'm using the term "list" in the broad sense: any line that begins with a colon, asterisk or hash is part of a list, so look for any colons used for indenting a block-type template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, NQ for fixing the formatting and thank you, Redrose64, for the tips. Acalamari 20:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on RfAs created for test purposes? I've found Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Benfxmth, which the eponymous user has been working on for just over a week. If submitted as a formal RfA, it'll surely be WP:NOTNOW closed (and not just because of it's demonstrably untrue claim of 3600 edits in a period of 3 years, both figures being approximately 30 times the true values of 112 edits in 38 days); so should it be left, or WP:G2ed? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would just leave it. As is, it's not harming anyting. If the user makes it live, it will almost certainly be closed per NOTNOW after a few opposes. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'd contact the user, inform them of their chances of success and point them to relevant areas (i.e. not now and tag it. This might make it less harsh on the user, which we all would rather have. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
We should definitely try to stop this RfA from being opened, as the user was blocked for vandalism just 10 days ago. It will probably be a rather brutal experience. --Biblioworm 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've left a (hopefully) friendly note on the user's talk page. --Biblioworm 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say let it go per WP:BITE. If this user were to go through RfA it would surely be worse, except that it would surely be closed very quickly. Seems a moot point now anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Dealt with in a manner appropriate for the user's editing history. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me, Kudpung, but that block seems a little harsh. "(Disruptive editing: in particular wasting community time by creating fake RfA)" - actually they didn't waste any community time, because they never submitted the RfA. Redrose just happened to notice that they were creating it, and brought it up here. The trend in discussion here seemed to be: warn them away from RfA and let it go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I see that another admin has confirmed the block, so I am mistaken. --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm somewhat confused - the RfA was never submitted. Is that really disruption per se? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the block seems a bit harsh, but I'm not going to waste much time defending someone who creates an RfA with inaccurate claims. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• The user is WP:NOTHERE with already a string of recent blocks to their name. They waste users' time because their antics are on peoples' watchlists, and an admin has to intervene to do all the research (which the commenters here evidently have not). Any more complaints, or have y'all got time to run for adminship? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not complaining @Kudpung: nor am I saying you've done the wrong thing. I didn't consider the RfA to actually be disruptive and yes, I have done done some research on the user. I see that they have some good contributions and that they've created an RfA but haven't submitted it. Granted, it'd be better suited in their namespace but it just seemed a little premature. I tend to be a lot more lenient than most but that's perhaps just my nature. In any sense, the TL;DR is that I wasn't assuming bad faith on your part and I did do my due diligence. Time will tell if the user wants to come back for the right reasons or not as you've stated. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just to recap (for those who didn’t do any research, or who may not have been aroundon Wikipedia for very long):

1. User has been blocked four times now by four different admins in just over a month since registering: 24 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 60 hours.
2. Block appeal declined by a fifth admin.
3. The current block, 60 hours, is not excessive; probably indef for CIR may even have been appropriate at this stage.
4. The RfA was clearly not a test edit. It was made ostensibly in open defiance of a proposal at the VP.
5. The fake RfA in its most recent cast before deletion was a disruptive piece of work if not actually vandalism.
6. User has still only made a total of 118 edits (mainspace 65), most of which were unnecessary or unhelpful.

The complaints comments about this block are typical of the everyday mudslinging that active admins have to put up with, which after the RfA process itself, is the next main reason why users of the right calibre are reluctant to be admins. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume "who may not have been aroundon Wikipedia for very long" is a reference to me. Well, what I said is that 'the block seems a bit harsh, but I'm not going to waste much time defending someone who creates an RfA with inaccurate claims.' If that qualifies as mudslinging, I guess everything is mudslinging. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To address the original, general question of "Do we have a policy on RfAs created for test purposes?", I believe the answer is no; however, from the discussion above (I can't see the actual page anymore, obviously), it doesn't seem like a "test RfA", as Kudpung says. In any case, I don't think that there's any restrictions on having an incomplete RfA in someone's userspace, though I feel that if it isn't intended for submission it should be clearly marked as such (of course I only say that because I did). ansh666 02:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: It wasn't in userspace... it was a subpage of Wiki: Requests for adminship and so likely to be picked up by templates, scripts and bots. The page was clearly created by using {{subst:RfA}} so I presume that they were going through WP:RFA/NOM#To nominate yourself, and had carried out instructions 2 through 6 inclusive, but had ignored instruction 1.
The nom statement was
Benfxmth is one of the users that makes 3600 edits in a period of 3 years.
Answers to the 3 standard qs were:
1. Immediate administrative work I perform in the areas of protection.
2. I favor adding new content. I Have created 9 pages.
3. I have had disagreements at times regarding editing, but they have occurred relatively infrequently over the last one month, and are not what I would term as conflict per the definition of the word. Regular contributors to Wikipedia will typically experience some editing disagreements. I don't become stressful when disagreement occurs,
and a fourth q had been added
4. Please provide diffs of some speedy-deletion tagging.
A: I have tagged 10 pages for speedy-deletion.
If I were to create a fake question, I would at least make sure that the answer matched it - where are those diffs that he asked himself for? All but one may be produced by any non-admin - excluding two self-reverts, the user has in fact marked five pages for speedy deletion, and always using WP:CSD#A7, regardless of namespace or what was actually on the page. Of these, three were declined; one (User:Benfxmth, their own user page, which was blank at the time) was deleted under G7, which was valid, although it had been marked {{speedy deletion-significance}}; and one (User talk:75.108.76.68, which was also marked {{speedy deletion-significance}}) was actually deleted even though A7 doesn't apply to pages outside mainspace (I later undeleted it partly because of the inapplicable criterion, but also it contained valid comments to 75.108.76.68 from a user who wasn't Benfxmth).
But worst of all, they had removed the comment at the top that includes "WHEN CLOSING THIS RFA, REPLACE THIS PART" and replaced it with the text "Note:As has been noted, this RfA falls within the discretionary range. Upon careful review of the discussion I find sufficient consensus to promote Benfxmth to become administrator." which is blatant falsification.
This page might have belonged in userspace, but I don't think that it should have been left as a subpage of Wiki: Requests for adminship indefinitely. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes, now I see that, not sure how I didn't before. If it was clearly not intended for submission, it probably should have been moved to userspace, but seeing it now I don't think that this was, and agree that it should have been deleted. Maybe we should have something on WP:RfA or another related page about this - "Don't create an RfA which you do not intend to submit" or something?
Side note: I didn't get pinged by that comment, I think because you didn't sign at the end of the line that the {{replyto}} was on. Echo is silly. ansh666 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking about three changes to RfA that might make the admin system a bit better. However, I thought it would be better to post here first and test the general opinion before going for the full-blown RfC route. Here are the ideas:

1. Change RfAs to have two phases. The first phase would be for questioning, and the second phase would be for voting. Each phase would be seven days, thus extending a single RfA to last two weeks. Doing this would allow !voters to get a better picture of the candidate, as the candidate would have had time to give thought out and detailed answers to the questions. (This is sort of how the ArbCom elections work.) With the current system, candidates are rushing to answer the questions while the voting is going on. It can also get pretty messy, as voters will begin in one section, and then they'll strike their vote and move to the opposite section "per the candidates answer to question X". This change would make RfAs less stressful for the candidates and more organized for the !voters.
2. Implement !voter prerequisites. As of now, completely new users are allowed to !vote on RfAs, and this should not be. If a user registers, and then his first edit is !voting on an RfA, you know that it's a SPA and up to no good. This could be avoided by setting a reasonable but somewhat lax requirement, such as at two weeks experience and 50 edits. This would allow us to see whether or not the user is acting in good faith; if it's not, it will probably be blocked before it reaches the necessary !voting requirements.
3. Now, this is the largest change. I propose that we implement "probationary adminship" for candidates who get less support. If you get 75% or more support, you become a full admin, and candidates who get only 50-74% support become "probationary admins" for a period of three months. Probationary admins would be under tighter restrictions, and a 'crat could desysop at their discretion if they feel that the user is repeatedly showing poor judgement. If no major issues arise during the trial period, the user will become a full admin, and can no longer be desysopped at the discretion of a single 'crat. This system would allow potentially good admins to demonstrate that they can be trusted with the tools, without the community fearing that the candidate will be "un-desysoppable" (I made that word up).

These ideas can be modified as issues and suggestions arise. Thanks for your input. --Biblioworm 19:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, idea 3 has been repeatedly rejected in the past, see Wiki: Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures. And for the rest of the changes, you'll need an awful lot of consensus before they are implemented. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 20:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
With the way things are now, perhaps it's time to give some of those perennial proposals another chance. --Biblioworm 21:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
1 and 2 seem good, but 3 is unlikely to pass through an RfC. What about administrator "mentors" for admins that get only 50-74% support? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment #2 seems resonable and I think would garner sufficient support to pass an RfC. #3 is dead on arrival as a proposal for reasons already mentioned. And bluntly anyone who can't muster 70% support in an RfA should not get the tools. Period. #1 is more problematic. I think it has some merit, but my big hangup is that RfA is already a week of intense stress for candidates. I am loathe to extend that stress unnecessarily. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• As I recall, #1 was tried some time ago, and it failed miserably. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  See Wiki: Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2, preceded by this discussion. LittleMountain5 00:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• It seems that we get in infinite cycles of:
  • Agreeing that we need RfA reform
  • Bringing up new proposals
  • Rejecting the proposals
• If nothing comes out of all this discussion within a few months, I might consider quitting all the reform nonsense and getting back to machine-gunning vandals. --Biblioworm 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • THAT is a quote you can expect to see if you ever run for RFA: "I might consider quitting all the reform nonsense and getting back to machine-gunning vandals." Dennis - 2¢ 00:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
    • True, but I'm not sure that I'll ever run. I might just decide to enjoy my wikiCareer and do things that I will enjoy and get appreciated for, rather than doing thankless admin tasks. :) --Biblioworm 00:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
      • ...or, if I ever do run, it won't be until the community stops opposing people as the result of a single diff. --Biblioworm 00:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I support a voter suffrage rule, so long as: 1) ANYONE can pose questions, 2) The bar is kept low, as proposed. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly against voter suffrage Really? We ditch WP:AGF and just automatically assume bad faith now until a person has edited for some arbitrary amount of time/edits? REALLY? We elect bureaucrats to determine consensus, and now we're going to presume they're incapable of figuring out which editors are up to no good? Really?? Can anyone show ANY rfa that was derailed by new editors 'up to no good'? Come on. Don't add bureaucracy when none is needed. This project was started based on the phenomenally stupid idea that people could be trusted. Oddly, ten plus years on, we seem to have not failed. Maybe it's because assuming good faith IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING???? --Hammersoft (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Hammersoft: Calm down. I'm not wild about No. 2, but it's needed IMO. As a user who strongly believes in AGF and fights for it, users shouldn't start out voting on RfAs. When I first came here in Dec 2012, I knew enough about WP to avoid trouble, I was careful about things, but I didn't think about getting involved in RfAs (I was already nominating articles for CSDs within my first month here, even), and I doubt many new users would. I find the fact that people accuse new editors that vote on RfAs of being a sock more disturbing than this proposed rule. At Commons, (I know, what happens there shouldn't be used as an example for what should happen here) they have something similar to this for users voting on pictures to promote to FP status. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I changed "No. 1" to "No. 2", because that seems to make sense. ansh666 04:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not try to fix problems that don't exist: I can recall only one RfA in the last several years where an IP had any significant impact on the outcome of an RfA. IMO, the conduct of registered users -- in some cases, long-time editors -- has been far more problematic in intentionally (and sometimes unfairly) torpedoing RfAs. Where inexperience has sometimes manifested undue influence in RfAs is more often than not found in the pile-on effects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comments (1)The first idea has some merit, but making an RfA last two weeks would make it even more stressful. A less drastic change might be to keep the length at seven days, with questions only for the first two days. Questions could continue as is currently done, but potential voters would see the answers to a number of user questions before voting. (2) The second suggested change isn't really needed, because the RfA is not a strict vote count. The person who closes the RfA is supposed to weigh the arguments and determine the level of community support. Also, even a brand new account may represent an experienced IP editor. (3) Suggestion number three just opens up another can of worms. If ever the community decided that they wanted a probationary period, which is unlikely to happen, it should be for all new admins and not by strict percentages. It would be better to have a more defined process for removing adminship which would apply to all. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(1) Sometimes it's useful to ask a question to help a candidate deal with an issue that has been raised in the opposes, if the candidate is avoiding threaded discussion in the oppose section to avoid seeming to badger. Restricting questions to the first 2 days makes this more difficult, and I don't see what is gained. (2) RfA is somewhat a vote count, even if not a strict one. The aim of this one is to prevent some trolling, isn't it? Trolling, as we've seen recently, can generate quite a lot of drama at RfA. (3) Yes. --Stfg (talk) 17:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that questioning should continue throughout the whole RFA. I tried to make this clear by writing "questions could continue", but I guess it wasn't clear enough. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Anne Delong about the length of RfA. A week is long enough, but I suggest four or even more days for discussion and the balance for voting. The discussion is more important than the voting, really. I would not be opposed to (2), or just permanently semiprotecting RfA so only autoconfirmed accounts can participate - that would exclude some prolific IPs but overall it's a net positive. On (3), why don't we just make all successful RfAs for promotion to a probationary status? Mentoring new admins is a good idea. I like what's happening over at SPI with the clerk training program and I'd like to see it adapted to RfA. Ivanvector (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Maybe if we gain additional support for a mentorship program, we can start something, and go to an RfC. I've thought for a while that admin mentorship would be good. It must be hard for a user to go right in to the responsibility of being an admin. On a different note, I agree with Anne that two weeks might be too much for a candidate. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• I am concerned that leaving only three days for voting may not be fair, since many people are busy in daily life and can't log in every day. —Anne Delong (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. For anyone who is wondering, I am not ignoring the feedback here. I am noting all of it, and I also agree with most things that are being said. I'm interested in getting more opinions from other members of the community. --Biblioworm 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think there should be a separation between the question and !voting process. Many of the most relevant questions are because of concerns or followup to some of the issues brought forth during the !voting process and most notably the opposes. A two consecutive week RFA period would be unreasonable for candidates. You barely get any sleep and that's even if your RFA is going well. I think there's probably more discussion to be had with probationary periods but for all new admins. Mkdw^talk 18:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As others have said above, prolonging an already agonising wait for the outcome of an RfA places further unnecessary stress on candidates, which is to be avoided. As an alternative to the probation suggestion, it might be a better idea to exclude new admins from certain admin activities for a fixed period—this should also fix criticism of candidate weaknesses in particular areas. The restriction would be honour-based so that no changes are needed to the current process of granting rights.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88 That is an interesting angle. Can you expand a bit? Irondome (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
My immediate thinking is that there are two ways that a restriction on activities might work. a) Fixed: for example no blocks or deletions for a set period or b: Flexible: All activities allowed by default but specific areas restricted for an agreed time based on valid concerns raised at an RfA. The problem with the latter is who is going to decide what's valid and what isn't.  Philg88 ^♦talk 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
What's the point of being an admin if you are not allowed to use all the tools in your kit? New admins will never learn how to use all their tools unless they're allowed to. —Biblioworm 20:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is the correct and appropriate usage of them that can be the issue. A good admin uses their "tools" wisely. Often sparingly. The best tools are wisdom and some life experience, and you don't get issued with them post RfA. Often the !voters don't have the innate "toolkit" either, which just compounds the problem. Irondome (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Whilst I don't have a huge amount of experience at WP:RFA I thought I might add to this.

Change RfAs to have two phases. The first phase would be for questioning, and the second phase would be for voting. - That was tried once, a few years back. It didn't sit well with the community and I doubt it will again. Why prolong a request? Questions can be asked during the RFA
Implement !voter prerequisites.. No - SPA's get caught easily, and this is simply a layer of bureaucracy. Whose to say someone with 100 edits might not have something rather insightful add to the discussion? And it goes against almost every egalitarian principle on WP.
Probationary adminship. Unworkable - 'crats have no authority to desysop beyond very limited circumstances - so out of their mandate (I suspect the OP does not understand the role of a WP:CRAT). Who defines "poor judgment" anyway?
A good faith set of ideas that are, when thought through, not actually useful. Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
On the whole I agree with User:Pedro in their reasoning. As I have said before, I think RfA in its present form is the best we can get at the moment. It is an evolutionary change in the whole community, in reading up the history of the debates and all the extensive studies that the community itself has carried out so that behaviours are modified. That is needed and will happen.Irondome (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A doable, and immediate improvement to the RfA thingy would be to add a witty but insightful essay into recommended reading for !voters and candidates. If it doesnt exist in some form at the moment it should be written. Something like WP:The shitty lot of the Administrator. It would give a perhaps understated view on adminship. Every RfA is not a "promotion". Its 3 years in HMP Wandsworth. It would be a reality check. I think any admin candidate should ask themselves, is getting the mop a promotion or a self inflicted punishment for the good of the community? I think the"promotion" camp both !voter and candidate, if it exists, may be part of the problem.If !voters and candidates approached any RfA as a human sacrifice on the alter of WP:Sense of duty, things may change for the better. Irondome (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
"(I suspect the OP does not understand the role of a WP:CRAT)" - I perfectly understand the current role of a bureaucrat, having read the WP:CRAT page multiple times. Just because I'm proposing changes to the current system does not mean that I misunderstand it. --Biblioworm 13:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To answer a couple of Hammersoft's arguments uptopic, first off, WP:AGF isn't a suicide pact. We all ought to assume good faith, but AGF doesn't impose the obligation to ignore bad faith. Your assertion that everything is hunkydory is nonsense: have you taken the trouble to look at the numbers and realize that the number of RfAs has decreased tenfold in just a few years?

  Secondly, as to the notion that bureaucrats exercise discretion over the process: nonsense twice. Looking over the last three years of RfA, every single candidate hitting 75% was passed. Every single candidate who failed to get at least 73% failed. Only four turned up in the "discretionary" band between, two of whom were passed and two rejected. This is absolutely, and always has been (the last time I checked was in 2008, when in the previous year every one of the 331 candidates who hit 75% and didn't withdraw were passed, and none of the several hundred who didn't make 75% were) a pure head count. There has never been, in the whole history of the process, a situation where a bureaucrat has said "Look, she only got 55%, but the hobby horse the Oppose voters rode was bullshit, so she gets the mop anyway" ... and there never will be. Ravenswing 23:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but if I remember rightly, every one of the reform suggestions in this thread has been tried several times and are now WP:PEREN. The turnout at RfA has significantly increased with 100+ support no longer a rarity. But so has the number of unsuccessful RfA with relatively high turnout of supporters. What we are getting is a community that is now more concerned and more critical of the way we elect our admins and who we elect. @Anne Delong:, @Ymblanter:, @HalfGig: Snottywong's tool is working perfectly. Born out of WP:RFA2011 where he worked tirelessly to provide dozens of tables and charts in analysis of voters and their patterns, it is indispensable when discussing users who participate at RfA.

Today, the tool still clearly demonstrates that among the regular voters, some do indeed appear to generally vote 'oppose' (or only vote when they are fairly confident the RfA will fail). Others who have also voted on more than 200 RfA have a more balanced distribution of their support, oppose, and neutral votes, and what is important is that the vast majority of their votes matched the result whether they voted early or not, or suppport, oppose, or neutral. Early voters are not likely to be swayed by the opinions of other voters, but if they express themselves objectively and well, they can significantly influence the result as can be evidenced by the unresearched pile-ons they precipitate. On the other hand, voters in the 'oppose' section who do not express themselves so nicely often set the tone of the RfA which leads to a pile-on of PA, incivility and other disingenuous votes and comments, thus creating the very drama that puts people off from running.

RfA is certainly less broken than it was in 2011, but as consensus can change, I still see myself sometimes supporting suggestions for changes even if deep down I'm fairly sure they will not gain traction. Give the PERENS a new shot? -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Please change ``Pakistan Awami Tehrik against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, over claims of governmental manipulations in the 2013 general election.[1] Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri``to Pakistan Awami Tehrik against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif Ganja, over claims of governmental manipulations in the 2013 general election.[1] Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri because it does not contain his full name.

Riskybilal (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

  Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wiki: Requests for adminship. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. Stickee (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)