requests For Adminship/Archive 246

For the first time since 2007 into 2008, the number of active administrators has grown substantially over the last four months. Between November 2016 and February 2017, we've went from an all-time low (for WP:LA's standards) of 516 active administrators in October to almost 570+ during this four-month span. A consecutive four-month span in the number of administrators growing hasn't occurred in nearly ten years. Wikipedia topped out on the number of participating administrators in February 2008 at 1,016 (the last time we saw four+ months of gain), collapsed, and went as low as 516 by 2016. I have some working theories as to why we've seen so much activity recently during these months, but nonetheless, we should at least enjoy this brief spurt of positivity. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• As the saying goes, there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. Sure, there's reason to be hopeful, but take it with a large grain of salt. For whatever reason the period November 1 to March 1 of most cycles shows an increase in active admins, and if there is a decline, it's usually very modest. Whereas, the rest of the sustaining pattern from 2007 forward shows a long, long pattern of decline. Minor ups/downs are going to happen within the pattern. This is a very, very limited data set but the increase we are seeing so far is inside of one st. dev. Thus, this is pretty much an expected result. A bit of a high roll, but within the expected range. If we'd increased by more than a hundred, then we'd be juuust beginning to get into three sigma land. We saw a flurry of passing RfAs to start off the year, but minor blips like that are going to happen. What is more important is the overall decline. We saw peak admins in February of 2008. Since then, we've lost 44% of our active admin corps. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Classic RFA response. Take good news with a big helping of cynicism and see if the good news is still good in comparison. "Something that hasn't happened in ten years isn't significant since we began our decline ten years ago." No wonder everyone gave up on reform. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Moe, my comment wasn't to criticize. In any long pattern minor blips are going to happen. Based on the data, this is a minor blip that falls into the first standard deviation...i.e. where the majority of the blips are going to lay. This isn't unusual. It's at the high end of the first st. dev., but it's not unusual. Here's another blip; the number of active admins declined on March 1st by 8. This is THE largest single day drop in at least two years. Is this cause for panic? Should we presume this decline sets the new pattern and we will run out of admins by mid-May? Of course not. The same applies to this upward blip. It's just a blip. Nothing more. Yet. As I noted, there is reason to be hopeful. Please don't criticize someone for raising statistical reality. It just is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• The question I would ask is what is meant by "active". Alive? Doing 4 or 5 actions a year? Or continually working on Admin. stuff? If this is a simple headcount of all qualified admins, including those quasi-dormant or catatonic, it does not inform in a very useful way. Leaky Caldron 09:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• As I specified in my original comment, it's by what WP:LA considers active. If you need the specific wording, it's mentioned under each heading. Whether that is an accurate measure of "active" for you or any other person isn't really of concern because it has consistently collected this data for over a decade under the same parameters. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• WP:LA says "Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months." That's a weak measure of useful work done. It might help to have some overall stats on admin-specific activity like blocks, deletions and protects. Is that up or down? Too high or too low? Anyway, FWIW, I just noticed some vandalism at the article gossip – a fake source that I noticed while adding a real one. I fixed that without any admin activity being generated. I could have logged it and maybe an admin would have clicked up some edits investigating, but I doubt that this would have been productive as the vandal used an IP address. What we should be measuring is the extent to which the encyclopedia is being built. Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Andrew Davidson: What does "being built" mean, though? That's just a common "content creator vs. administrative work" argument. My OTRS responsibilities aren't "building" anything, but they are engaging with the community, potentially helping others build the encyclopedia, covering our asses so we don't get sued on copyright violations, etc. All very useful work. My work at SPI isn't "building" anything, but it's preventing it from being torn down by sockmasters. Both content creation and administration are necessary for the encyclopedia to exist. You'd have to explain your metric of "built" in great detail to convince me it's better than edits or actions (though I agree 30 edits is far too low a bar. It should at least raise to 30 edits and 1 admin action). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• My point, valid I think, is that it proves nothing quantifiable about Admin. activity. An Admin. "actively" editing articles is no more active than an Admin. making a once a year action to keep their mop wet, or for that matter, a prolific content creator who is not a Admin. or for that matter me, who does sod all. Active admins should be measured (if we really must) by the quantity of their Admin. work. Otherwise it is a measure of, well, nothing useful really. Leaky Caldron 21:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, dear Moe. That is good news indeed and very encouraging, and I am happy to hear it!   Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's exactly as Moe Epsilon describes it: a 'brief spurt of positivity', endorsed by another user's comment of '...a minor blip.' The occurrence of new 'promotions' is so low that stats are as meaningless as the sightings of whales in the River Severn at Worcester. And as BU Rob13 implies, the metric we've been using for years to characterise an 'active' admin are ridiculously low. The truth is that interest in all maintenance areas of Wikipedia is demonstrably on the wane - 340 New Page Reviewers created in the last 4 months and the backlog is still rising? I see an old fashioned hat rack bending under the strain... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I thank Anna for being the only one here for looking at a bright side. Maybe I made this post, most importantly, to point out that while we are looking at a clear four-month pattern of interest and activity on Wikipedia, that maybe it will generate some more candidates at RFA if you look hard enough. Where there are editors, there are potential administrators to promote. This page is not about statistics, measures of activity or whales in the River Severn at Worcester. It's about looking for potentially good administrators, is it not? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Statistics is not my strong suit. But I do understand "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." Whatever the reason or background we are experiencing a modest uptick in admin activity. Let us step back for just a moment from our customary perma-gloom and be happy. And maybe while we are at it, we can throw out a thank you to a handful of admins who have been actively recruiting new RfA candidates. Just a thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good point. Thank you to those who actively get out their and recruit (you know who you are). That seems to be the single greatest source of admins. Maybe we ought to start a formal recruiting program, like in the army. We could promise some sort of engineering degree that would lead to a part-time job afterward. :) Seriously, maybe we need a recruiting team. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... its a thought. How about some recruiting slogans. Here are a few we could try...
"Be all you can be, as an Admin!"
"The few, the proud, the Admins!"
"Become an Admin and see the world!"
"Wikipedia wants YOU to be an Admin!"
And for our British editors... "For Queen and Wiki!"
I'm not sure how original those are but anyhow... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
You missed the obvious "Become an admin and get a SVG of a crappy T-shirt" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• We should only have one admin and it should rotate to editors in alphabetical order by username for one-week blocks. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• My sockpuppets at usernames AAA1-AAA1000 will enjoy a lengthy reign! Look upon me and despair! --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, those are all great! Do we have some sort of recruiting poster? We could make one. I've been posting this all over the place for a year. Could that have a poster? And seriously, has Wikipedia ever had an admin recruiting program with a poster and a bunch of editors like us who got out there and, well, drew attention to the need? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

 

@Xaosflux: The (I'm hoping) intentional typo is hilarious. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup - though that might have been better for copy edit recruiting :D — xaosflux ^Talk 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad poster. However, it does sort of say "Come take this lousy, boring job becasue nobody else wants to do it."

Couldn't we have an Unclesamesque poster that makes it sound like adminship is all about glory, prestigue, obscene power, and the freedom to walk all over others? Would potential candidates be gullible enough to buy that? If so, perfect! They run, they pass, we shove a stenchy mop at them, the ether wears off, then it's too late. They have to get to work, suffering years and years of tedium until they get all snarky and burn out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
All we have to do is point out that you'll inevitably burn out as an admin, and that going that way is by far the best option. We all know it's better to burn out than to fade away. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Yup. Or become a 'crat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Blade, we have pretty good retention of admins. Maybe not as good as for editors who have crossed the 200,000 edit barrier, but far from an inevitable burn out as an admin. The real question should be does RFA predict that people will probably be around long term, or does it cause people to be around long term. If the latter is true it becomes another reason to appoint more admins; If it isn't that could be even more interesting. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think Moe Epsilon misunderstands my analogy to the marine animals that may or may not dwell in the rivers that run near my home town, and that's why I wouldn't use them to base any arguments as to the quality of the other fish that are in them. What has escaped Moe - and there is no reason why he should know - is that in the background I'm possibly one of the handful of users most actively recruiting for RfA candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Interested parties are invited to comment here. –xeno^talk 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - seeing this, my initial reaction is: duh; on me of course, for I would have thought such a private means for communication already did exist. Being wrong, I unequivocally say that we most certainly should. Accolades to xeno for bringing attention to this question.--John Cline (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yo, John Cline- the 'here' xeno mentioned is a wikilink for Wiki: Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Community_Discussion; not actually here, I think :) — O Fortuna! ^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input John Cline. Please comment at Wiki: Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Community Discussion - to clarify we already do have a list, but there are some bureaucrats who feel that it is no longer serving a useful purpose. –xeno^talk 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  I admit first believing comments in support of the proposal belonged here. Upon realizing the discussion's actual link, I decided the comment should remain for the kudos it was intended to carry; I believe they are due and their threaded existence on this page is therefore not misplaced after all. I did append support in the linked discussion as well, leaving all mention of gratitude here, where, it turns out, a better fit with less collateral distraction exists overall. Thanks for looking out all the same.--John Cline (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

TBH I don't think this discussion is relevant to anyone who isn't a bureaucrat. Thanks for being open about this purported mailing list's meaningless existence though. Deryck C. 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

It has just occured to me that we use the rfplinks template for all the lower permisssions such as rollback and autopatrolled, but not here. For those unfamiliar with it it works like this:

Beeblebrox (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I can't think of any reason we wouldn't want to use it here when it is used in request for permissions with far less potential for damage. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No loud objections from me, but the template overlaps with {{RfA toolbox}} and {{usercheck-short}}, which we already use on RfA pages:
Links for Beeblebrox: Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we could integrate the functionality of the two for use here? Obviously we don't need the "assign permission" link, but the links to edit analysis tools could be very helpful in informing RFA particpants. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too. If there are any helpful tools in {{rfplinks}} that aren't in the toolbox, I would be happy with combining them. Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

We have a lot of unclosed RfAs sitting around doing not a lot, that are unlikely to go live any time soon, if indeed, ever. These are:

The only one I would pause on is OnBeyondZebrax, who I've seen working on articles I'm interested in. I don't think he's got any serious interest in being an admin, but it might not be a SNOW / NOTNOW. As for the rest - not a hope in hell.

Any objections to deleting them per WP:CSD#G6? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion I had no idea we had so many bad-faith, never finished RfAs. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all - All of them are just crap from newbies. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I'd suggest keeping any that transcluded properly (are there? -I checked a few at random, and mostly not, I believe)- but dumping the rest, as if it hasn't ttranscluded then strictly it's not even an actual 'RfA.' — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
None of them have ever transcluded. What you might be thinking of is the timer template (which stamps itself as now + 168 hours the minute you uncomment it, hence you need to do it after transclusion to ensure the full week is run properly) - even if it that was done, nobody would notice. Anything that gets transcluded onto WP:RFA will get picked up immediately. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion - I suggest notifying any non-blocked users who have been active in, say, the last 180 days, in case they've just forgotten about them and want them WP:REFUNDed. I speedied one which was for a vanished user under their former name, and I would defer to OnBeyondZebrax's preference regarding his own, otherwise nuke the lot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all - although I agree with Ivan notify those who have been active but other than that get rid of the lot, no point them sitting around if nothing's going to ever happen with them. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd quite like to keep the one (can't remember which) who replied to question 3 about the time he had edit conflicts in the Mediawiki software and tag it with {{humour}} myself. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Heh :) someone the other day was edit-warring with a bot, and 'moaned' at the bot's rudeness and incivility in not going to talk where they had indeed started the discussion! All good fun in an innocent kind of way. — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 19:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Wiki: Requests for adminship/Scumella2 appears to have been written by Donald Trump Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
And quote-! #FakeRfA- Sad! :D — O Fortuna ^{velut luna...} 19:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Ritchie333 - I had only clicked on 3 random ones and they seemed bare, ofcourse if there are any humourous ones then I have no objections to them being kept :), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• No objection to deletion providing the user hasn't been active recently (180 days, as suggested above, is fine). Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Looks like consensus. I've started going through and deleting the obvious ones that haven't been active in years. If any other admins want to join in the "fun", please do. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/13jospin, incidentally, has just been banned from at least two other websites that I know of. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• Isn't this the sort of thing that should be discussed at Wiki: Miscellany for deletion? I don't see a need to keep these around either, but there are established processes for deleting pages, which I would expect folks that hang around at WT:RFA would be familiar with. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working based on the instructions on WP:RFA that say "RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Most of these do seem to be uncontroversial deletions, being incomplete and untranscluded, although possibly not all (for example, I spotted at least one that has opposes in it). --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Delete all Each and every candidate has the opportunity to re-apply, in earnest, if they would ever like to request the tools. Mkdw ^talk 22:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
• CSD G6 I have slapped CSD tags on most of them. There were a few exceptions. One has already been sent to MfD and a couple looked like they had (partially?) transcluded and or there was at least one legitimate !vote. But most are just sitting around collecting cyberdust and are obvious candidates foe speedy deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Batch deleted whatever you tagged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please consider joining and participating.

• Wiki: Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting a separate section as I'd like to hear from bureaucrats and others about RfA in the post-GoldenRing wiki-world. This is not to disregard the questions about the outcomes for Godsy and GoldenRing, but to explore in another direction. I start this conversation as someone who did not !vote in the GR RfA but who has concerns about content-writing experience for admins and who was uncomfortable with some of what I read in the GR 'crat chat and on its associated talk page. A few relevant points, as I see them:

• Lowering the discretionary range was a response to the trend towards unreasonable expectations from some RfA !voters, and the risk was that it would make some !voters more likely to oppose – and I wonder whether the GR RfA will have this effect.
• Most RfAs are clear-cut and 'crat chats occur only in cases where there can be reasonable disagreement about consensus, and in the remaining cases our highly respected 'crat team typically comes to a decision which most will accept, even if they disagree.
• The level of harsh criticism in the GR case is unusual and the tone of some of it unfortunate. Our 'crats are human and can make mistakes and certainly are open to criticism and critique, but only reasoned discussion is likely to be productive going forward and I ask that this discussion be kept civil and collegial.
• WJBscribe commented on the relative weight of opposes based on specific concerns / incidents v. those of general inexperience. My view (with which he may disagree, I may be misinterpreting him) of what he meant:
  • Editor A: 10,000 edits, 2,000 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
  • Editor B: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
  • Editor C: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - opposes based on general inexperience but no specific incidents / mistakes raised

I think WJBscribe was saying that the specific issues raised against A and B would sink their RfAs (and thus be seen as having more weight in influencing !voters) than general concerns about inexperience, especially in the case of A where the inexperience claim appears weaker. By contrast, while C might not pass with the concerns of inexperience, the RfA would be less likely to collapse in the way B's would. This does not mean that inexperience is not a valid concern about C and a reasonable basis for opposition, but that the greater effect on consensus of concerns in the A and B cases means those sorts of concerns attract greater weight in a 'crat chat as they are typically more influential on consensus in a clear-cut RfA.

• I am concerned, however, that the message from the GR 'crat chat might be that !voters with general inexperience concerns which they see as disqualifying for adminship will now seek additional, more specific grounds for opposition in order to have greater influence if a 'crat chat becomes necessary.
• I am also concerned that !voters wavering about their decision may be more inclined to oppose out of a fear of borderline candidates being promoted after a 'crat chat because the decision might be based more on the opinions of participating 'crats rather than on their reading of the RfA consensus.

Is anyone else concerned that the fallout from the GR RfA might be a hardening of opposition, frustrating the reasons for the lowering of the discretionary range? How should general inexperience concerns best be expressed, if they can be seen as less persuasive reasons for opposition when the !voter sees them as sufficient to be disqualifying on their own? Would it be helpful for the 'crats to add some details on what is / is not seen as persuasive / relevant / trivial etc. in evaluating RfA consensus at a 'crat chat? Are there other concerns which anyone would like to share / express about future RfAs as a consequence of recent events? EdChem (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@EdChem: I think where I don't agree with your characterisation of my views is the use of the word "minor". If there was agreement that the errors were minor, then that would not be a particularly strong basis of opposition. Especially, if the problem was agreed to be historic. I would not want to judge what is or isn't minor - I would look to how the error was characterised by both supporters and opposers, and any other evidence of how the community views errors of a similar nature. WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: Thank you for responding. To clarify, when I wrote "minor edits" in the above cases, I meant that A and B had marked the edits which were actually deliberately introducing errors as minor, not that the !voters at RfA had judged them minor errors. I wanted to cast A and B as having deliberately created errors which would be seen as disqualifying as an example of a specific concern which would be more strongly weighted than the general inexperience concerns, in line with what I thought you meant. My goal here was to better understand your view as I thought the characterisation of it was overly harsh because it had a been taken in a way different from what I saw as your intent. I do not want to misrepresent you, and am glad that you have taken the opportunity to emphasise looking to how !voters saw the seriousness of an issue rather than deciding independently on seriousness – of course, your comment is in line with how I would anticipate all 'crats would evaluate the seriousness of issues. I am disappointed that the discussion below went off-track quickly, as I think that an open discussion can only help everyone to better understand the situation. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned. It's simply kinder to say your lack of edits don't give me basis to support you, than dumpster diving, and trawling, and making them look bad. (You missed another that the Crat advice was to ask them questions about their lacking - maybe you might trip them up, one supposes - it all is required to become intensely adversarial). It's hard enough on the candidate that the message is the trust is not there, but to have to go on and on about it, is a whole other level. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If the community did not want candidates promoted who achieved a two-thirds super-majority, then why was the discretionary range lowered? Unless a bureaucrat has a reason to significant weight the support section lower (said adjustments bringing it below the discretionary range), seeing a candidate promoted that had over 66.6% support should not be seen as some unexpected power-play event. –xeno^talk 23:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
If I recall correctly it was the Crats who made up the idea of a discretionary zone and generally set it at 70-75 (although once they may have dipped to 69 and another time a bit lower) - when in fact, the Crats actually have unlimited discretion no matter the total. WP:CONSENSUS actually prizes as close to 100% agreement as possible, and admins who are as close to universally trusted as possible have advantages - the Rfc did lower from 70 to 65, but 30% to 35% is still a significant disagreement/distrust. (Also, I don't think EdChem said anything about power play). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@Xeno: I'd like to note that I have tried not to characterise the exercise of discretion seen in the GR RfA CratChat, and am asking about how is might impact on future RfAs. I recognise that the 'crat community has been heavily criticised, both collectively and with comments directed at individuals, which is one reason I sought to separate this discussion from the one immediately above it. There is no doubt that the bureaucrats have the discretion to make decisions on cases like this, and the holding of CratChats on-wiki with others able to comment on the talk page is an excellent example of open decision making. There are legitimate grounds to question discretionary decisions (even though the civility has been disappointing in this case) but that is not the purpose of this thread, so I ask that you recognise that I made no claim of a power play having occurred. I welcome your comments on evaluating consensus, though (if I understand your comment correctly) I am surprised to learn that a 2/3 majority based on !vote count leads directly to promotion unless there is a reason to underweight the support section. Would you comment on circumstances where the oppose section might be overweighted and thus detract from the 2/3 majority, or where a lack of consensus is found around the 2/3 support mark? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@EdChem: I'm not sure that I agree that the "crat community has been heavily criticised". There have been a few vocal people unhappy with the result of the discussion, but no more so than usual - particularly where the result of the cratchat is promote. I for one rather expect this sort of follow up whichever way the discussion goes. As to your wider point, have you read through past bureaucrat discussions? They can be found at WP:CRATCHAT. Each RfA has had its own unique circumstances, but I think they give a good flavour of the kind of factors bureaucrats take into account when trying to weigh the strength of opposition to an RfA. To give an example though, if significant opposition had developed around SoWhy's comments on GoldenRing's CSD tagging, I doubt I would have found a consensus to promote. As it was, people appeared largely unpersuaded by that issue - reflecting I think that there is a difference of opinion in the community as to how strictly CSD criteria need to be met. But it isn't for me to decide whether or not the CSD tagging issue was serious, I was guided by how the issue was viewed in the discussion and formed the conclusion that the participants had not found it to be a serious problem. WJBscribe (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@WJBscribe: Again, thank you for replying. I saw this response as unusually harsh compared with other cases (and I have certainly read other CratChats), but accept that your view on the receiving end may see it as more typical. Certainly it is sad when questions and concerns, and even criticism and critique, can devolve into abuse. I see what you mean about a greater weighting on CSD concerns if more had !voters had picked it up and commented on it as important in their assessment. If I may follow up, do your comments imply that a !voter's view of a candidate having insufficient experience would be more strongly weighed in a CratChat if specific deficiencies were highlighted? If so, do you see a risk of !voters not "pulling their punches" in the way that Alanscottwalker and BU Rob13 suggest elsewhere in this thread, leading to harsher comments? If not, would you please explain why not as it seems to me a natural inference to draw from your comments? Also, what are your thoughts on xeno's comment that a candidate with 2/3 support will likely be promoted "[u]nless a bureaucrat has a reason to significant weight the support section lower"? I would also welcome comments from xeno on my related questions above. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I suspect pressure to give more detailed (potentially harsher) comments is an inevitable result of the expectation that RfA is not a vote and that comments will be scrutinised in the event that consensus is initially unclear. I'm not convinced it particularly arises from the manner in which we've approached the job. Also, there is no reason why more detailed feedback pointing out specific errors necessarily needs to be harsh. Those who have experience of reviewing others IRL will know that the real skill is not to shy away from giving detailed constructive feedback, but to do it in the right way. Indeed, some candidates may find (civil) opposition based on specific instances where errors were made easier to understand than a general comment about their experience. It's a trite point, but ultimately every candidate (and every RfA participant) is a unique individual. It's hard to predict how they will react to particular comments/responses to their comments. Also, people who wish to oppose candidates due to general experience concerns should continue to do so. Particularly if there simply isn't any basis for "stronger" opposition, but they remain unpersuaded by the suitability of the candidate. They should do so in the knowledge that such arguments may not carry the day in a very borderline situation. But if enough people share their concerns, it won't be a borderline situation! WJBscribe (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Edchem, the guidance previous to the community selecting a lower percentage in considering requests for adminship was that "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. " In lowering the bar this means that most RfAs below 65% should fail. So, some RfAs over 65% should pass. And really this is more art than science, if it were more the latter a bot could do the work of closing RfAs. I'm finding it hard to engage with your hypotheticals above, each RfA is a unique event and they can't be taken as precedent or even compared or broken down into calculations. In order for us to fail an RfC that's in the discretionary range, the weight of the opposes must overcome the weight of the supports. Here we found a two-thirds supermajority. Many of the bureaucrats examined the support and didn't find anything of the character I described in a previous crat-chat as a 'bare' support (here an example where I felt the relative weight of the opposes overcame the support in an RfA in this range) - that is, the supports registered took time to explain their position and most did mention the main opposition point regarding lower contributions. They explicitly advanced the nomination. I looked at the support section - close to 200 in support - and found users from most segments of the community. As I said in the chat, the oppose section did not have to be down-weighted to deliver a successful result here. Those who stood in opposition shouldn't feel as if they were somehow disregarded, the candidate simply achieved the level of genuine support in the range at which the community asked us to begin promoting more candidates. –xeno^talk 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) (Note: I struck the word 'power-play'.)

As a note on the second to last bullet point, I can confirm that I will be doing just that. Normally, when someone new and relatively inexperienced comes to RfA, I try to oppose with "kiddie gloves" on. I don't look for detailed opposition reasons because I think the lack of record is enough unto itself. A more detailed opposition would just discourage an editor who could make a fine admin in the future, and no-one wants that, including myself. When I was operating under the assumption that 'crats would honor concerns about experience, there was no benefit to tearing apart an unsuitable candidate, and so I've never done that. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Since the 'crats do not appear to weight concerns about experience very highly, I will have to be more detailed, digging into contribution histories extensively and laying out every poor edit the candidate has made. I'll have to ask more difficult questions that I'd normally leave unasked because I think the record speaks for itself that the candidate would not know the answer. There's really no alternative when that's the only type of opposition that the bureaucrats will consider "strong". ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I supported GR for his intelligent and in some cases unique answering style, his lack of behavioural issues, his evident lack of trophy hunting, and the fact that he has held tenure since 2004. GR was a lurker pas excellence, quietly learning the way the community runs, and mildly asking 13 years after regestering, if he can be of service. This was a unique RfA. I do not see this as some kind of year zero. If anything, it makes the RfA experience more sophisticated and more nuanced, both for candidate and !voter. The crats made an excellent and enlightened decision in my opinion. The community as a whole conducted this RfA with maturity and dignity. I think it is the future. Good. Irondome (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I know that you and I have been discussing this elsewhere, and we respect each other's differing views, but I really don't think it's a good idea to advocate for the wikt:throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick approach. You may not be advertising your intent to employ that method, but the WP:BEANS factor alone is probably detrimental. To me, this whole premise implies that some voters will now, as a direct result of GoldenRing's RfA, be hatching a slew of tenuous "oppose" reasons to bolster their organic rationales. I'm not a fan of that "prediction". You contend that the bureaucrats have overstepped their discretion, and in order to stop unsuitable candidates being promoted by way of supervotes, we must bombard the crats with so many different points of opposition that they can't possibly nullify all of them. That just seems like immensely disproportionate pushback against something that isn't unprecedented and hasn't yet had any negative repercussions. If you have many concerns about a candidate that all reflect poorly on their eligibility, you should always share them, regardless of the user's tenure on the site. If you have one main objection, I think fluffing it up with paragraphs of niggling criticism on a diff-by-diff basis actually weakens the main argument. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to present the one-liner rationale of "not enough record to evaluate", but if I cannot, I must dig through the record and find specific weaknesses. That means bringing up things that I normally would leave unsaid because I don't think saying them adds anything to the oppose. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure everything that's worth saying has already been said, so I don't see a need to rehash the debate on what constitutes a valid oppose reason. I would just caution against taking out our dissatisfaction on the next poor sap who requests the admin tools in good faith. RfA should never be an us vs. them endeavor (whoever "they" are); we're all just trying to achieve what's best for the project. The next candidates will have had no control over the fate of GoldenRing's RfA, and shouldn't be dealt unduly aggressive criticism. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, if it puts concerns to rest, my criteria have not changed. The chances of me opposing the "next" RfA are quite low, because I don't oppose that many RfAs. But when I do oppose, it will change how I oppose, because it must change how I oppose if I want my oppose to be counted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I think what you should be more concerned with would be attempting to convince other participants of your position, not whether the particular reason or how you framed it was "counted" (RfA is a discussion, not an exercise in counting). That is, one shouldn't simply look for the first reason to oppose the candidate and end their analysis - this reason may not carry with other evaluators, and the reviewer may find a stronger reason to oppose that would hold more sway over other participants. This doesn't have to be unduly aggressive or harsh to the candidate, who is expecting a rigorous examination of their history. –xeno^talk 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
In support of building up the case for and against granting administrative privileges, I had suggested changing the RfA process to determine the candidate's pros and cons, and the relative weights that should be given to each, just like is done in the real world when groups make consensus decisions. Thus no single editor needs to feel compelled to take on the burden of a full analysis to ensure her/his expressed opinion counts, as the group jointly works out a profile of the candidate. However most participants in RfA seem happier with the current straw poll process, where they can just add their main comment to the list, and drop in replies scattered throughout. It's less effort for an individual commenter who just wants to add their thoughts, but more effort for everyone who is trying to track multiple threads of discussion on the same topic to engage more actively, and it is not conducive to guiding the conversation towards a consensus decision. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA post GoldenRing (break)

All this, and we wonder why so few people want to run at RFA. Can someone do the stats and find out how many 'crat-chat sanctioned admins have subsequently gone rogue and destroyed Wikipedia please? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, none. In fact, 'crat chats generally produce sysops that act with more caution. And that includes a particular candidate that I strongly opposed.--v/r - TP 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is somehow still here. I don't know how, with all these rouge admins and bureaucrats. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, and some of those users above creating such walls of text would also be best advised to go hunting after those dodgy admins who were elected in 2003 and 2004 with fewer than two-dozen supports. You've got to watch the quiet ones.... The Rambling Man (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
On a similar note, we have a list of "desysopped admins" (I should know), did any of those individuals destroy Wikipedia? Or did they just create time-sinks for endless debate over whether they were fit for purpose? Do we have %support vs desysop stats available? I know of at least one admin who had 100% support and was subsequently left tool-less.... The Rambling Man (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wiki: Former administrators contains lists of, well, former admins, sorted by various things including by reason. ansh666 03:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure, but I want analysis of desysopped admins vs their % support vs crat chat. If nothing bad has ever come from a crat chat enabled sysop, this conversation is dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Like this Norwegian Blue [[1]] Irondome (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
It is. But like all dramaboards on Wikipedia, someone wants blood. So perhaps I'll offer my double-desysop-resignation to make sure this kind of thing never happens again. After all, something absurd is usually required to pipe such discussions down. Until someone can identify a genuine problem here, with evidence, I suggest we close this endless torture and do something better for our readers, because that's who we're here to serve. Wikipedia should not be used as an alternative to Facebook or Twitter or other social media outlets which seems to be one of the sad parts of this thread. A lot of banter/bravado, and not a lot of "improving Wiki requests For Adminship/Archive 246". The Rambling Man (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
The fire-to-smoke ratio does seem to be even lower than normal with this particular debacle. Some useful observations are still trickling in (see Mz7's comment in the above thread), but most of what's being said strikes me as little more than misplaced fretting about the sanctity of RfA being lost, or something like that. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Well I take the point so far, but there's no sanctity in RFA as I can prove. Individuals who are borderline, scoring around the 70% mark or lower do a great job, individuals like me scoring 100% fail to keep it up and worse, get the community disappointed in them. So as far as this miniature storm goes, it's nothing, meaningless, and yet another waste of the community's time to precisely zero benefit to the READERS FOR THE LOVE OF WHOEVER YOU PRAY TO. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I went through the list of Former admins desysopped for cause. I was able to find RFAs for 59 of those former administrators. They had an average support of 91.7% (18 of the 59 were unanimous support). I did not see a bureaucrat chat linked on any of those 59 RFAs. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks, I think that says enough for us to now close this discussion without prejudice until such a time an admin elected as a result of a 'crat chat goes rogue. That nearly a third of those admins who are no longer with us went with 100% support in the first instance is fascinating. Maybe being a sysop can destroy people. Who knew? The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I did a similar study ~2 years back and found there was no correlation between success at RfA and subsequent behavior that lead to desysop. RfA is not a predictor of administrator success. It's in the archives here somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Wiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 190 § What lessons can RFA learn from desysoppings? wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Wiki: Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search:

There are encouraging results. The poll is having a good month. Six entries in April were editors who received the post.

Stats so far:

• 178 people into raw list
• 38 people vetted and received post
• 6 took poll
• 2 (wild guess) may become admins.

Further to the stats: Vetting a user completely takes around 3 minutes. (Please don't say it needs 20. This is only for the poll, not RfA.) Some vetting takes 30 seconds for obvious reasons. Average? Who knows. Maybe 2 min. So, 178 names x 2 minutes to vet = 356 minutes. That is around six hours of teamwork to get two admins. That seems worth it. The downside is that the raw list will get weaker. Its sources are wells that will run dry.

I am posting with the above update, but also to ask for help. The mini-project needs you to join and participate:

• The raw list needs raw list names added for vetting from anywhere you can think of.
• Scripts need to be made to generate raw list names for vetting. Already, a number of editors are working on that. Please join them.
• I (and maybe others) need guidance on how to improve vetting criteria. I am out of touch with that draws supports and opposes at an RfA. (Read [2][3][4] if you wish. The bottom line is that I'm not that good at it.)
• Participants are needed to help vet raw list names and post at user talks.

So, please join. Please participate. Results so far suggest that this could bring a number of much-needed new admins each year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Names needed

Okay, it looks like everything is sorted out. The holding pen keeps good records. The guidelines on vetting are sorted too. Now, all we need is a ton of raw names. I've asked a few people but am not sure anyone is working on it.

Around 40 people have so far received the post. One in five then took the poll resulting in a surge. There are good chances that the effort so far will result in a bunch of new admins.

I am puzzled why so few people have joined this mini-project, and why no new raw names have been added. I'm sitting here saying that I'll do lots of work vetting if people provide names, but alas, none has arrived.

If you all think this is a waste of time or a bad idea, please say. Otherwise, why not help out?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Anna! I do a certain amount of admin recruiting privately, and I will continue to do that. And when they are about ready to take the plunge, I do advise them to take the poll first. You folks are working hard and you have definitely recruited some good people. I have just one suggestion: I think part of your vetting should be whether they have ever run for admin before. I recently saw the "Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator?" notice put on the talk page of someone who had had an unsuccessful RfA just a few months earlier. Maybe you could come up with some different wording for such people, or maybe exclude them from your recruiting efforts since obviously they HAVE thought about it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello Melanie dear. Your private recruiting is very much appreciated, as I've mentioned. You're off the hook in terms of joining this mini-project. You certainly do your bit. There are a few people out there who have complained that we need more admins, and I don't see them joining this effort. (You know who you are.  )

Good point about previous RfAs. I think some of the people who said they'd make a script to populate the raw list section would pre-vet for that. Also, some of the posts I've made to usertalks have had modified text that mentions their previous RfAs. Maybe a catch-all sentence would be good for the standardized post, so long as it doesn't cause too much instruction creep.

Best wishes and thanks for the fine suggestion. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you should change your standard post. I think it is really well written and is just fine for your target audience (many of whom probably have never considered the idea). Just maybe modify it for people who have been-there-done-that, or handle them on an individual basis. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Good plan! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I had an RFA 9ish years ago. The feeling of the group was that my content building was weak. I have been on break for a long time and looking at some recent discussions it seems the mood has swung a bit more towards "helpful contributors" make good admins. I am not trying to dance around 'hey should I do an RFA gain' I am more curious that if I do, will my style of contributing to the project be worthy, or will I repeat myself without changing? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Gtstricky:....you might want to have a look here; they give good advice, but the RFA-mood is changing with the wind, as far as I can see. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
My opinion is that reading tea leaves or whatever good or bad vibrations to discern an outcome is decidedly misguided. For example, I was foresquare in opposing corners in the last two occasions of RfA. There are too many unknown factors. It depends on the candidate, the questions, the comments (and then the mimicry of those comments by others), the co--nominees (and how everyone feels about them, as well), the four sections: (yes, no, neutral and comments) and who shows up to fill them, the talk page backlash, et all. Fylbecatulous talk 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

They sometimes cluster. Is there a pattern? When one starts an RfA and others start theirs, are they doing it to be in a pack, so that the attention is distrubuted, making it less daunting? If so, could there maybe be some way to take advantage of that fact? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I imagine it's more an artefact of (1) the chatter about an ongoing RFA reminding prospective candidates that RFA exists, (2) the timing of school holidays in the US and Britain, and most significantly (3) the natural aversion in human nature to being the only person doing something (if you blank any talkpage, even ANI, there will usually be a significant delay before anyone posts on it again). I'm not sure how you'd legislate around (3); the usual method Wikipedia uses to prevent this happening is a "minthreadsleft=" parameter—e.g. when a page gets moribund, the most recent items aren't closed and archived until someone posts something new—but that wouldn't be practical here. (I suppose one could leave the last couple of RFAs closed but still visible on the live page to act as models and to make the place look busier, but that would be a little harsh on the candidates.) ‑ Iridescent 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting indeed, Iridescent. Rather than preventing this happening, why not go in the other direction. Maybe an announced time to encourage a cluster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
You mean, have "RFA week" once a month? I don't see that working—we (correctly) advise candidates to time their RFAs for when they know they'll be available to answer questions for seven days. IMO the "decline" at RFA is largely an artefact of Wikipedia's decline in recruitment; most of the people with the experience and knowledge to make good admins have either already run, or aren't interested. If that is the case, then any "candidate recruitment" exercise will just be scraping the last remnants from an already exhausted mine, not tapping a previously uncharted seam. The way to increase participation in these circumstances is to change the nature of adminship, so all the people who've thought "not for me" take a fresh look, but good luck with that. ‑ Iridescent 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iridescent. No, not an RfA week once a month, just some some sort of bulletin board or calendar. Something for those considering RfA to know, in advance, when others might run. I don't have any solid idea of how that could happen. I'm just throwing the idea out there.

As for "...IMO the "decline"...not tapping a previously uncharted seam", holy moly, I think you may be bang on, (and you usually are) but I hope you're wrong. The candidate poll search mini-project might have found a tiny seam, though. Fourteen sudden poll entries is encouraging. Anyhow, I'm a big believer in advertising. Suggest, suggest, suggest, and people do. That's why Coke and Nike spend 10% on product and 40% on marketing (guess). A good, ongoing campaign could be worth a dozen extra admins a year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Off-topic, but just so you know (and I was curious enough to look it up), Coca Cola spent 16.4 billion on production costs, and 16.7 billion on sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 12/31/2016. Nike spent 17.4 billion in production costs, and 10.4 billion in sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 5/31/16. Neil916 (Talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a big supporter of the "clustering"/"shotgun" strategy. Yes, it is intentional. When a couple RfAs are already up, many people who were planning to go in the next month or two tend to go early with the hope that those who desperately search for tiny reasons to oppose won't find the time to find that one mistake 4 years ago among over 10,000 edits. I imagine the strategy would disappear if people nit-picked less, but I don't see that happening any time soon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
So what about some subpage with a calendar on it titled "Tentative upcoming RfAs" or something, and then we post at those who took the poll or those who admins have been contacting privately, and let them know. Maybe they can discuss at the talk page and coordinate a time where they all take the plunge at the same time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:GAME, WP:SCRUTINY, then, arguably. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Huh? I've moved your post from above mine to below mine. You can handle things how you like from here on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I posted there because I was replying to Rob's specific point, that's all. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 11:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
True. I guess I was responding to Rob but not quite replying to Rob. Maybe I just should have outdented. Sorry to have moved stuff around like that. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have to admit that during the last surge of RfAs I joked that I should set mine up while the getting was good and people would be too distracted by the others to pay attention to my own. The sad thing is...I wasn't entirely joking. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

What needs to be done so that a struck-out !vote is not counted in the tally of an RFA? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove the # in front of the comment. Afaik the bot only counts comments that are automatically numbered using the # wikicode. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the above works only if the vote being removed from the tally is the first vote. To remove a vote from the tally for any other vote, one needs to indent the vote, as to do otherwise will break the numbering for voters after the stricken vote. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Correct of course. Further !votes need # to be changed to #:. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Is it time to call a moratorium (again) on questions that require more than one answer? Specifically, what I have in mind are questions that follow the format of "here's 10 random user names, please tell me how you'd deal with each one individually." My understanding is that, as these questions require more than one answer, they fall foul of the two-questions-per-editor rule. Am I completely wrong here? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with them in principle, provided only one person asks such a question and they don't give more than something like 8 usernames. The answers required from the nominee are generally short and don't often require much nuance, so I suspect they don't take much more time to answer than your typical open-ended RfA question, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who's gone through an RfA recently and answered such a question. I do think they're largely pointless if the candidate hasn't expressed the slightest interest in working at UAA though. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Question 9 demonstrated a good answer to this :D — xaosflux ^Talk 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps the answer to question 1 on that RFA is also relevant... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I think that's the best answer to Q1 I've ever seen, maybe I'll plagarize it someday (just kidding don't banninate me) ansh666 09:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It is generally ok, as long as they don't surpass 10 usernames, otherwise, they are considered to be two questions. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 23:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The thing about the UAA question is the individual responses are short, but in order to actually test the candidate's knowledge you have to cover a few situations, so you need to list a handful of usernames. I was given 12 in my own RfA, which was really fine since I wasn't asked that many questions overall, I was only slightly annoyed that several of the names were really testing the same thing. Maybe it would be different if it was one of those RfAs with 20+ other questions, I can't say. I asked the question myself a while later in Cyberpower678's second RfA and tried to make sure that each of the 7 names I listed was testing a different aspect of the policy, including a couple that weren't really covered by the policy at all but were just current issue questions, to mix it up. I don't think it should count as multiple questions, and besides everyone who runs these days ought to know it's coming. However I do think it should only be asked once in an RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
These are fine when someone specifically claims interest in UAA, but the more important question is why it's relevant to "test the candidate's knowledge" of something they don't intend to be involved in. People usually give some gauzy hand-waving response along the lines of "once you're an admin you can use the tools however you want!" but somehow that never prompts quiz questions about template syntax. IMO there's been enough feedback on these UAA questions that a) the askers should be taking the hint, and b) candidates should be able to predict that they are unlikely to damage their candidacies by declining to answer, at least if they're not planning on doing any UAA work. (Personally, I'd be more inclined to support someone who responded to these questions with "I'm not interested in this aspect of adminship and this question is tedious busywork", but I more or less think that about every pop-quiz type question.)
I have to admit I feel pretty similarly about the "what would you do if you found a speedy tag on this hypothetical barely-coherent unsourced substub about a topic that turns out to be notable" question genre, but in that case I know the questions are motivated by the askers' long-standing interest in broader related issues. I suspect that part of my irritation with the UAA stuff is that many of the people asking seem to have little investment in UAA as a process, or history of participation in conversations about newbie treatment, or engagement with RfA issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
↑What she said. I'd be far more inclined to support a candidate who told the people who play these nasty WP:NEWT hypothetical games, on what's already a stressful and unpleasant process, exactly where they could shove them. ‑ Iridescent 10:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? I normally try and put forward an opinion based on existing contributions, but if I'm on the fence and can't tell, an open-ended question is a way of seeing how they work things out and how to break the logjam in my mind. I realise RfA is unpleasant, but having to read off-wiki comments about how people hate Wikipedia because they got stung by an unnecessary drive-by deletion (random example) is even more so, in my opinion. I agree that the username questions are pretty bone-headed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It's Andrea James again. Hardly a "random example". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you're the only one who's done this, but it was your essays on newbie-biting I had in mind. That suggests a question being asked with a broader purpose in mind, as opposed to the UAA stuff that mostly looks like it's done to show off.
That being said, I don't find those hypothetical substubs very useful in "breaking logjams"; I don't think it's likely to be a good use of admin time to go digging on google to see if this barely-coherent misspelled single sentence might actually be a real subject, nor a good use of candidate time to do it for a completely made-up example where the only clue that the reaction you're fishing for is "oh, this is real after all" rather than "delete, that's nonsense" is familiarity with your previous RfA questions. In fact, I'm not convinced it's a net positive to rehabilitate this kind of borderline useless article even if a willing editor sees it; it communicates to new editors that they can just write crap and expect someone else to do all the real work. (But IIRC, I did that once and then got accused of biting newbies by fixing it myself instead of teaching them how...) And while there's no doubt some over-enthusiastic deletion going on, I find that boingboing article, um, unpersuasive. The whole thing needs a liberal sprinkling of {{cn}} tags. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
While obviously it's all personal opinions, they do match real-life experiences I've witnessed, and one of the guys commenting is a real-life friend of mine (assuming nobody else would use the same handle and avatar). So I wouldn't put {{fact}} tags on everything there. While some Wikipedia criticism is just butthurt people who didn't get what they want and can't cope with it, other criticism is very much fair comment and perhaps representative of the silent majority. And I want all admin candidates to have sufficient clue to recognise that and manage it accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
A significant number of questions are posed by newbies who simply think it's cool to participate in such an important meta area. Some of them have been around for all of 140 edits and already have one of those silly I wanna be an admin uboxen on their u-page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

When the candidate specifically expresses interest in, for example, blocking usernames, then it would be reasonable to expect a question on it with, perhaps, two usernames. Anymore than two is unreasonable and the latest loophole seems to be packing as many into one question as possible under the guise of their being all related. Aiken D 19:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Would the community really support someone who expressed an interest in blocking usernames but had to rely on a "test" because they had no practical experience reporting UAA violations? We expect editors who are interested in vandalism work to have experience at ANI and AIV. Mkdw ^talk 19:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many questions?

(subsection this part to address the more abstract question of too many questions or not) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many questions asked at RfA are BS anyway. More and more, I think, they're for the self-aggrandisement of the questioner rather than to allow the candidate to mull answers over for the community to assess. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
As a rough heuristic, by the time the candidate has been asked 7 questions, I've usually got enough to go on to make an informed decision, irrespective of whether I've asked any myself (and I do try not to if I can possibly avoid it). Going up to 20+ is ridiculous. Right now I reckon clpo13 could ignore all of the remaining unanswered questions on his RfA and still pass with flying colours. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Twenty-three questions is not just ridiculous, it's ******* ridiculous. We ought to consider enforcing a limit, as well as restraining the length of individual questions. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 12:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Without denying that twenty-three questions is absurd (because it obviously is), I can't imagine how such a limit would work. Is it first-come-first-served system? That seems like it will just incentivise people asking questions quickly, just to have the opportunity to ask a question (already in this RFA Q10 was asked less than 4 hours after transclusion – less than 3% of the way through the RfA). And neither candidates or voters are well-served by having only formulaic or ill-thought through questions, rather than questions about the candidates actual record – i.e. the kinds of questions which take more time to formulate.

A different potential approach would be to limit who is permitted to ask questions, but I see only one question on this RfA by a user who isn't extended-confirmed, and none by IPs, so I don't see that that would necessarily work either. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, questions are optional, are they not? The trouble is we'll need somebody prepared to be a guinea-pig and not bother answering the stock UAA question and ignoring other ones. Either the RfA will succeed and (hopefully) set a precedent, or the first person to write "oppose - didn't answer a question" will get piled on. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
What about allowing the candidate or nominator(s) to stop allowing more questions when they deem it reasonable? Haven't though this through, just an idea. Sam Walton (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's 38 questions now by my count, if you include the two multi-part questions. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I was curious about the impact of questions on an RfA. There's a lot of different ways to look at this. I decided to see how many questions there were in an RfA at the end compared to at 24 hours into the RfA, compared to the support percentage at the same break points. I did this for 30 successful candidacies dating to December 2015, and 15 unsuccessful (non-snow, non-not now, only withdrawn or full term) candidacies dating to July 2015. The unsuccessful candidacies data is a bit problematic due to RfAs being withdrawn early in many cases, and 12 of them in the same time period being withdrawn before 24 hours. Nevertheless, I saw some interesting trends:

1. Among successful RfAs; the number of questions increased 56% from 24 hours to the end, and the number of votes increased by 160%. Yet, the support % decreased only 3.7%. This would seem to indicate that additional questions after 24 hours in successful RfAs have no impact on the outcome.
2. Conversely, unsuccessful RfAs on the same metric; 40% increase in questions, 152% increase in votes, but a 13.4% decrease in support. Perhaps there's a correlation between unsuccessful RfAs and questions asked after 24 hours? This is possible. More extensive data would need to be done to support this, but it's tantalizing.
3. The number of questions asked of successful RfAs averages 15.5, and unsuccessful 19.2.

Certainly more data is needed to tighten things up. For my part, the trends here indicate that placing artificial limits on the number of questions, or the time in which questions are allowed to be asked, would seem to be counterproductive. Just some food for thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

What statistics above don't provide is information on the relevancy of the questions and the experience of those who pose them. The issue of questions has been demonstrated up in much greater detail here. An in-depth evaluation of the questions themselves is reported here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
RFA is a hazing ritual. HalfGig talk 02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Questioners should be required to write a 100-word essay on why they feel the question is relevant to the candidate. And they should be required to answer all the other questions and have random people criticise their answers. Then they might have some sympathy for the person whose time they're wasting during an already stressful week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  That's not a bad idea. I do feel that for an editor who says that they intend to work on backlogs, a pop quiz question can be quite appropriate. It lets you see how the editor handles an unfamiliar admin area, and whether they can look up the policies and procedures in question and then apply them correctly. (It may just be me, but I have to field a lot of "Where's to one about... ? questions lately) It's only that we are all getting bored with the ones on UAA. One on DYK might have been more appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)