Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 243

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 240 Archive 241 Archive 242 Archive 243 Archive 244 Archive 245 → Archive 250

Different approach

People seem to think because RfA is turning out less and less admins every year, that RfA is broken. When they try and figure out what is broken, they have no answers. When I run my mind over this, it doesn't seem to be the process itself, but rather the lack of participants. There's an inherent psychology, I believe, that people see very little users participating, and not many of those passing. This gives the impression that RfA is not worth running, because everyone else thinks that too, except for the minority that do run.

I think the real problem is getting users to participate, and I know this has been chewed up before, so bear with me here. If we can get at least one user to go through an RfA, every week, it might encourage others to join in, regardless of the outcome. Then we move up to making sure at least one user passes an RfA every week. When people see RfA turning out more users, other prospective users that have remained in the dark may come forth.

What do I predict will happen if this actually works? We will have more admins, and the elitism feeling that many users have regarding admins, starts to fade. As more users have the mop, more maintenance tasks will get tackled. Backlogs will begin to shrink, and the higher number of admins, more easily serve as checks and balances to one another. The loss of an admin, will become less of an issue, and the response of an admin gone rogue should start to become an easier to tackle issue. We have emergency desysop procedures, and cleaning up after an admin gone rogue should be easier with the higher admin count.

How do we do this? I was thinking of putting together a task force. A group of users who are familiar with the atmosphere of RfAs, and can predict what to expect. This includes current admins, like User:Kudpung, User:Worm That Turned, as well as former candidates, who were promising but didn't quite make the cut. This adds a perspective from successful and unsuccessful candidates. They will usually hang around some area of Wikipedia who would scope out possible users they frequently run across, and if they see someone experienced enough to be an admin. These users then mention them on some kind of noticeboard, or candidates' board. As a courtesy the user in question is notified. The task force briefly looks at the possible candidate's history, bring up the good and bad, and agree on if they are likely going to pass an RfA. If yes, the user who sniffed out the other user, will offer a nomination, and a couple of co-noms, if they want. If the candidate however feels uncomfortable being discussed, they can voice their opposition, and the discussion will end. This discussion isn't as long as an RfA. It's simply a brief discussion highlighting what this candidate to be could possibly expect in an RfA, what could be fixed before running, and what areas the should emphasize working in.

The idea of this is to start off by getting at least one user to run an RfA every week, to change the perception of RfA. When users start to see RfA activity increasing, and thus promotions increase, they might be inclined to run themselves, or seek discussion from the task force.

Any thoughts? I know this was a bit long winded so I thank you for taking the time to read and offer an opinion.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

As someone who has recently considered making a run in the future (due to my work at TfD), I can say the barrier for me isn't the current activity. It's the atmosphere. After watching plenty of accomplished Wikipedians get smacked across the face going through RfA, it's natural to look at it and flinch. ~ RobTalk 16:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I suggested this method, because yes, the atmosphere is a bit tough, but the advice you get from it is mostly invaluable. In my RfA, I took it as constructive criticism for the most part, and had no bad feelings when it closed as unsuccessful.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't my experience. I received no constructive criticism, just a slander campaign that left me very discouraged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
What you are suggesting certainly has its merits but it's not entirely different fron WP:ORCP and the work some of us have been doing behind the scenes canvassing individual users mainly by email. THe answers we get are almost always the same: users reject the idea of having to be subjected to the humiliation of the RfA process as we know it. Even those who get positive and encouraging reviews at WP:ORCP are reluctant to take the next step. Collaborative projects are nothing new. What is new is the media of communication for managing such projects: the Internet. Through its intrinsic culture of anonimity, the Internet has almost entirely.changed the way people interact.
There are still a few of us around who remember a world without the Internet or mobile phones with their text messages; people knew, or at least the names, of the people they were communicating with. All written communications were done on properly signed paper. The Internet however with its vehemently defended right to anonymity has changed all that in the short space of just over 20 years, allowing people to exploit the this 'new' media to be as libelous, slanderous, and just downright nasty as they can - behaviour they would never dream of at home, at work, in the pub, or in their places of worship.
Many people of older generations who are forced to share these projects with people who take the Internet and cell phones for granted, feel it is a huge downward trend in traditional values, and frankly the behaviour of user:<redacted> and user:<redacted> who hide behind their copious content contributions to afford themselves the privilege of being obnoxious makes some of us older users wonder why we ever bothered to join Wikipedia in the first place. We persevere because we hope it will change.
RfA has been accepted by this strange Wikipedia community of ours as the one venue where even AGF and NPA are allowed to be flagrantly flouted and disregarded with almost total impunity, and with disdain for those who dare to intervene to moderate it. People keep trying to analyse RfA to discover what's wrong with it, permanently pretending that the behaviour of the participants has got nothing to do with it. It has, and I'll repeat my worn out mantra: Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
And likewise your comments as well carry merits. But as I see, there's no good way to fix a voter from doing what they do, unless you block them, topic ban them, whatever, which doesn't seem to be solutions anyone wants to implement. But you can go around convincing a possible candidate they are likely to pass RfA.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I'll agree with Kudpung here. The reason that people don't want to volunteer for the hassle of RFA is that (a) the burden there is so much greater than it used to be and (b) honestly, the benefit isn't what it used to be. Given how much NAC is permitted, there's no more need for "I need the tools to actually close discussions." Given the essentially systematic reduction in the most pathetic base trolls that require immediate blocking and how AIV actually works for the most part, there's no more need for "I need the tools to fight vandals." Rob, using you as an example, you went through all those headaches and for what, the ability to close TFD by actually deleting the template rather than tagging it with a G6? As someone with the G6 deletion ability, it's not that impressive a tool lol. That leaves essentially "I want the tools to be able to actually help out on the technical deletion/protection/blocking side" which is kind of a 'want' not 'need' more admins situation and people can easily go make up all sort of reasons not to add another admin because they don't have to worry about the negative externality that comes from drive people away from the rejection. The real solution is to really put bite back into AGF at RFA and to let the trolls be removed or just be called out and ignored which is starting to happen more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I see your point. Using myself as an example, my drive to run for adminship is to simply be able to help out more. Strictly speaking, do I need the tools? I'm going to say no. I've encountered situations where they would be nice to have, and I imagine myself being useful in technical areas more if I had them, but I possess the account creator right for ACC, templateeditor right, to edit protected templates, the global-renamer right, to help out more username related stuff, and made myself quite useful there too, and the common rollback, reviewer, and extended confirmed rights, and I am perfectly happy with those tools, because I can do what I do best, bot work, templates, and username stuff. I would image being able to unblock users after having renamed them would be useful though, but not really a requirement on my part. In short, I don't need the mop, but I could certainly put it to good use. I could make adminbots with it for example.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. After having the tools for over a decade, there's so little actual power involved in being an admin it's comical compared to the fears expressed. I'm always amused with people realize after extensive discussions with me that I'm an admin. The tools I use are never in conjunction with the work I do (you should see the difference in how I close MFDs than how I vote). The point is, the lack of need for tools reduces the pool of people who would want to apply. Combine that with the increase in headaches from actually applying, you have a combination that results in less people actually applying. Now, I'm not saying let's reverse all these programs but I think it's time to acknowledge that we have less admins in part because we don't actually need as many admins as we do (we have massive backlogs but few of those really require admin tools, those are just some miserable backlogs that no one touches because they are miserable). CFD and MFD has lunacy in backlogs but both could be solved if we did like TFD and allowed NAC deletions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The "need" mentality has always been a bit confusing for me. As a volunteer, I don't "need" any advanced access anywhere (nor do I need to be here at all). But I enjoy helping out in the roles that I have volunteered for. You're absolutely right that people are surprisingly afraid of the sysop tools, despite the fact that any admin action can be reverted and there is nothing *too* powerful there in the hands of anyone with the right amount of clue and trust. One thing that I would like to see is the removal of the current NAC system where non-admins tag their closures with "NAC", as if the fact that their account doesn't have sysop tools means that their judgement is suddenly questionable. The reason should be more important than the person. Ajraddatz (talk) 00:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I do support the NAC requirement (being a part of the cabal is a bias I admit). The truth is, whether or not it means much, I did pass an RFA and since no one has taken me enough to the woodshed to get rid of them, there's at least some indication I know what I'm doing and there's still an implicit threat that if I screw around too much, those tools can be taken away. Admins can overrule any NAC close (or endorse it) so I'd rather we keep the NAC and still allow some requirement for closing beyond simply being uninvolved (or uninvolved and possibly having an account as we don't generally let IP close discussions but I've seen that on a few SNOWs now). We've had some nonsense with GA/FA reviews which require nothing but that's not the same as an actual deletion discussion. Else the only tool is a DRV woodshed really. Of course I think I've had the tools ten times as long as I didn't have them so it's been a while since I edited without them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
You were elected an admin 21/1 in 2005, at which point you had ~8k edits to the project. I certainly think that this is more than enough experience to become an admin, but you wouldn't have a chance of passing a current RfA. You obviously are competent enough to close discussions, and I assume you feel so as well - but what about an identical version of you who joined in 2010 instead of 2004? Ricky81682-2010 would have not passed his first RfA due to lack of experience, and would still need to put NAC in every close. But you'd be the same person. The current NAC system assumes that only admins can be trusted with closing discussions, but it ignores the simple fact that most users who joined after 2008 aren't admins, all other variables being equal. I don't mind some common-sense restrictions on closing discussions, but I think it should be more about the reason and less about the person. It's also not like there can be no regulation of non-admin behaviour; we can block people for repeated abuse of their editing privileges, I don't see how this would be different. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
"The current NAC system assumes that only admins can be trusted with closing discussions" ... This is one of the reasons I enjoy closing discussions at TfD, where I'm able to close as delete (technically, as orphan and then delete) as a non-admin. It's one of the few places that I can close discussions without feeling like a second-class citizen. I think the biggest problem with RfA is summed up by looking closer at this issue, actually. We have one side of people repeating the mantra of "Admins are not leaders, just people with a few extra tools" while another side insists just as wholeheartedly that "Non-admins should not make any non-obvious decisions while closing discussions". We have similar "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations at RfA. There's a large crowd that votes oppose for non content creators. In the ongoing RfA, there's been a faction that has voted neutral leaning oppose because the participant is a content creator (and therefore has no "need"). There's a large contingent that will vote oppose if you have no participation dealing with behavioral issues at ANI, etc., but another contingent that will vote oppose if you've decided to participate in the "dramaboards". Some will oppose on the basis of not enough AfD participation while I've seen others oppose "deletionists" who spend too much of their time there. The result is that a sizable number of potential admins feel like anyone other than the Wikipedian equivalent of Leonardo da Vinci, a true renaissance man who balances participation in all aspects of the project, will be rejected (or, at the very least, attacked as a bad-faith power-hungry megalomaniac). ~ RobTalk 03:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While a bit wordy, this is basically the essence of the problem as I see it. The community has too many competing, contradictory standards for anyone to feel comfortable. ansh666 05:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I wonder how effective an "RfA standards" RFC would be in establishing some sort of criteria for evaluating candidates, so that comments could be evaluated against the guideline as they are with XfD. I feel like that would also make the RfA process less of a strict vote, for better or worse. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
We've tried several times; So we've established that agreeing a criteria isn't easy. I think that setting some of the criteria is still the way forward, there are a number of de facto criteria that we can calculate from RFAs. There are some issues such as good judgment that we can't simply derive from stats, and I hope that setting a criteria for the things that we can quantify will focus attention on the more important things. Or we can set the criteria by seeing which things have consensus to be criteria. But such an approach is going to be fought tooth and nail by those who prefer our current system - not least those who know they don't have consensus to get certain things into the criteria, but under the current system they can get the 35% or so needed to block a candidacy. ϢereSpielChequers 07:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Very fair point; such an RfC would have the ultimate consequence of disenfranchising ideas, and by extension those who subscribe to them. To some extent I think this might be good; it would give more efficacy to the community as a whole, rather than over-representing the opposition. Of course, reducing the standard for a passed RfA could work as well, but would face the same opposition. Ajraddatz (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it disenfranchises them, it just means that instead of needing to persuade 35% of the community to oppose candidates without an FA, those who oppose for lack of an FA would need to get consensus to change the criteria. That shifts the default for additional criteria to requiring consensus to implement instead of requiring consensus to ignore. It also hopefully shifts the debate about criteria from individual RFAs to the RFA criteria page. To my mind that would be a huge step to detoxifying RFA and making it appear less unprofessional. As for disenfranchising people; In the current system there can be a clear majority against adding some new criteria, but long before it has 40% support it is clearly part of the criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I was using it in more of a "looking at the practical effects" sense, but it's a value-loaded term so that might have been a poor wording choice. I basically agree with everything you said in your response, particularly about moving the conversation away from individuals towards the system, which definitely could make the process a bit nicer. Ajraddatz (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I do agree that RfA has bad PR, and that is the largest reason so few people run though it. But the way that wikipedia works makes it difficult to change. I also agree that lots of non controversial RfAs would help invigorate the system. However, I don't think this solution is different to what already happens. I already go around looking for candidates and them emailing them to talk about RfA. About 50 people in the last year have had an email from me entitled "Got my eye on you". Of that, I nominated about 3. Posting publicly only serves to put extra pressure on the individual and if they turn out to be not up to the task, it's quite unfair on them and can be very demoralising. Overall, I don't think this will really get more than 1 or 2 extra candidates per year, certainly not the 1 per week you're hoping for. WormTT(talk) 06:17, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re the top post and specifically "When they try and figure out what is broken, they have no answers." There are shedloads of reasons why people consider RFA broken. The problem is getting a large enough consensus to change things. A more realistic sentence would be "When they try and figure out what is broken, there are many many answers, none of which can get consensus." ϢereSpielChequers 09:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    That is essentially what I meant. People suggest problems, but no one can seem to agree on a suggested problem. Hence, no real answers to the question, "why is RfA broken?"—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I still think if you made RfA a vote like ArbCom elections, a lot of the problems would vanish. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • With an election candidates would not know why they were not supported. By contrast the existing RFA process enables people to rebut misconceptions by !voters, and enables candidates who did not succeed to address !voters concerns before they run again. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    They could be designed so that if you oppose, you could give a reason why. That would help the candidate. It would also help filter out the "just because" bad apples. Just a thought.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In most (all?) free elections today, people have no idea why someone else is voting the way they are. I fail to see why RfA is so incredibly special, so incredibly important, that voters must know why people are supporting or opposing. Even in ArbCom, while there is a period where people can ask questions, there is no open voting. Yet, ArbCom is far, far more powerful than any admin can be. We make RfA a big deal because we allow it to be, not because of the voters. This idea that we have to have reasons shown for supporting or opposing is deeply flawed. We 'accept' it only because it's entrenched. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Because that is exactly what RfA is supposed to not be. From WP:ADMIN: "A discussion (not a vote) takes place for seven days about whether the candidate should become an administrator." and "An uninvolved bureaucrat then determines if there is consensus to approve the request". Consensus means people justify their opinions and try to convince others, not that they get the most votes. The problem is that it has become a vote. We need to define what the community wants as an admin and require people to base their opinion off of that criteria. Imagine what a spectacle AfD would be if we let people vote for any reason they want? "Delete I don't like her music" or "Keep I saw them play in their garage once, it was good." HighInBC 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Right, entrenched. It's amazing we can elect ArbCom without a consensus building system, eh? It's amazing that any country in the free world elects leaders without a consensus system, eh? I say again, we allow RfA to be a cesspool. No reform ever will cause RfA to be an actual consensus building system. It's an utter failure at that, and always will be. Any notion that it is a consensus building system is absolutely laughable, and always has been. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think people don't want to run because it is in fashion to people to yell at admins and blame them for doing their jobs. While much of the community is supportive of the hard work admins do, there is a also a culture of abuse towards admins. When people are unhappy with a given policy, say NPA, and they blame admins for enforcing it. Some people chant "admin abuse" like it is a mantra, others see vast conspiracies of admins protecting each other in dark rooms wearing cloaks. It is a thankless job. I know it makes me want to not be an admin some days. HighInBC 15:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Whole "RfA should be discussion" is quite incompatible with current system where supporters and opposers mostly sit in their separate sections with minimal actual discussion. I think Hammersoft's suggestion has some potential, I have had somewhat similar thoughts myself. While requiring opposes to have a rationale obviously had good intentions originally, and probably means that perfect 99-100% candidates evade a few frivolous opposes, I suspect that it is also one of the reasons why more contentious RfA's are such brutal affairs for candidate.--Staberinde (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    I completely agree that RfA isn't much of a discussion as-is, and that removing reasons while voting might make the process nicer for the candidate. However, wiki history shows that moving from an open to a closed ballot tends to result in more opposition, just without public reason. I bring up the idea every year with the steward elections, but it gets shot down every time because we'd need to set a new passing criteria that is lower than the current 80%. I'm not entirely convinced that the relationship is non-spurious, given that there could have just been social forces within the community that raised opposition as some processes switched ballot type, but it's an interesting concern and one which would need to be taken into account. If anything, the current system creates a kind of social pressure to be on the winning side, and that is removed once you can't see how others have voted. Also worth noting that while I'd say that the current RfA process absolutely is a vote, changing to more of a discussion might not make much of a difference. Again at the global level, requests for global sysop (discussion) and steward elections (votes, albeit open ballot) tend to operate very similarly, with candidates being evaluated on cross-wikiness and experience with advanced permissions in both cases. The discussion format is really only useful for close cases, and I'd say that looking at crat chats here there is absolutely no actual discussion - they usually don't even bring up the specific merit of reasons given for supporting or opposing. TL;DR moving to a strict vote or a strict discussion could seem nice, but it might not have the desired impact or any impact at all. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
    Greetings Ajraddatz. If my understanding of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC is correct, assent has been given to expand the discretionary range wherein a bureaucrat may close an RfA as successful from the previous range of 70–75% to the now accepted range of 65–75%. This change is a small step in the right direction in my opinion; away from the hard notion of an 80% passing criteria to a more sensible notion that 65% can be sufficient to pass. I hope it achieves its intended result, and perhaps allays some of your concern mentioned above. Do you feel that it may?--John Cline (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    I'm aware of that change, though the last RfA which was in that range was simply closed as not done without discussion. But my point here is more that vote, no vote, open polling all will probably result in the same thing. The only difference will be closed polling, which will result in less support, and the need to push down the pass mark perhaps even more. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you for your reply Ajraddatz. I understand your comment better because of it, and agree with what you have said. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 17:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    While end result is obviously important, the way it is reached will be also relevant for people's willingness to run. Failing RfA due too low support percentage is one thing. Failing it with too low support percentage, while also having all your faults spelled out several dozen times by all kinds of different people, is quite different thing.--Staberinde (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I read this article, which made me think that part of the problem of RfA currently is this pillarisation that has occurred within our community, which seems to divide people so strongly. That makes it very hard to bring people together on what constitutes a good admin. Basically, no matter why you seek the rights, you are guaranteed to lose, because you only fit in 1 or max 2 pillars, which is clearly not fitting well enough into the pillar of the majority of the voters. Good luck finding a fair voting system to work around that problem... (parliamentary representation?) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • One of the possible solutions is to get a RfC consensus on "Is RfA badly broken and are major steps necessary to fix it?" that specifies that if the RfC consensus passes (w/ the typical 2/3, 3/4 or, hopefully more) that it is a consensus on implementing SOME major change to RfA among a slate to be proposed in the next month -- in other words, the highest vote getting change would have "consensus" even if fewer than 2/3 or even 1/2 supported it. If nearly everyone believes that the current system is wrong, lets replace it even if the particular solution does not have supermajority support. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me as if this thread is developing exactly on the lines I tried to explain in my post above, and in the (snippets of) some other commests I've made on this page over the pastfew days:

'I don't understand why the community refuses to meet the issue head on and constantly buries its head in the sand instead, and continually comes up with other reasons for the dearth in candidates and suggesting solutions for those invented causes.'

'The data mining done at WP:RFA2011 showed however a very interesting trend - the majority of RfA voters are a transient tranche of editors and it is those who vote only once on an RfA, or very rarely, who demand ridiculously high figures of tenure and/or edits, or who make inappropriate or untenable oppose votes. And this kind of thing still continues today.'

'The question is rhetorical because we all know the reason already. [...] Those of us who have been actively canvassing for candidates for years are almost always met with the same answer. It's been flogged to death time and time again by the experts and even invoked an extremely strong comment by our Founder, but for some odd reason, everyone else seems to side-step it - just the way they tiptoe carefully around a pile of dog's mess on the side walk in case it jumps up at them.'

' …preferably 90/500) should be applied to the voters as it is (or similar) on other Foundation projects. It won't keep the regular detractors from voting, but it would certainly keep socks, trolls, and vandals away.'

It seems as if it has to be spelled out: people know that a pile of dog's mess makes a sidewalk unpleasant. They don't do anything about it though. They simply step around it very carefully and then continue strolling along as if it were never there. Very often, even the brush-and-barrow street cleaner wont scrape it up either, preferring to leave it for the road-sweeper truck to come along at night and hose it away.

The trolling and obnoxious voting and commenting on RfA is like the pile of dog's mess, and is the only reason why RfA is such a shitty place. We can't just remain content to allow a few trolls to foul our footpaths and make them a place to avoid, and permit those who are systemically opposed to all things admin to use RfA as their playground. Instead of constantly looking for other reasons how a pile of fecal junk came to be on the pavement, let's simply and freely admit that the dog's mess was left there by a dog, and ban dogs from the sidewalk. Metaphirically, of course. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

We have been making small strides forward of late, and I believe an RfC for a thing as prudent as a 90/500 !voting criteria for RfA/B participants may very well gain consensus if put forward. I will pledge to assist you at least ten hours a week while such an RfC remains open, if you've the strength to give another try; I'd understand if you would instead rather forgo the heaping portion of stress that such efforts too often engender. You mentioned that "other Foundation projects" use 90/500 or similar; it seems our own Arbcom also requires something similar of their voting participants. It is a sensible thing and I believe it is worthwhile to do.--John Cline (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What you describe as 'sensible' was heavily shot down just six months ago by a 3:1 margin. The idea of their being prerequisites for voting has been floated before this as well, and has never gained traction. It's unlikely it ever will. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Hammersoft. I understand how you arrived at your conclusion; its a fair assessment of the facts at hand. May I ask, however, how do you personally feel about a voting criteria like 90/500 for RfA/Bs? And, do you know of a good reason for requiring tenure for Arbcom voters while practically forbidding the notion when it's coupled with the selection of Admins and Bureaucrats? Personally, I am perplexed by the disparity. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm against voting requirements in the current system. A few reasons; I saw some extensive data from 2011 that showed that of nearly 1500 voters in RfAs, less than 6% would have failed to meet the 500 metric. The impact in terms of raw numbers is negligible. I've yet to see anything conclusive to show that such contributors are causing problems with RfAs. I've long held that we need an identifiable problem before proposing solutions. There's an automatic presumption here that new editors are bad. I strongly disagree with that notion as it is antithetical to what we are. Since RfA in its current form is not a 'vote', then an editor who shows up here with their very first edit to 'vote' on an RfA might have something useful to contribute. Of course, it might be negative too. But, Wikipedia has been founded upon the principle that we trust people until proven otherwise. You and I are here discussing for that very reason. Without it, we are nothing. Now, if RfA were to become a straight vote, then sure apply some minimal requirements to vote (perhaps the new extended autoconfirmed right). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you Hammersoft. You are well spoken in your opposition; showing that our differences are not petty. I am interested in hearing other things you may have spoken of regarding RfA reform. I'll review some archives, and I suspect, I'll talk to you again. Best regards until then.--John Cline (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it's about 50/50 or maybe 1:2 (more support) if all the "Oppose because I don't see this as a problem" people were convinced that it was a problem; so even if everyone who was convincible changed their minds it might still not pass. (Personally, I find "WP:ANYONECANEDIT" an odd policy to cite in connection with RfA: if it were true that anyone really could do anything here, why do we need Admins at all?). But... (con't...)
  • RfA's not really the problem as much as the symptom of the problem, which I see as, the site is getting to be too big to steer always through direct democracy consensus; we need to appoint more representatives who have power to effect direct change. How about a voter-appointed Admin committee who will appoint up to 10 new admins per month? Both the appointed admins and board members would be subject to recall, and the slate of proposed admins would be made public a week before the bit is granted. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hammersoft, can you point us to any RfCs on Rfa/Adminship reform that you have ever supported? (diffs will do); or indeed to any encouraging comments you have ever made on the subjects? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The reason I asked the questions, quite obviously, is that anyone who takes a moment to review discussions around the site on these topics will soon see what true hostility is and where it lies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • In August of 2015, you indicated that you wanted "nothing to do with [me]". Since then, I've intentionally avoided commenting on anything you've said. Your ping comments to me just now prove the wisdom in avoiding you. Following your own advice (#20), I choose not to respond to your overtly hostile comments. I'd prefer not to respond to you at all, but since you pinged me the decent thing to do was at least respond as to why I wasn't responding. I recommend you avoid pinging me in the future, nor indeed responding to any comments I make anywhere, as I offer you the same courtesy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • The lack of participants can be related to their familiarity with the user. There are many experienced users who watch the RfA page regularly and come out to vote based on their perception of the user's contributions. Some others are known to have worked with the candidate in question. Yet others are too lazy to even check out the answers to questions thrown out to the candidate, the tools and the logs related to the user, and then they will come out of the woods to pile on to support or oppose based on numbers only (not to mention trolls but even some active users do). This problem may be linked to the number of both long-time and newer editors. Given how different they view the ideal characteristics of an admin, can we expect them to agree on a certain criteria? There is no exact criteria to support or oppose.
NOTNOW and the snowball clause could be pretty signs of new users applying for adminship with their immediate ability to transclude on the main page and attract too much hate. By reducing these cases so that what more users see are more competitive-looking RfAs (those with majority support, or at least those which can get a large opposition) that have more chances of survival, pretty much newer editors can be discouraged from saving that RfA template and more experienced and bolder editors who felt they have done enough could be assured of an RfA that will turn out good. That might be done if there is a technical ability to "hide" RfA pages before they go live on the main page of the RfA. It's like an incubator: The group that cyberpower was initially suggesting? If they happen to see a candidate which they did not scout for, or at least is familiar with, they can review that user's RfA and contributions, and then they can reject that RfA from actually going live so that other users would not be bothered of doing reluctant opposes and non-admin closures. 49.148.85.251 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's impossible to know what problems an RFA will have until you start it. If you want a group to vet them first, realize that you will probably get a set number of supports (and opposes) simply based on the fact that they were vetted. Some people have voted against self-nominations while others oppose just because someone else nominated the person. The lack of participants is related to the lack of users and the lack of admins is probably more correlated to that than many things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA length?

Has anyone discussed whether reducing the duration of an RfA to 24 or 48 hours would relieve some of the stress? Yes, it would preclude participation from people who don't check daily or who just happened to miss it, but perhaps more people would be willing to run if they didn't need to be ready to answer questions at any time over the course of a week. The only things that currently run for a full week are things like deleting a page, centralized discussion, etc., that are a big deal, and RfA is no big deal, right?  :-) -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Summary: I put forth this idea primarily for discussion, rather than thinking it definitely was a way forward in RfA, but it seems clear that while no one expressed direct a worry that they would personally be harmed by such a change, others would be disenfranchised and it could be seen as a way of hiding "dirt" about a candidate. Let's call this a no-go proposal (at least for now) and move on to other possible reforms. (I'd put the closed proposal tags here, but it was never a formal proposal). Thanks for the great discussion -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, that would dramatically reduce the amount of scrutiny that a candidate can get. There is a reason why adminship is not simply handed out by request - to avoid spammers, people who don't understand what the "job" is about and some other problems.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • It probably hasn't been discussed because it has absolutely no chance passing. "RfA is no big deal" stopped being true long time ago.--Staberinde (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it would be counter-productive until the change is normalized. At the start, people will immediately be neutral or oppose just because of the rash time period. Eventually, people will treat it better but at the same time, we've had some RFAs derailed for (somewhat) possibly good reasons which did require some time. The issue is that people still find adminship such a big deal that the scrutiny is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Interesting idea. Kudos for originality, I don't remember this being suggested before. Most RFAs are very predictable before they reach 48 hours, though there are a small proportion that tank later. The normal reason for us having seven day processes is to include people for whom this is a one evening a week hobby. Shorter processes crowd them out in favour of the hyper active editors who are here most days. In RFA that can be important, I've seen RFAs tank because of issues raised on the 5th or 6th day. So the trade off of this change would be an occasional bad choice for admin in return for however many extra good admins this would encourage to run. That might be a trade worth having, but I'd first like to see a survey of active non admins with one of the questions being "would you submit an RFA if the process was shortened to 48 hours". An alternative would be to allow candidates to put RFAs on hold for a few days if they had a sudden change of plans and were no longer going to be around for the rest of the week. It would need to be whole 24 hour chunks to make sense though. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Not a bad idea, and it would place less stress on the candidate and less time for the trolls to nag and play with the candidate and participants, but a strict 24-48 hour limit probably does not give enough time for scrutiny, as in some RfAs, serious issues were raised only after 3-4 days of discussion. Perhaps it could be discretionary: if a RfA has more than 90-95 percent support with sufficient turnout and no substantial issues brought up by an opposer or another editor, it would be closed early. But that has about zero chance of passing. Esquivalience t 23:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Consensus requires patience; in particular, when participation is global, it's necessary to allow time for discussion to take place. Truncating the discussion to 48 hours would provide incentive for quick responses instead of reasoned, considered dialogue. isaacl (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Even if that were true, I think a good argument can be made the 7 days is (far!) too long. I think the "sweet spot" is probably 3–5 days. Also, I wish the 'Crats had the option to do a WP:SNOW close in some cases – when there's just a single "Oppose" vote for several days (or, perhaps, no "Oppose" votes for several days), I really can't figure out why we don't just SNOW close it. (If someone hasn't dug up "dirt" in 72 hours, there's likely no "dirt" to be had...) Both of these – shorter RfA runtimes, and the potential for early "SNOW" closing, would probably be a mild incentive to get more people to run. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
      • As mentioned above, whenever the question of shortening the request for administrative privileges process comes up, people raise the issue of providing the opportunity for once-a-week editors to contribute. As far as I know, no one has explicitly accepted the tradeoff of limiting the amount of participation from these editors, and so the current time period for the process has consensus support.
      • Although I appreciate that candidates may feel like the sword of Damocles is hanging over them, I think someone seeking to be an administrator should be understanding of the need to allow time for consensus to form. Where there is no urgent reason for action, editors shouldn't feel pressed to make a rapid decision. isaacl (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@IJBall: May be good in some circumstances but without community consensus for successful RfA SNOW closes themselves can cause quite a ruckus, just like the clerking at Hawkeye7's RfA putting the bureaucrats in stalemate. Esquivalience t 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My RfA is an example of the sort of RfA that WSQ mentioned; even though it initially went well, there was a later spike in opposes that ultimately tanked the whole thing. Had the duration of my RfA been shorter, it would have made an impact on the outcome, I think. APerson (talk!) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Very interesting idea. On the one hand, I would like to see more "part-time" participation in Wikipedia, and reducing the length of an RfA wouldn't be conductive to such a goal. But, reducing the discussion time would have some very big benefits - less stress for the nominee, and maybe less of a "big deal" for the process overall. I'd support looking into this more. It is worth noting that some places (such as meta for local bureaucrat permissions) have an initial short time of 48 hours, after which the request can be closed in absence of serious concerns. If there are serious concerns, then the request can go the full week to gain more input. This might be a good system to use here. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think I remember a proposal like this before and the reason to oppose it then and now is the same: Many editors don't check Wikipedia daily. Some, like me, have to work a lot and usually only manage to check it on the weekends. Others only check the page during the week and not check it at all on weekends. Shortening the RfA-period to any duration less than a week will always mean that those editors will be deprived of the chance to weigh in. As this is a community-driven progress, I'm advising against any changes that will exclude a significant part of the community from participating. APerson's RFA (mentioned above) imho a good example: Only 33% of the !votes were cast during the weekend with participation rising as the weekend ended and the week began. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know if a week is too long, but I'm sure 24-48 hours is too short. It would disenfranchise a segment of the community, and it would make it very difficult to do any sort of scrutiny or evaluation of the person. There are people who deliberately wait until day 5 or later before commenting, so as to benefit from everyone's research and comments - and as noted, sometimes an RfA can turn 180 degrees in the final days. Granted, that is stressful for the person. But what are we about here: coddling and sheltering candidates, or deciding who should be trusted with the power to delete articles and block people? Seems like handing a person that much power deserves at least as much consideration as an AfD or RM nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a week is the perfect length - however I would consider a non "voting" period of time at the beginning of the clock say 24 hours or so. — xaosflux Talk 02:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
    • There has been some discussion of a two-phase approach, with an initial vetting phase, and a subsequent analysis phase when people would offer their opinions on the suitability of the candidate. (Note this proposal is quite different than the format of the Ironholds request for adminship.) Recently there was also a discussion of a quiet period before voting. There wasn't a consensus reached on whether or not it would make a difference. Some suggested that discussion would just move elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 03:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
      • There have been lots of proposals to make RFA longer, most of them were rejected because, well, they'd make RFA longer and a bigger deal. We now are in the fourth month of a trial of a system that makes RFA longer by adding an optional pre RFA phase. Thus far we know its popular, we suspect it has caused a short term drop in actual RFAs, but some of us hope that it is merely delaying them a few months and will actually be a success. ϢereSpielChequers 08:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
        • On a side note, the essence of the two-phase proposal does not require making the process longer, though of course if once-a-week editors were to be accommodated for both phases, then the process would have to extend over a longer period. isaacl (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
          • If a once a week editor's once a week was during phase 1, they would be aware and could stop back by later if they were actually interested. — xaosflux Talk 12:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
            • Sure; this is why I stated that for this scenario to be accommodated, the process would have to be extended to longer than a week. If this accommodation were not made, it is possible for a two-phase process to still be limited to one week, and the initial post in the discussion to which I linked proposed keeping the process to one week. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Another good faith suggestion, but one that isn't going to go anywhere. All our debates last for at least 7 days, which gives weekend Wiki-workers an opportunity to chime in. Anything less would be disenfranchising our users.
The only single reason why RfA needs to be reformed in any way at all is the way RfA is used by editors as the one venue where they can be as silly and/or uncivil as possible with impunity. This is what is keeping candidates away. My mantra for years has been 'fix the voters and RfA will fix itself.' It's time people woke up to that and accepted it and I don't understand why the community refuses to meet the issue head on and constantly buries its head in the sand instead, and continually comes up with other reasons for the dearth in candidates and suggesting solutions for those invented causes.

The thing that makes fixing RFA so challenging is, yes, the community... The thing stopping us from fixing RFA is us ourselves. — Tofutwitch11, Trying to improve RfA|TB| 1 February 2011

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm confident you do know why the community has been unable to address this problem. Until the community's structural problems are addressed, and in particular its current version of consensus decision-making, trying to make major reforms to processes in which a lot of people are interested is very difficult. isaacl (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
  • One obvious reason for 7 days is, as many have said, to ensure weekend-only people get a chance, and I think it's important to widen the participation (which helps dilute the adverse effect of any destructive individuals, among other benefits). The other important reason is to give reviewers time to properly investigate the candidate's track record. I know a lot of people !vote in the early days (even in the early hours), and some of those will already know the candidate well. But many don't, and their !vote can only have been done after the most superficial degree of digging - and I've certainly seen RFAs tank later in the week when someone who did their investigations properly uncovered killer problems that the early participants overlooked. If we want proper scrutiny of candidates, I think a week is about the right length. (But thanks should go to the proposer for suggesting the idea.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I would support this. Adminship is supposed to be "not a big deal", but it very much isn't right now. Reducing the length to one or maybe two days would really help make it look like a less serious thing, which is what it was intended to be when it was created. KSFTC 19:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My main issue with this proposal is that in some cases, negative qualities or histories are uncovered midway through the game. 24 hours doesn't give much time for scrutiny, and investigations are pretty much necessary for determining whether or not certain people are ready for the tools. It's not a terrible idea, though. :) Johanna(talk to me!) 00:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Johanna is exactly right, which is why I oppose this proposal to limit RfA duration. APerson complained that their RfA was fine until "a later spike in opposes that ultimately tanked the whole thing" and they're right because I was one of those opposers that voted based on the arguments presented. Anyone that wants to limit RfA duration to make RfA "more civil" or "more successful" is really saying they want a bunch of unqualified candidates to breeze through without opposition because reasoned opposition keeps all our friends from getting the baubles they think they're entitled to. I differ with Johanna in that regard: this proposal is terrible and probably dishonest. Kudpung's dismissal of the voters he doesn't like unfairly paints fellow editors as Trump-ist brownshirts. RfA is political and if you don't like the voters then recognize the community isn't probably one that you should encourage to vote. I opposed Biblioworm's ill-thought proposal to advertise RfA's on watchlists but the community, thinking more votes would be better, disagreed. I guess those that have a problem with RfA need to just start witch-hunts against the editors they don't like. Purge those SPs from your Wikipedia and you'll be happier. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Dull

The word does not sound good, but that's how this page looks like. From a recent scanning of promotion history, there were no bureaucrats promoted since late 2014. There were no RfBs since 2015 and the bureaucrat numbers are on a decline. RfAs don't number as much as it used to before. This year, two RfAs running at the same time are extremely rare, but before, there could be three running at the same time. Is there something with active users, strict requirements and heavy tasks that makes less people attracted to running an RfA for themselves? 49.148.95.70 (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the most recent RFB was in very early 2014. Anyway, in answer to your question, from looking over the archives, I feel as if the standards for adminship have gotten a lot stricter. Many excellent candidates have failed recently because of things that aren't really important. For example, if a candidate had a lack of AFD participation, even if they haven't shown any interest in AFD and thus spending months working there would be a waste of their time, they would most likely be rejected by the community. Meanwhile, possible adminship hopefuls see these kinds of users failing, and feel discouraged to run themselves. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:34, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It's more tiring to request for separate permissions if one is planning to be an admin but think of not using one or two tools. 49.148.95.70 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It's dull, 49.148.95.70, brcause you and others keep repeating the same stuff and asking the same questions. It's dull because we're fed up with comments from block-evading IPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It is repetitive, I am aware of it. But I'm not evading a block. (Try CU.) I have read the longer discussions above, and looks like Biblio's comments on RfA reform has led the process to the wrong direction. Let's try forming another solution by looking into the first problems, instead of talking fruitlessly about a recurring solution-turned-problem. 49.148.95.70 (talk) 10:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
If the same questions keep coming up, why don't you or someone else who has been active in these discussions for years make a summary page and clearly link to it here? That might help focus discussion towards future solutions, rather than rehashing old ones. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
In contrast to the lack of administrators, nobody managed to demonstrate that we currently need more crats. I am sure if this need arises we will get candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This is especially true given the removal of renaming from the 'crat package. All they do these days is manage sysop and bot rights, so there really is no need for more than a few. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, as a Wikidata crat I have some understanding of the situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
When you click 'edit' on this page, thee's a big yellow banner... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I am ashamed of how few of those banners I actually read. Regardless, there is a search box and links to old RfCs, but it might be beneficial to have a page which more clearly lays out the history, rather than simply providing links and a box for people to find it out themselves. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the page banner should include what the topics are, not just the link to numbered archives. Could help if a discussion from the past is linked to a present discussion. Maybe the banner is also too big to be noticed (that's bigger than most banners). 49.148.85.251 (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Biblioworm's efforts at reform were commendable, even though I too have sometimes criticiced the way he went about it. We certainly need more of that kind of initiative because his proposals didn't directly address the core issue. The other problem is that the history of this talk page clearly shows (with one very rare exception with over 1,500 edits to this page) that those who yell and complain loudest, longest, and most frequently are often the ones who have the least insight to the issue we are faced with, or are too scared to run for RfA themselves, or who wouldn't stand a snowball's chance anyway if they did.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: What's the core issue then? That people can be dicks because they are anonymous on the internet? How would any initiative address that? Why is that same problem only present in some other RfX systems across Wikimedia, and why did it only develop here after 2007? I'm also not sure who you're addressing when you say that the people who yell and complain have the least insight into the issue - if it's me, I'd be more than willing to give a summary of my experience with wiki processes that grant sysop flags. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Ajraddatz, I'm fully aware of your experience with the wiki processes that grant sysop flags. as I am with everyoe else's and the number of times they have posted on this page and participated in RfCs for reform. I was very careful to say: '...are often the ones...'  :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be a good idea to survey (maybe through the Signpost) the editors who are unwilling to run for RfA for their reasons for avoiding RfA. Otherwise, it is all conjectures and the same question being asked about a dozen times each with different wording. Esquivalience t 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Exactly - and still missing the core issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
You still haven't answered User:Ajraddatz's question. What exactly is the core issue, in your opinion? Omni Flames let's talk about it 02:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Who's talking about opinions? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@Kudpung: What I mean is, you keep referring to the "core issue". I was wondering what you meant by that. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, why not spill the beans from your years-long study of the RfA process? Fill us in and end the suspense. Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
The questions come from not following the topics under discussion. The beans have been spilt and have been dripping all over every archive of this talk page for the last 6 years - in particular the parts that have not yet been been filed away ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
So, we need to go on a treasure hunt to find this elite wisdom? Why can't you just say what the core issue is. And if it is, like you say in an above discussion, related to how people behave on the internet - then why is this one process broken but so many others functional? See RfA on Meta, Commons, Wikidata, other en projects, dewiki for examples of civil and functional processes. Ajraddatz (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Requests for permissions on Meta is also done a lot better than here. No questions, and voting is very straightforward. Omni Flames let's talk about it 08:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As an aside, SRGP has always amazed me by its ability to both elect competent users to fill the various global volunteer roles and treat the applicants with some respect. I think the main reason for this is that there are clearly defined scopes of action for each of the permissions, as well as clear criteria for granting the rights listed on each policy page. For example, global sysop is for small-wiki countervandalism and maintenance, and the main criterion are trust, activity in counter-vandalism and maintenance on small wikis, and a general understanding of how to use the sysop tools before being granted them on 500 projects. Of course these criteria can be ignored in certain cases, but it makes it very easy for candidates to understand their chances of success, and results in few or no opposes based on intangible or unrelated factors. Nobody has ever opposed an RfGS due to lack of content contributions, or for too many content contributions, or for too many edits to the user talk space, or for not enough participation in global/local dramaboards, or for activity only in some areas of GS concern. Instead, comments are based on the specifics of the application to GS work. Opposes are usually based on lack of relevant experience, misuse of sysop tools elsewhere, etc. And despite the large scope of the role (sysop minus the community bits across 500 projects), we have only ever had to remove two of 65 current and former global sysops, and neither of those were due to actual abuse of the gs toolset, but rather issues of trust elsewhere on Wikimedia. This is why I think that defining criteria for adminship, maybe even broken down by specific areas that the candidate plans to be active in, might be helpful. But aside over, I'm still curious to hear what Kudpung has to say. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
The mantra that admins here are chosen based on the trust of the community argues against fixed criteria, since trust is inherently a squishy thing. Furthermore, defining criteria for specific admin tasks would be unworkable without either regular reelections or some kind of at-will reconfirmation process, since people do change their interests over time, but there has never been consensus to implement either mechanism and there is a general sense that they'd be time sinks and troll bait. One (theoretical) advantage of the current system is that the existing pool of admins can reallocate itself to respond to changing needs without the bureaucracy of getting a lot of people approved to start performing a new task.
This data is getting a little old, but we have so few RfAs that there's not so many missing :) Last spring and summer there were several very active discussions about RfA and I collected some statistics on the way the process has worked in the post-rollback-unbundling era, collected with brief comments here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I generally agree with that mantra, and I've come to the conclusion that confirmations for positions as insignificant as local admin on a project probably aren't worth doing, if it is indeed no big deal. You could be right with the specific criteria; if we are going to restrict admin activity to one area, then we might as well fully unbundle. Many of the sysop "skills" (i.e. pressing the buttons) are easily transferable with proper policy knowledge, so that isn't much of an issue. If it's possible to get some sort of general criteria for GS, which is sysop on 500 wikis as opposed to just this one, then it should be possible to get equally broad and sufficient criteria for local adminship here (recognizing, of course, the significant differences between the two roles). But those criteria might always be too broad to be useful. I think that trust to use the tools appropriately and involvement + knowledge of some admin-related activities would be a good starting point, as even that would weed out a lot of the stranger oppose reasons.
The data is interesting; thanks for linking that. The one part I have always found interesting is the relatively consistent ratios of successful to unsuccessful RfAs. The main difference now is that less people are requesting adminship, not that more people are failing as a proportion of the total applicants. However, unlike on some projects where there is a low bar for adminship but nobody wants to apply, here there is a potentially large body of contributors who have some need for the sysop bit but don't apply. The data is also slightly misleading on that point, in that the standards at RfA have measurably increased over the years. The failed RfAs of the past simply did not meet the previous standards, while many of the successful RfAs of 2008 would not pass under the 2016 paradigm. I'm curious to hear what conclusions you would draw on the subject -- have you already commented on them somewhere? Ajraddatz (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, 'trustworthy and knowledgeable about admin activities' more or less already are the de facto criteria; they're just too broad to provide meaningful guidance. No one, not even the candidate, is really harmed by the occasional trollish "I oppose because I think you smell" or idiosyncratic "I think admins should have experience managing a featured portal". IMO the most obvious recurring problem with voter rationales is that many of them are factually inaccurate and empirically false when applied to the current admin pool or any reasonable subset of it - "I think two years on Wikipedia/under 30k edits means you're still too inexperienced", "Your AfD votes only match the result 75% of the time and my criteria say a minimum of 80%", etc. But we've institutionalized the idea that an acceptable response to any challenge is "well, I'm entitled to my opinion" and "stop badgering me!" rather than a defense of the underlying hypothesis. Most of the people doing this are experienced editors and good-faith contributors who are not trolling or using RfA as an excuse to make personal attacks, are not clueless drive-by voters, and are not pursuing generalized anti-admin grudges; they're just wrong about what characteristics actually matter. And just like in a real-life election, the worst position to be in is the one where you have to argue about facts. (To be clear, I'm not necessarily judging the voters either: we've built a system where there is very little useful feedback about admin performance, and then we wonder why we're bad at identifying who would be a good admin.)
In terms of relevant prior discussion, I'm sure Kudpung will have linked to WP:RFA2011 already, though some of that material no longer describes the current situation. The last discussion I actively participated in was this Reflections on RfX brainstorming effort from August (see especially this thread), though the way it was archived makes the conversation hard to follow. That predates Biblio's RfCs, though. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
From my research, I tend to draw the conclusion that Most of the people doing this are experienced editors and good-faith contributors who are not trolling or using RfA as an excuse to make personal attacks, are not clueless drive-by voters, and are not pursuing generalized anti-admin grudges; ' comprise most of the editors who regularly vote and have been doing so for years, and that their criteria havre not altered in all hat time. However, those steadfast participants are, and always have been in the minority; most voters are drive-by, one-off visitors to the process and many of them really haven;t got a clue at all. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
And, of course, I think the bulk of voters (and I include myself here some times), do not actually investigate the candidate, they read other editors' supports and opposes and vote based on what other editors perceive as problems (or a lack of problems). This situation can work for or against the candidate. And, as long as any editor can participate in RfAs, and can base their vote on whatever criteria they choose, there is no way to get editors' to do their own independent evaluation of candidates. Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I admit I'm too lazy to dig up the diff, but it's in this archive, dated 8 June 2015:

Of the 10 RfAs than ran to completion in 2015:

  • Participants !voted in an average of 2.7 RfAs.
  • Just under half (46%) !voted in only one RfA.
  • The average edit count of the singleton voters is ~32,000. Most are identifiably experienced users.
  • Only 15 of the singleton voters currently have under 500 edits. Three of those are alternate or renamed accounts of experienced users.
You can't detect trolling, meanness, or poor research with 15 minutes and a regex, but I would say that the pattern of one-off drive-by participation, where a new collection of participants reset the standards every time, seems to have abated in recent experience.
There is no evidence that current RfAs are consistently dominated by one-off drive-by voters and there is no evidence that current one-off voters are systematically poorer judges. (Arguably, people who turn out to vote for one candidate they're familiar with but who pay little attention to the issues that fill the WT:RFA archives are in the best position to judge.) I'm not aware of any evidence that standards among the regular voters have been constant over time - I haven't looked at that question, but it'd be interesting to know how commonly-cited "minimal edit count" and "minimal tenure" numbers have varied over time. Clearly they have risen significantly over the life of the project. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Data always helps to ground a conversation, Opabinia regalis. This is useful information and is a good counterbalance to editors' experience and impressions obtained through that experience. Of course, we'll never know what criteria voters use OR if even those editors who post a required criteria for a Support, voted according to those statements. People are under no compulsion to be honest about their decision-making or even try to explain it at all. This is not about assuming good faith, it's the fact that decision-making is an internal process and it might not always be in sync with the rationale that one communicates. In other words, people are often inconsistent in what they say and what they do. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments

People are going crazy over the changes to the voting system at RfA. But there was one minor change in the RfA page template: the general comments was moved to the bottom. It was from above all votes. Was this part of the RfC change, was it community consensus, or was it an error in the template editor? They have been around in that position lately. I think they should go above all votes as they are better seen there. 49.148.4.159 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The concern with comments going above the numbered discussions was precisely that they were given undue prominence. –xenotalk 14:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It would seem to me that discussion should be given prominence over the votes. It is supposed to be a discussion first and not a vote at all, even if over the years reality has significantly deviated from that ideal. But then if my ideas about RfA were used it would be a very different thing. HighInBC 15:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, if your ideas got implemented it would solve all that ails RfA. If my ideas were implemented instead, it would solve all that ails RfA. :) No, seriously, nothing of significance will ever get implemented. RfA will remain the cesspool that it is. It has not been a consensus forming tool for a long, long, long time. The position of the discussion is really of little consequence. Today, people perusing the web do not read very much. Attention spans are very limited. When a potential voter is faced with reading several pages worth of comments, we can't reasonably expect they will read it all before forming an opinion. The discussions too often descend into debates between voters rather than debates about the candidates anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The position of the discussion is meaningless. As long as we let people oppose based on their gut, because of too many content contributions, or too few, it will always be a vote. It cannot be a consensus forming exercise as Wikipedia defines it unless we actually define agreed upon criteria. Imagine trying to judge consensus at AfD if people were allow to vote with their gut? If no policy based reasoning was expected? HighInBC 16:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • If we were to allow RfA opposition based only on policy, I would be electable. But, as is, since I'm not interested in playing sweetums with people who are being idiots, since I have no friends here and wish to make none, since I'm willing to call a spade a spade, I'm unelectable. RfA is really about popularity, and making sure you dot alllll your i's, cross alllll your t's and make like you're a happy little editing angel. Meanwhile, it does a very horrible job at predicting absolutely horrible administrators who should never have been one in the first place. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually since our admin policy says "Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another" and you don't seem to mind referring to fellow editors as "idiots" I don't think it would be difficult to come up with a policy based reason to oppose you. HighInBC 20:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • You will of course note that I said being idiots, not are idiots. Considerably different. Everyone has their bad days. I've never intentionally insulted someone here. There's been a couple of times that what I typed came off as an insult, and I retracted and apologized. But, I've never intentionally insulted anyone. As to being idiots; there is none among us who is perfect. We all are, from time to time, idiots. For my part, I've been insulted innumerable times. I used to keep track, years ago. Quite a number of administrators have insulted me quite directly, and even a few members of ArbCom have done so. One even threatened me. Result? Nothing. Just goes to show that administrators and, most especially, members of ArbCom can get away with violating those policies. But, us heathen scum editors? Make the tiniest infraction, and you can never pass RfA. Double standard. You are of course welcome to oppose me when my RfA goes live. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
What about the heathen scum who constantly scupper all attempts to make RfA a place that would attract more of the kind of candidate you might accept. Bit ironic isn't it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
There was a minor discussion that took place about moving it to the bottom. They decided to try it out and it seemed to attract more discussion than it did at the top. That's how I recall it. I know about this because someone asked me if that change would break the bot.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Exactly :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Good grief, I've never been so offended. Anyway, whilst I cry uncontrollably into my comfort blanket whilst watching old family stills on Betamax through bleary, bloodshot eyes, maybe you'd care to join this discussion, opened by HighinBC, who opposes such incivility against groups of people. Then again, maybe it's one rule for the admins and another for everyone else. CassiantoTalk 23:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
'"You cannot personally attack a group of anonymous people.' That about sums it up. There might be an argument for not making blanket attacks at clearly defined groups such as, for example User:<redacted> is or was, constantly wont to make against admins, but referring to some non-identified editors (who in fact could be clearly identified) as the anti-admin brigade for example, would hardly be a PA - even if some self-identify as belonging to such an abstract group, and if they do feel offended, well, if the cap fits... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)specially
I AGF when I say I find your above comment a little difficult to read, perhaps owing to the odd typo here and there. Are you saying that you agree that you cannot PA anonymous individuals, unless they belong to a specific group? Even though that group, who may comprise over a few thousand people, of which the large majority are, on the whole, very good, are let down by a small group of incompetents? I would consider any negative comment against that small proportion to be fair game and not a PA, as the group is so large that it would not be possible, without further elaboration, to identify who it was the PA was directed at. If, of course, that elaboration was to occur then I feel it would then be up to the targeted individual to take the offence and report it and not for the likes of the aforementioned HighinBC and his friends to take offence on their behalf. CassiantoTalk 01:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry Cassianto but I really don't see any typos in my comment above. To me it looks like my plain, clear, 1940s English should even be understandable to people from Essex. That said, I'll AGF and assume that we are in factc oncurring with each other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I refer to the line: "...constantly wont to make against admins". I know we're supposed to be a thick lot out here in Essex, but even the intelligent ones among us would struggle with this line. I just couldn't work it out, sorry But that aside, yes, I got the gist of what you were saying and I agree with you. CassiantoTalk 09:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
For those who are confused, (I think) wont isn't a typo of won't, it is a word that means something like accustomed, see wikt:wont. —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I never! Thanks for that; Kudpung, please accept my apologies. CassiantoTalk 08:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

RFC: when is striking !votes in RFAs OK?

Closing this, since we have pretty clear consensus on this issue in the above section. We should get a proper closure there, not start a second discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In light of the considerable amount of interest in the discussion I started earlier on this page about striking RFA votes, I think an RFC is warranted to get some clarity on whether it is OK to strike other editors' !votes in RFAs, and if so, when it is and isn't OK to do so. Everymorning (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Is this really necessary? The discussion above was more or less an RfC without the official label; I doubt you're going to get anything different. That said, my opinion is: let the bureaucrats deal with it (unless it's a banned user or BLP violation). ansh666 21:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't really see this as necessary either. We had the clerking rfc as part of WP:RFA2015 not even six months ago on basically this same question, and we had the one above which got pretty good turn out. To this question, I'd just say see above Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 21:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I also think the community spoke very strongly that it wants only bureaucrats to clerk RfA (and I see that as clerking), and if anyone else wants to play, the application form's on the flip side of this page.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Suggest closing this RfC and rather archiving the above discussion with a summary of recommended guidance. Everymorning, your RfC would take the community through a repeated round of the same discussions and more drama. You might consider closing this Rfc and rather have a neutral established editor close the significant discussions above with a summary that the community may be encouraged to follow. Xender Lourdes (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2016

Patanjal007 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I want to be an adminPatanjal007 (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This does not require an edit to a protected page. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

RFA

I want to be an adminPatanjal007 (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Since your account is 24 minutes old and you've already misused a template on this page, I'd say that you are probably not ready to be an administrator. If you like, please read WP:TOONEW. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Wonderful! We welcome new editors and those who wish to contribute positively to the project. However, being an administrator requires a lot of arcane policy knowledge, the ability to work with a wide range of personalities and communication styles, and a demonstrated commitment to the goals of Wikipedia. With only 2 edits (this request), the community has absolutely no way to judge your qualifications and commitment. In general, you will need at least 1.5 years of high-quality editing involving many thousands of edits before the community is able to discern this. Please take a look at the welcome message I am leaving on your talk page, take a look at the links that show how this wonderful community works, and start editing the areas that interest you. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Research-based RFA reform proposal from a 2013 ACM conference

I found this to be the most fascinating research on Wikipedia I've read in years:

-- Das, Sanmay; Lavoie, Allen; Magdon-Ismail, Malik (October 27, 2013). "Manipulation among the arbiters of collective intelligence: how Wikipedia administrators mold public opinion" (PDF). Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. (CIKM 2013). Burlingame, California: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 1097–1106. doi:10.1145/2505515.2505566.

I would like to propose such reform, but am not familiar enough with the details of the RFA process to formulate a policy edit. Would someone else like to try that to make it a real proposal? EllenCT (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

See 2013 Signpost article. I'm not convinced there's a problem here as (1) it's natural that editors seriously considering going through the RFA process will think carefully before editing in controversial areas of wp and (2) we need such editors to moderate controversial areas. Editing in a controversial area is not the same thing as making controversial edits. DexDor (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to that. It seems that the papers' authors want to weight less influential voters (voters who have tried to vote on fewer RFAs) less heavily than more experienced voters, but the Signpost reviewer User:Piotrus wrote that they, "suggest that a relatively simple fix may be helpful - simply increasing the threshold of success votes required for a successful RfA." Those are two very different proposals. The former seems obvious to me in hindsight, but I don't think the latter would solve the problem as measured at all. Do you think the reviewer understood the preferred recommendation? EllenCT (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Trying to come up with a scheme for voter-weighting at RfA that is acceptable to Wikipedians would be a huge time-sink (and probably unsuccesful and open to gaming). The paper says "These just-above-threshold administrators are more likely to change their behavior significantly in the direction of pursuing more controversial topics." which could be read as recommending increasing the threshold of success votes. DexDor (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
There are already some provisions for striking the !votes of new accounts, aren't there? That is the threshold which could be better if it were higher. Is there a way to automate making a list of N administrators who wouldn't have made it by the widest margins if people who hadn't already voted at least M times weren't counted, in an NxM matrix, so those interested could see what they have been up to? Then people could vote on the median best M with M=0 being the status quo. EllenCT (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
If I understood the paper correctly, the weighting was not solely based on number of previous votes, but based on how often a voter's choice corresponded with the outcome, relative to the average voter. It's a interesting notion but I think weighting votes in this way has a large potential for unforeseen consequences. isaacl (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Easily manipulated, another massive waste of time. If above post is correct editors will swing their votes to match the direction of RfAs to develop a profile that gives their future !votes more weight. Another idea that stands zero chance, deservedly. Leaky Caldron 16:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
As this would shift the average agreement percentage upwards, it wouldn't necessary produce the result that these editors desire. Nonetheless this proposal would encourage people to flip their votes to match the current result in order to keep their weighting at average levels, which I'm not clear is a good thing. isaacl (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
I admit I haven't read the paper closely, but it gives off "statistical fishing expedition" vibes. Members of the community have done a lot of looking at RfA results and have never come up with a correlation between support percentage and any aspect of future admin performance. The researchers fail to close the loop on their argument and indicate what actual problems this subset of admins working in controversial areas might cause to warrant revising the voting process. The recommended voter weighting is exactly the opposite of my intuition - if I were going the weighted-votes route, I'd rather see infrequent voters who participate in RfAs because they are familiar with a particular candidate given higher implied weight than the people with "my RfA criteria" subpages. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The paper agrees: as quoted above, "Neither prior history nor vote counts during an administrator’s election can identify those editors most likely to change their behavior in this suspicious manner." To paraphrase its conclusion a bit, it says there are some people who are good at determining who is suitable for adminship privileges, and their votes have a correlation with detecting potential problematic candidates. (I appreciate everyone thinks they're one of those; please refrain from staking your claim as a supertaster in this thread. :-) isaacl (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
That's not quite the same claim, though; the paper is saying some admins change their editing behavior after passing RfA, not that they take problematic admin actions. So if you reweight votes based on how well voters "predict" the outcome, you can identify and filter out candidates the process wasn't trying to identify or filter in the first place...? They never get around to telling us whether these admins are more likely to get blocked/get dragged to ANI/be named in arbcom cases/get desysopped/etc. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for being overly concise; I meant to say the paper makes a statement that is a particular subset of your more general statement: it does not find a correlation between the vote count and a specific admin behaviour, namely, a particular pattern of editing. I make no comment on whether or not the behaviour in question is problematic or not (and your statement did not limit the possible aspects of admin performance to problematic ones). isaacl (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I'm sitting here wondering why administrators giving focus to controversial areas has been defined as a problem. One would hope that admins continue to develop confidence as they grow, and are perhaps more willing to venture into difficult topic areas. Risker (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
The paper does acknowledge that ("one of the major roles of an administrator is conflict resolution, and it is needless to say that conflicts will arise disproportionately in contentious topics." in Section 2.1), but my understanding of statistics isn't good enough to understand whether the CC-Score is significant (especially given the limited number of successful RfAs to analyse). DexDor (talk) 05:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@Risker: No, the paper didn't define it generally as a problem. They made a more nuanced observation, specifically that while it is quite understandable that Admins would be spending more time in controversial areas simply because those areas require admin involvement, there was a possibility that editors interested in shaping the content of specific subjects might attempt to become an admin to have more ability to shape the content. Without additional evidence, it would be hard to distinguish admin A emphasizing subject X from admin B also emphasizing subject X. They came up with a metric which they felt did distinguish the two at least in a probabilistic sense. Admins with a higher CC-score are more likely to be "sleeper SPA" accounts (my term, not theirs) attempting to gain adminship to push their POV. They even recognize that one cannot simply use the cc score to reject an RFA; instead they propose a modified weighting approach which might help reduce the chance that such a candidate would be successful. As I noted on Jimbos page, I think this would be a bad idea to try to implement even if we think the math holds.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Since the RfA process actively punishes candidates who have edited in controversial areas and actively rewards those who make large volumes of anodyne edits, an alternate hypothesis is simply that candidates are playing it safe in their topic choices in preparation for RfA. They then feel freer to edit controversial topics after they've run the gauntlet successfully. This hypothesis isn't as viscerally satisfying as the authors' vision of manipulative power-seekers, but it seems equally if not more plausible a priori. MastCell Talk 19:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to be a bureaucrat and admin

User:Pedec3074 is going to be a bureaucrat and admin on User Rights Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.80.211 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he is, maybe by 2021 he will if he plays his cards right. See also WP:OWB point 22. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
If no one notices and he doesn't get banned for block evasion first. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No. — Esquivalience (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

How badly are more admins needed?

If the project urgently needs more admins, I might be a fairly good candidate. I've been a contributor here for almost ten years, & an admin on Wikitravel or Wikivoyage for at least five. On WV, I'm one of the most active players with tens of thousands of edits, including at least one star-rated article (voy:retiring abroad) that is almost entirely my writing.

On the other hand, I have fewer than 1000 edits here, am much more active on WV than WP, and do not know all the WP policies. So if there's no urgent need, it would not be worthwhile either for someone to nominate me or for me to take the time to learn more about policies.

Input, please. Pashley (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Pashley I would heartily recommend you dive into WP:AFD discussions. It's one of the best way to learn policies that are vital to RFA, and your lack of that would certainly weigh on your nomination. Also, there is no content creation listed for you. So, that would be helpful if you'd start adding content to the encyclopedia. — Maile (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Hi Pashley. This talk page is for discussing RfA related issues. It is not the venue for potential candidates to request feedback ; we have excellent advice pages for candidates that allow them to do a self evaluation, such as WP:RFAADVICE and after that we we a proper venue for for getting some basic peer comments without it being a mini-RfA, at WP:ORCP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but I am not asking for advice on my potential candidacy. I already knew some channels for that & the comments point out more; I'll deal with those issues later if necessary.

I am only asking what the section title says: How badly are more admins needed? If there's an urgent need, I'd be willing to pitch in, but I neither think I'm a particularly good candidate nor particularly want the job, so I'd like an answer to that question. Pashley (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pashley: Pretty strongly in my opinion - backlogs should be streamlined and more quickly, WP:AIV reports should go through faster. All in all, more admins would help us build an encyclopedia better. Unfortunately RfA's standards have been very high for quite some time now which is discouraging candidates from coming forward. From the perspective of a non-admin people forget that adminship appears pretty tedious due to all of the routine chores you have to do - yet people still forget that adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. Does anyone with the mop have anything to add?
Just to be totally clear though - many regular Wikipedians get failed RfAs regarding concerns over experience. There is no consensus admins are urgently needed, so you may want to become more of a regular Wikipedian and settle down as you would before trying an RfA - your experience on WikiVoyage would certainly be useful. -NottNott|talk 15:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll give you my experience. CAT:UNBLOCK is always backlogged, but each case, even simple renames, require compiling an effective bit of communication. WP:RPP is usually up-to date, so is WP:AIV thanks to bots. WP:AN3 is another one where cases tend to be very simple (obvious block is obvious) or very complicated, requiring a good understanding of the dispute. CAT:CSD is always backlogged, and recently I've found myself looking at more unaddressed speedies. WP:AFD usually has about 8-10 really grizzly closures to deal with. Never go anywhere near WP:SPI so I don't know about that. WP:ANI is handled more often by non-admins anyway. I think it's more a question of not having admins doing maintenance in the right areas, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

As fewer and fewer admins address the same number of situations several negative things happen:

  • It becomes much harder to find an admin truly not involved in a situation or a long term problematic editor
  • Those who seek to view conspiracies everywhere tend to see them more often because it is the same admins handling things over the years
  • Admins are subject to more stress than needed
  • Very difficult areas that have driven off admins may not get replacement admins willing to go through such a difficult situation quickly enough

I am sure there are more negative results of not enough admins but that are the ones that come to the top of my head. Many hands make for light work. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 15:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

We also have a constant attrition of previously approved admins. There is some stress inherent to the position. bd2412 T 15:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A lot of admins mention the job is stressful and unpleasant. Here's Dennis Brown warning an admin hopeful that life is not a bed of roses when you have the tools. [1] However, it's not all bad - sometimes you can restore a deleted article to draft, where it's then improved or accepted, or protect a particularly prickly dispute, and you do get thanks for that. We all hear about the "abuse adminz" drama at ANI, but the innocuous stuff at CSD and AfD tends not to pick up so much attention. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You must be deleting different things to me. This kind of thing seems to be wearily common in my experience. ‑ Iridescent 16:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I get those alright, I just defuse the situation and it kind of goes away of its own accord. The only one that didn't was Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP, and that's now ably handled by a bunch of other people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Users here may wish to review WP:Bot requests#Daily record of admin backlogs and/or User:EsquivalienceBot/Backlog. With the limited implementation there of only 5 "watched" pages, there is a continuing backlog at CSD, and it looks like UAA carries a substantial backlog regularly. @Esquivalience, Hammersoft, WereSpielChequers, Nihonjoe, and Ricky81682 --Izno (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A slightly different view point: we need more editors in general. The admin backlogs are big, yes, but some of the other backlogs are huge: have a look at Category:Articles with dead external links, or the usually very easy to fix Category:Biography articles without listas parameter with 4,536 pages, or the (imo) fairly important Category:Requested edits, which has 145 pages as of writing. Yes, more admins would be good, but that would come as a consequence of more participation generally. —  crh 23  (Talk) 16:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  • For many years there have been and will always be administrator backlogs. One of the chief reasons for this is that WP:NOBIGDEAL is laughably obsolete (and honestly should be marked historical). Being an administrator now absolutely is a big deal. There are plenty of people here who absolutely can be trusted with the tools to do the right thing, and if in doubt to get input from others. But, they can't be elected because they are not well liked, haven't crossed certain t's and dotted i's. The standards people have for passing RfA are absurdly high, and the endless list of things you're supposed to be able to show make it virtually impossible unless you are saintly clean. I'm a case example of this. Despite being around here for years, despite being right on admin sorts of things ~97.8% of the time, despite having north of 50k edits, despite never having done anything to intentionally harm the project in any way, I'm unelectable. I am not well liked, and that's what doesn't make it to people's standards lists. Nobody has ever offered to nominate me, nor even suggested I be an administrator. As long as the project would find it impossible to trust someone with half my experience and proven track record of not harming the project, we will forever be doomed to having administrator backlogs. As long as people have outrageous lists of demands that people have to pass in order to be an administrator, we will forever be short administrators.
  • I've opined before about the decline of the project. What was true 1.5 years ago remains true now. Anecdotal, but my own experience shows that undetected vandalism is increasingly becoming the norm. You want to talk about backlogs? Try this backlog; 6 year backlog!. We are way behind the curve of where we need to be both in editors and administrators. The project has become far too large to maintain for the remaining 'staff' of good faith editors and administrators. Worse, our remaining staff of active administrators, which had been bouncing along at around 585-600 admins for quite a while, has recently seen a steady decline. We're now at record lows of administrators over the last ten years, and since the decline began again we've lost 7% of our active admin corps. Our ratio of active admins to articles is approaching 1:10,000. That should be alarming to anyone.
  • But, honestly, freeing up RfA won't solve the problem. The decline will continue. The only thing that an increased admin pool would do is to (a) delay the inevitable and (b) reduce disruption to the project while the decline is happening. What really needs to happen is a fundamental shift in how Wikipedia puts together quality content and then protects it into the indefinite future. We've long, long since surpassed the overt creation phase. Now we need to go into a curation stage, something at which we are woefully inadequate. The model we've been operating under is rather dramatically failing. The sad thing is, the Foundation has proven themselves incapable of realizing the circumstances we are in, and instead believe our path forward is increasing participation. This is provably the wrong course. Yet, stay the course they are. The recent upheaval at the top levels of the Foundation does not bode well. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
    • In light with all the comments above, the problem is the massive increase in overt and covert hostility to admin actions as a way to get petty victories. There's a severe backlog in regards to old unedited drafts going back over eleven years for which any attempt to address them result in supreme hostility, either by the creators of absolute junk or by people who defend to the death the right to keep those around because it's their way of "protecting" the editors from "admin abuse". We're talking about roughly 40k-50k pages for which the only avenues left in terms of curating is MFD deletion (all other mechanisms, CSD or PROD-types are expressly rejected based on a complete lack of trust in the admins) and for which the response is overly technical procedural fights on admin judgment about relisting those discussions and overtly personal attacks so as to obtain victory and control over various discussion areas. That is another reason admins are avoiding like the plague various discussions and why backlogs are increasing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship and Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies in 2015/2016 make me concerned, mostly because the project is definitely still growing, and the load on mop-holders is increasing in my own opinion. Many of the oppose !votes in the current RfA are from very established users who've been here 8+ years who never sought adminship, and who think 2012/2013 is recent in their perspective. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
  • There is a severe shortage of admins. On the other hand, there is a surplus of potential admins. It's just a matter of letting the potential admins become actual admins. ~ RobTalk 04:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The fact that although recent candidates have expressed interest in areas cited as backlogged, and we still have backlogs, says to me that electing more admins for the purpose of clearing backlogs may not be an effective strategy.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
That's because clearing some backlogs looks to be a seriously unappealing proposition to both new and veteran Admins alike, and they'll never be cleared because doing so is soul-killing drudgery. These are exactly the areas that need to be looked at to see if they can be automated by "bot". WP:CCI may be the "A1 Exhibit" on this front – it gather it's simply too massive a problem now and too mind-numbing to be tackle, but I have no idea if it could be "bot automated". From what I gather, working with Files is another backlogged area which no one really seems to want to deal with. These are the kinds of things that seriously needed to shifted off volunteer Admins' plates and onto to "bot" drones... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Really frustrating to see all that screaming at ANRFC over the FFD backlog when most discussions had (and still have) zero comments at all. I've currently having an argument over whether the RFC "backlog" can be cut by just making a simple requirement that "you can't add it until you comment there" which would shave about 20 discussions a day from being added to that "backlog" by one user who's personal opinion is that all RFCs, not matter how settled, require an admin to add an archive top and archive bottom to them. CFD and TFD are "admin backlogs" when admins aren't even required there. Of course, meanwhile, RFA will reject you if all you do is the actual admin work so we have an admin corps elected on their willingness to create content and then wondering why they don't want to do the stuff they never had any interest in. I've noticed that a lot of mundane work is by admins from at least 2012 or earlier. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ricky81682: TfD and CfD aren't backlogs at all. Currently, TfD has three old discussions open and CfD has 21. How? Because I got in there and did the damn work. That's what it takes. Yes, it's mind-numbing, but someone's got to do it. TfD took me around a week to clear when it went back 3-4 weeks. CfD took me two weeks to clear from over 200 discussions to where it is now. Those couple weeks included the time to learn the policies/guidelines relating to categorization, which I previously knew nothing about. Once you clear a backlog, it's quite enjoyable to maintain it at a reasonable level in the long-run. We badly need energetic editors to dive into backlogs and punch at them until they're gone. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing requirements at RfA ensure that editors have nearly completed their wiki-life by the time they're eligible. Editors get burned out over time. Will I be here in 5 years? No idea, but I'm sure I won't be going at a pace of 10k edits per month (40k, if you count my bot). By the time an editor is fairly sure they can transclude an RfA without being eaten alive, we've got late-career Tunney Hunsaker on our hands. We want early-career Hunsaker. ~ RobTalk 06:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: I think people are fearful (why I don't know; almost everything an admin does can readily be undone) of getting a Hudsucker instead of a Hunsaker.
  • @Ricky81682: Careful there. I just created my first ever article from scratch here. I just know I'm up to no good and can't be trusted with the tools. I'm confident I'd screw something up until I had 20 (oh wait, standards have gone up again) 200 featured articles in my portfolio.
  • I think the bottom line here is that RfA, as a subset of Wikipedia, is by nature an out of control process. Such an out of control process will, by nature, increase in complexity and difficulty. The only way out of our quagmire is wholesale replacement by someone or something that has that authority to do so and make it stick. There's an absolutely enormous bureaucracy here, and an entrenched culture that will not accept change. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Report card

I don't know how to say it, but I've been considering a nomination for myself. Given that many nominations fail, I would like to know if there's a site (similar to the editcount sites) that can survey your edit history and give an assessment as to whether you're or not you're ready. If you're looking for numbers, I have over 2000 edits and started just over 2 years ago. Although it's true you can try the RFA as many times as you wish, it pays to get it right the first time. I don't like waisting editor's time with a nom that will clearly fail. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@VegasCasinoKid: We have a page just for that -> WP:ORCP. Omni Flames let's talk about it 10:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. In fact, I see a recently successful candidate on the page, so this should really give me a good assessment. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If you look closer, you will also find evidence of the opposite. Muffled Pocketed 09:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Done

This process has reached the point of hopelessness. Standards continue to balloon cancerously (a few months → 1 year → 2+ years; a few thousand edits → ~10,000 edits → 10,000+ edits). Some editors all the more stubbornly insist upon the utmost inflexibility; they will stop at nothing to viciously defend the right to cast drive-by oppose votes that insist on almost 100% perfection or are completely based upon whimsical, arbitrary stats that have zero connection to policy and the candidate's actual edit history. Imagine if we allowed that for delete votes at AfD! The level of support required to even consider passing an RfA is the same as the level of support required to pass constitutional amendments through Congress. All this is despite the complete lack of any evidence showing a correlation between sky-high demands and good admins. Press those people (it's easy to see who they are), and they will never give real evidence to you, because it simply does not exist. But unfortunately, editors of that sort are too entrenched and determined for the process to be changed at this point. I have concluded that this process will never be changed until it passes so few admins that it reaches the point of unsustainability. Maybe people should just stop filing candidacies to show their dissatisfaction with the process.

I can only hope that someday people will realize that they're taking adminship and Wikipedia in general far, far too seriously and start treating this position like it should be treated: as a volunteer position on a volunteer website—a few extra links and buttons for net positive editors. For those who want to continue propping up and defending this hopeless trainwreck of a process, it's unfortunate that you have chosen to waste your time, but I choose to no longer have any part in this. I have just posted this last message to sum up how things are at this point. Some of those here might see me as a good riddance, but I frankly don't care about that; apart from casting votes occasionally, I simply wanted to say that I'm done with RfA—permanently. Biblio (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • It's ok. At the rate we're going, in a couple of years we won't use RfA anymore. We'll be able to mark it as an unused, historical process. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Hammersoft: And then how do you think we'll be getting new admins? Omni Flames (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Because "consensus" will never fix RfA (just make it worse and worse over time), I expect at some point the WMF will have to step in and "force" a new process (which, to my preference, would be unbundling). If they don't, the result will be the "crash and burn" of En Wikipedia, which is supposed to be their "flagship" project – I can't imagine them letting it go under, though it's certainly possible that I'm wrong and they don't care. But this community has shown for more then 5 years that it's incapable of fixing this problem, and the slow rate of unbundling isn't happening fast enough to make up for it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
A wise decision. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • RfA has been dying a very slow and painful death for the past 7-8 years now. Some people still say that the process "works" - if that's the case, then why is the promotion rate so low? We're about halfway through 2016, and somehow we've managed to promote a staggering total of six administrators. At this time last year, we'd granted nine editors adminship throughout the preceding six months, and we were in the process of promoting a tenth. The year before that? Fourteen by mid-June. 2013? Exactly twenty, about to get #21. 2013 was a modest step up from 2012, which saw 28 people promoted overall from January all the way through to December. Year after year, from my earliest involvement in project space, I have felt dismayed by the diminishing success rate at RfA; nowadays, it seems almost comical to consider 75 promotions an alarmingly low number like it once was. It would not surprise me if, at some point within the next few years, Wikipedia appoints less than ten administrators annually on average. There is no way we'll be able to manage with such a small contingent of editors handling a vast array of different maintenance tasks.

    As I see it, RfA's downward spiral is best attributed to a vicious cycle. It happens quite often: an editor submits an RfA, they get opposed for very trivial reasons (most of which are unsubstantiated), and they wind up in a position where adminship is less feasible than they had hoped. Either it's withdrawn early, or it's brought to the end with an unclear consensus. This has a chilling effect on those who would like to volunteer as administrators; many of them are hesitant to go through a week of heavy scrutiny just to acquire a few extra buttons. And because we have a clear preference toward well-rounded applicants, people whose talents lie outside of article writing have a much harder time convincing participants of their value to Wikipedia. Therefore, very few editors have the courage to even apply. The low promotion rate at RfA is a result of having an altogether low application rate. Why even bother asking when you know the answer will almost certainly be no?

    We've spent hours upon hours discussing solutions to this broken process (and yes, it is now officially "broken" - that ancient buzzword is more applicable today than ever). Nothing has worked, and the problem just keeps getting worse and worse. We have had a net decrease in active administrators for several years. This is unsustainable, and I'm starting to think that there's nothing we can do about it. Kurtis (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • An obvious point, and one that I think has some truth, is that anybody who could be a great administrator doesn't want to be an administrator. I had to be browbeaten into it by about 5 admins because I wasn't fussed about having the tools one way or another, and while my RfA went relatively smoothly, that might have simply been by good chance. I don't think I've ever given an oppose vote at RfA that hasn't been constructive, and always with the caveat that there are things the candidate can do to change my mind; indeed I am pleased that my oppose was not on the list of those picked apart at Anarchyte, who to be brutally honest could be in a position for me to support in about 10 weeks if they did the right things just to prove they're the right fit for the job. Frivolous and trivial opposes tend to get pounced on and often result in a bunch of support votes as a counter-reaction. Of course, a key problem, and indeed one that attracts opposition, is once an admin gets the tools it is very hard to take them away from them, or at least not without a lot of drama, and people will continue to be conservative while that remains the case. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    See, this is part of the problem, though: you know that it's likely that Anarchyte could make a very good admin, yet for want of "about 10 weeks", you opposed. He likely won't run again, and if he does, it won't be in 10 weeks. For want of 2.5 more months, you chose to oppose a qualified candidate. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

New RFA reform proposals

There is a discussion going on here about yet another possible RFA reform. KSFTC 23:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

What's the deal with content creation?

After hanging around here for a while, I've noticed that one of the major criteria that people judge RfA candidates against is their degree of content creation: FAs, GAs, DYKs, etc. Surely this is almost the opposite of the editing experience that adminship would call for? Content creation isn't an administrative task, why do administrators need to be good at it? I understand why we're here, but one does not need to be a content creator to help build the encyclopedia - surely gnomish tasks and good contributions to RfCs, AfDs, etc. are all making a difference? Can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the content creation criteria? —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I create content. I can understand content disputes fairly well because of experience of editing. Afds, CSDs, vandalism, pending changes, Rfpp, all deal with the knowledge to distinguish acceptable/unacceptable content as per our policies and guidelines. Content creation plays a significant role in improving the knowledge of the editor to distinguish this. Xender Lourdes (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
But surely we can distinguish skill in these areas by the editor's work in these areas: work in those places isn't restricted to admins, they generally just strike the final blow. I get that it can be a good proxy for understanding of good content, but I can't see someone who only creates content having a successful RfA: those sorts of things are requirements anyway. —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Gnoming is tediously easy for much of the time but content creation is an entirely different ball-game. I don't think the emphasis at RfA is on FAs, GAs etc, although that is a bonus, but rather on creation in some form or another. Unless you have done a reasonable amount of creation, you're unlikely to appreciate the problems that arise and thus the chances of you empathising with creators (who are, after all, the key to an encyclopaedia) may be slim. - Sitush (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd refute that point: I don't think one has to be able to participate in content to appreciate it: editors can make insightful comments in AfDs, RfCs and in disputes without having created the content themselves. —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you need to read what I said more closely. I didn't say it was a binary situation. - Sitush (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I read it that you say that someone who does not create content is unlikely to be able to empathise with those who do, I disagree with that point: I'd say that it could have an effect, but the effect is not sufficient to have substantial content creation be a requirement. —  crh 23  (Talk) 10:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, yes, I said "unlikely", which means it could be ok sometimes. But you're probably not in a great position to judge the extent of empathy, at least if article creation is anything to go by. You've got to go there to experience it. - Sitush (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I put all my thoughts in User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content as this question comes up time and time again - pop over there and have a read. Please note that I explicitly say there I am not even looking for GAs; indeed I might argue that getting Texas Recreational Road 2 to GA has far less weight than doing the same for Nick Griffin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Gnomish activity tends to be drudgery – monotonous, obsessive, rule-based and semi-automated. Content creation enables a candidate to demonstrate other qualities such as communication, constructive creativity and their ability to handle challenge and conflict, when the content is subject to review. Some admin tasks are drudgery too but the scope of the role is quite wide and tasks are usually self-assigned. In particular, admins often choose to close discussions or determine consensus in other ways and so it seems important that they have a good understanding of all our work, not just the rote tasks. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with these points, but I think one can gain an understanding of what good content looks like without creating large amounts themselves. This quality can be demonstrated in an RfA through channels other than content creation itself. —  crh 23  (Talk) 11:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but sometimes you will get RFAs like the most recent one. A candidate who quite a few were uncomfortable of because of CSD tagging errors. If the CSD tagging had been more accurate then there might still have been some opposes over the other issues raised, but the figures would likely have been at least in the 65-75% discretionary zone or even higher. There were also some opposes who cited the fifteen months experience as insufficient - that's a rare oppose, the candidate would likely have passed by a huge margin if that had been the only concern, but these things are cumulative. If the only concern had been content then I'm pretty sure that candidate would have passed. ϢereSpielChequers 16:41, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
You raise a good point actually, I could be overestimating the degree to which people expect content creation. Since oppose votes are usually the more detailed (and more interesting) in RfAs, it is easy to give them more consensus than deserved. I still wouldn't support a candidate who had done absolutely no content work, so I guess I somewhat contradict myself there. My perception of the expected level of content is probably higher than the actual expectation. —  crh 23  (Talk) 17:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Community expectations haven't changed much since I was an active nominator. You won't pass unless you can show some examples where you have added reliably sourced content, and the more things where you only meet minimum standards the lower your support percentage. But it is possible to pass RFA with contributions that do little more than demonstrate you can add reliably sourced content. ϢereSpielChequers 19:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition to Andrews points, if what is meant by content creation is serious editing of articles, there is no substitute for actually doing it. Deletion is ultimately an editing act (it is editing out). Determining organization is ultimately an editing task (it is giving form and coherence). Blocking is an act upon editors by judging their edits. Writing, communicating, determining, and acting within consensus and policy is the sin qua non of editing articles, and also the central calling of admins. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is like expecting an accountant to be an expert in engines at a car factory. They should have a clear understanding of what is done at the company but there is no need for them to be an expert.

Any admin who blocks a user based on their article contributions is engaging in a content dispute with their tools and not long to be an admin, we block editors based on their behaviour or based on a consensus of other editors. Same for deletion, other than CSD which is very clear cut we don't get to decide if an article should be deleted, rather it is our job to judge the community's consensus in the matter.

When an admin acts as an editor they need to not act as an admin in that area. I think this fundamental misunderstanding about admins in regards to content is a big part of this unreasonable expectation. The position is not a big deal, it is button pushing. It is not a content position and any admin who makes it one is getting ready for an arbcom case. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 13:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It is your argument that demonstrates a misunderstanding of the "fundamentals", or perhaps a misunderstanding of what people are saying. Accountants are concerned with cost not with doing. What is "action" on Wikipedia by editors? It is always writing or changing writing. It's silly and unreal to claim editors are not blocked for what they do to articles, and for what they write, and what they remove (ie., edit). CSD is deletion, and other deletion is not just bending to a local consensus - it's actually extensive application in the policies and who better than someone has actually faced that exact policy question in real time repeatedly by writing the article. Sure, all have to distinguish between the administration and the content, but editors do that all the time, in real actual experience. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the forest is obscuring the trees regarding this question. Rather than debating the finer points in search of the technically best answer, the answer should remain grounded upon the fact that this is a well known, well established "RFA norm"; an area of evaluation that every RFA candidate can expect to be scrutinized in. While no candidate is a "shoe-in" to succeed at RFA, candidates whose editing history does not demonstrate an appreciative understanding of content creation, by RFA standards, definitely has one shoe out of line with success from the very start, and that makes no sense at all!--John Cline (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, sure. If, as it appears, the question is, 'why is it relevant?' Than all you can say is why but really it won't matter, as long as a sizable group sees it as relevant, and that group is not going away. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I concur with Sitush. If you haven't been in the trenches of content creation, which is also to an extent content defending, you haven't felt the emotions associated with it and it being (as one might see it) defaced. A content contributor is in a better position to pass judgement on the series of actions and comments that make up a dispute, because the person has been there and knows better what is reasonable and what goes beyond the line. If you didn't come from the factory floor, you are not best suited to get in the middle and you may not be listened to as readily. Also, we do not wish to drive off content contributors and my belief is that ham handed approaches drive off content contributors (regrettably, RFA has not successfully weeded all out in that area) Thus, I generally will not vote for someone who has created no content. A FA or GA is not necessary, I don't ask for much but there's got to be something. They've got to have skin in the game, some piece of the pedia they can point to with pride and say "I helped make that and the reader will read it".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In my personal opinion, it depends on what tasks one wants to do. If they want to handle AfD discussions, I could not support a candidate that didn't have a bare minimum of content experience. That doesn't mean a GA or even a DYK for me, but they have to create or expand an article to C-class. I think this bare minimum level of experience is necessary to demonstrate understanding of the content policies that might be cited at AfD. On the other hand, if a candidate wanted to maintain the file namespace, I wouldn't weigh content creation very heavily (unless they contributed files, which would be a small plus). Of course, all candidates should participate in content creation because it's relatively easy, fun, and meaningful. I probably spend more time on administrative tasks than content creation, but my handful of GAs are still my greatest achievements on the project. ~ RobTalk 18:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
We have no way of enforcing promises made at RfA. Thus, I prefer not to vote for those who do not at least dabble in content contribution, since we have no after review. We can't stop the person who promised all they would do is edit templates from getting in the middle in content disputes. But I'm pleased you're proud of your content contributions. We can't see them helping people, but they do, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I wonder why no one ever makes this argument the other way around? ;) We can't stop the person who promised all they would do is close AfDs from editing templates or mucking about with other people's user scripts, so we better make sure all RfA candidates can pass the fizzbuzz test. No Googling! Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's funny, I was just chatting with someone about this issue. Quick, all admins looking at this, make a substantive edit to {{WPBannerMeta}} without breaking anything. Good luck! If we desysopped the admins who couldn't do that out of fear they'd have a serious lapse of judgement, I'd be able to count the remaining admins on my fingers. ~ RobTalk 01:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I respect template editors, and I have only a handful of edits to such. But we would cause little damage, and could be reverted. After that, we can discuss how to revert the damage done to real people and their enthusiasm for Wikipedia by ham-handed admins who have never added sourced content in their wiki careers. We've had FA writers leave because of stupid, ill-advised administrative interventions. I can hope that the experience of having been through the trenches and added and defended content, and worked with people in that, will yield admin candidates who will not do such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, but surely editors who specialize in templates, scripts, or bots are also real people whose enthusiasm for Wikipedia can be damaged by ham-handed admins who don't understand their work. Technical people have also left because of stupid, ill-advised administrative interventions. Yet we don't ask or expect admin candidates to show any capacity for doing that work, or empathy for those who do.
I've waffled a lot on the "content experience" thing, myself; I'm still not sure whether my intuition about its importance for adminship is actually substantiated by the evidence. For my own part, I don't write FAs anymore and the content I do write is usually on very obscure subjects unlikely to be involved in disputes, so I'm not sure there's really that much feedback from content to admin work. And I'm damn sure that someone who improves a widely used template, or gnomes through hundreds of articles' worth of typos and formatting errors, has done more service to more readers than I did writing about, say, obscure bacteria. (Oh hey, 7 views a day!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If template editors are being run off the pedia by out-of-area content contributors/admins, the matter has not come to my attention, which is not surprising, since I stick to a relatively small corner of WP. I'm not sure if I have the technical competence to appreciate the issues there, so others can surely carry that flag at RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

When all is said and done, for me the issue comes to the question of trust and moral authority. The main purpose of the project is to build an encyclopedia. The primary and the most important way of doing that is writing articles. Everything else that we do here (AIV, NPP, CSD, XfD, categorization, bots, various gnomish work, etc) are secondary and tertiary support functions servicing the primary one. In my eyes, and, I believe, in the eyes of many others, the moral authority to wield the baton of the enforcer of Wikipedia's policies, including access to block, delete and protect buttons, can only be earned by showing substantial competency in performing the primary task of the project, namely writing articles. No matter how many times someone !votes in an XfD or says "surely" in a talk-page discussion, these actions will not earn that editor the required moral authority. It can only be earned, as Wehwalt put it above, "in the trenches" of article-writing. Once that basic requirement is met, I can start looking at other factors. Nsk92 (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I think this represents another problem with the way people view RFA that isn't how it was originally intended. Adminship does not grant "moral authority"; it grants the technical abilities to block users and delete pages according to the policies the community has decided on. KSFTC 22:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Adminship does not grant moral authority, but granting someone adminship requires the candidate to have moral authority, and it needs to be earned first. Nsk92 (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Content creation wasn't always a major criteria at RFA, it came to prominence around 2009, or 2010. There were several factors, but generally it was the result of a feeling among a group of very active content creators that admins, particularly those who had come from a wikignome background, were not giving appropriate consideration to the work content creators put in. Basically that they had lost sight of the primary mission of Wikipedia, which is to have high quality articles. Amongst other ways, this manifested as an over eagerness to use the tools to delete content, and sanction prolific content creators who got into content disputes. The basic idea is that if you have a bunch of articles that you have written, and spent hours on each, that you may not be so quick to delete the hard work of other editors. Likewise, if you have worked on lots of GAs and FAs, you have likely experienced the disputes that can arise, and may give other editors some additional deference if they make the errant uncivil remark when frustrated, but are otherwise good editors. All and all, it was a general feeling that admins with non-content background were not giving the content editors enough respect. The idea caught on, and has evolved since then, so many who current look for content creation at RFA may have other reasons. But it should also be noted that even at the height of the focus on content creation, it was possible to pass RFA without a huge amount of it, you just needed to be an otherwise excellent candidate, and be diplomatic enough to convey that you respect the content side of things, even if that isn't your personal focus. The important thing is to make it clear that you understand that your role as an admin is to facilitate the work other people, particularly content creators, do. If you can do that, and have a minimal amount of creation to establish technical competence as an editor, lack of content creation likely wont be a show stopper. Or at least that was my experience as someone who doesn't consider myself to be a major content creator. Monty845 01:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sitush and Wehwalt here. As I've said many times before, a candidate could be the best gnomer in the history of the project; they might also be the most level headed and most technically competent genius ever to have existed. I don't care. I'd still oppose an RfA if that nominee had little or no knowledge in content creation/expansion. CassiantoTalk 19:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Cassianto: Hi! This may be a stupid question, but I am curious if you would consider translating an existing Wikipedia article as content creation (in the context of your standards for RfA candidates)? For example, if someone has translated several articles, but has written none, would that count? I think that translating an article is quite similar to writing one (if it is done properly). (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would think that counts, yes. As long as it has required you to put some effort and concentration in and that there would be a likelihood that should someone come along to ruin it, you'd fight tooth and nail to protect it, then yes, that would count. Basically, my view is this: Too many administrators now haven't a clue what it's like to write an article from scratch. Because they lack knowledge, they then find it difficult to appreciate the feelings of the author when a content dispute arises. Then, because they don't appreciate the feelings of the author, they opt for the easy option of pepper-blocking everyone rather than appreciating the feelings of the author who should have more of a say than the drive-by editor whose rocking up harbouring a grudge. Seeing as HighinBC is already involved in this thread, I'll use him as an example. CassiantoTalk 20:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, here goes:
  1. Someone who has experience in creating new articles and/or adding to them up through the classes from stub to beyond;
  2. Someone who regularly writes and contributes to articles in main space rather than someone who spends their entire time at the drama boards like ANI, AfD, RfA, etc..
  3. Someone who takes the time to invest their money and time to research and write articles up to GA status;
  4. Someone who takes the time to invest their money and time to research and write articles up to FA status;
  5. Someone who puts the construction of articles above the pillocks pillar of WP:CIVIL when some doofus comes along and tries to enforce their POV or Infobox onto it;
  6. Someone who can appreciate what it's like to slave away on an article and then have it challenged by someone who thinks it's okay to trample over all your hard work. Then, when you counter-challenge them, knowing what it feels like to be accused of WP:OWN and other such well-meanining but morally wrong essays;
  7. Someone who appreciates what if feels like to have to protect "their" article(s) from drive-by POV enforcers.
  8. Someone who takes an interest in a talk page discussion for no other reason other than the fact that they care about the article in question, not the needs of hypothetical readers;
  9. When a discussion does take place then they must comment from a writer's perspective, rather than someone who only comments as a result of a summons from a bot;
  10. Someone who doesn't forget why we are here in the first place: to create content. Admin stuff comes secondary to content creation; not saying it's neccessarily more important, but without people creating content, administrators would have nothing to administrate.
I'm sure there's more, but I can't think of any at this time. Hope that helps. CassiantoTalk 07:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed response, I appreciate that you took the time to explain your position. I just have one question - why are the "hypothetical readers" you've referenced insignificant? They would seem to be the target audience of any article written for Wikipedia. Kurtis (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • The vibe I'm getting here is that the reasons that admins should be content creators is basically because most of their (and indeed most editors') work is in some way connected to content creation. I think I agree with this (to a greater or lesser degree), and I think my resistance towards the idea mostly stems from the impression I sometimes get as to the amount of content creation: could anyone give a rough estimate as to what they expect from an RfA candidate? Doesn't have to be accurate, just an order of magnitude. Thanks for the discussion! —  crh 23  (Talk) 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to look at the individual case, but I'd settle for a section of several paragraphs of an article, written in their own voice rather than quote, reasonably well written (someone copyediting it is fine) and referenced. What I want is enough so that you might be put out if it was messed with badly. In fact, I'd like to see how you reacted to such a situation, so content that is going to be scrutinized because it is in a fairly well-trafficked article would be preferred to content in an article on an obscure technical aspect of widgets that draws seventy clicks a year and they're mostly you.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
My opinion hasn't changed substantially for the past decade, so I'll fish out the boilerplate cut-and-paste I sometimes used to use as an oppose in RFAs circa 2007–08: I don't think a candidate needs to have "audited content" provided they've done demonstrably useful collaborative content work, but you don't seem to me to have demonstrated a reasonable amount of content contribution. I don't think editors who haven't had the experience of putting large amounts of work into an article, and/or defending their work against well-intentioned but wrong "improvements" or especially AFD, are in a position to empathise with quite why editors get so angry when their work's deleted and/or The Wrong Version gets protected, and I don't support users who don't add content to the mainspace being given powers to overrule those who do. I no longer use that form of words (or indeed, participate in RFA at all, generally) but I still support the sentiment behind it. ‑ Iridescent 21:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What Wehwalt said...plus. This is why Featured Article experience is desired. To get an article that far requires a lot of research, individual editing, and teamwork. And sometimes articles go through other reviews before FA, such as Peer Review, DYK, A-Class review and Good Article. Each process gives you first-hand experience with, and better instincts about, all those nitpicking rules and guidelines that get quoted hither and yon. Several years ago, I got reverted multiple times from inserting a "See also" link on a Featured Article by the editor who had taken it to FA. Ticked me off at the time. I didn't think it was worth it to me to edit war over it, and even today I believe that editor was technically incorrect. The difference is, that by today I've been the FAC route a few times. Now I understand perfectly what that editor was defending. If you put a lot of sweat into an article, you don't want some drive-by editor mucking it up. And everything I have come through on content creation and subsequent reviews, has given me added perspective on all the tools I use as an admin. Content creation, and subsequent edits on same by others, also tends to give you better instincts about whether the other person is acting in good-faith, or just being distruptive. I guarantee it will enhance any editor's qualification, to have walked a mile in the other fellow's shoes. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Enhance, yes. But should the absence detract? That's what is being asked. ansh666 21:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
What's being asked now is "how much" content creation? — Maile (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Ansh, it's a qualification for a position, and not an impossible one as everyone has had to write at some point in education and career. For some it will take effort, and skull sweat. Good.--Wehwalt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I think the rub for requiring FA is that some content areas don't lend themselves well to the criteria. For instance, I write Canadian football biographies, and free photos for Canadian football players are few and far between. I've contributed my own photos to articles in the past, but I have to draw the line at crossing international borders to do so! ~ RobTalk 16:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree, a requirement of FA is much too high. I'm happy with a B-grade article, or a good piece thereof. I just want admins to have skin in the game, some part in what is shown to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The vast majority of admin actions don't involve regular content contributors. Instead, admins are chasing off vandals who damage content or protecting articles against damage or blocking HARHARIMATROLLs or deleting "My name is Sam. I'm 18 and have a band" or "Our firm provides a top-knotch editing service" articles or figuring out who's behind the latest socks annoying editors maintaining articles. Most of which editors focused on writing articles don't see as monitoring recent changes is not what they're here for. Admins do get involved in content matters when closing RFCs and other discussions. Those going against clear consensus are going to find themselves at ANI. When consensus is less clear, there's likely to be a group of editors unhappy with the decision and thinking the admin is incompetent to judge content matters - hard to avoid that. Obviously I'm basing this on my personal experience but I don't see why I need a GA or FA to do what I do. --NeilN talk to me 22:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I would require some evidence that they can produce quality content: one B-class article is enough. I require this basic level of content because candidate who have an empty content portfolio often lack understanding of the principles of Wikipedia and the needs of the writers on this site, applying a rule-based approach to adminship. — Esquivalience (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
    • What kind of understanding do you think is needed that isn't gained from maintenance and administrative tasks? I do almost entirely that, but I would like think I understand enough to do the slightly different administrative tasks admins do. KSFTC 00:45, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I think it's not the routine admin action, but the one in a thousand situation where you do involve a content contributor and do run the risk of running them off. And the fact that as a practical matter, adminship is a pre-requisite for the Arbitration Committee. That is sometimes a thought when I am considering an admin candidate, especially one sponsored by a former arb or other website politician, who comes in with earnest AfDs and other boxes checked and almost no content contributed. I see an arb candidate for two years hence.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Why does adminship being a requirement for ArbCom mean that prerequisites for ArbCom must become prerequisites for adminship too? KSFTC 14:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it depends on the candidate. Note that I vote for I think 75 percent of candidates.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have spoken in favor of content creation experience and I won't repeat that but no, I decidedly do not have a standard tied to FA/GA. I like Iridescents formulation, for example. I don't think one can show knowledge of the care needed to go between the shoal of V/NOR and and the bar of CV/Plag without doing it, and such subtlety and balance are good for Admins to demonstrate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever criteria individual voters exercise, I can say with almost 100% certainty that apart perhaps from the minimum requirements for eligibility for Arbcom, the community will never establish a policy-based catalogue of criteria for admins. Furthermore, whether or not some editors demand ridiculous standards, they have AFAICS, never been a deal breaker at RfA, and they won't deter candidates of the right calibre from running for office. The problem with the shortage of candidates lies completely elsewhere, and it's one where with the exception of perhaps Risker and perhaps a couple of others, no one appears to want to admit, and all suggestions of other electoral reforms, or reducing the discretionary zone, or limiting the number od voters' questions, or more widely publicicing live RfA, are just solutions looking for problems, and their impact still remains to be measured. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Content creation

Does content creation still count as content creation if it doesn't involve toiling away at a single article or topic area for weeks or months on end, or if it doesn't result in a DYK/GA/FA? What if you've had experience expanding, revising, and sometimes even creating articles, but you've never demonstrated the tenacity to stick with them for extended periods of time? Kurtis (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It can do, just a little more difficult to show others is all. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • A couple of decent articles created, rather than, for example, a hundred one-line stubs would go a long way to demonstrate that the candidate at least knows what article creation involves. If one is going to police articles one should know how to produce them. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If it is someone who has participated with sound sense in discussions over the years, such as Kurtis, I would be inclined to waive any points of principle that stopped me from supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Kurtis I'd agree with Wehwalt too, but in the absence of that some content creation helps. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I'm not sure if I'm still enthusiastic about trying for adminship these days. The process is just too daunting for my tastes. Maybe someday down the road. Kurtis (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think you could count on one support vote if you did, GOP.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again, friend! 😁 Kurtis (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
If you have any doubts you can try Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Results for feedback, but I think you have the best chances to pass.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The only thing is that I haven't been as active lately. I'm open to running again eventually, once I'm back on a more regular basis. ;) Kurtis (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - because the admin bit bundles with it, the privileges of the autopatrolled flag, in my opinion: prospective RfA candidates should consider themselves weak in the area of content creation if they believe they are not reasonably eligible for autopatrolled membership. By the way, Kurtis, you can expect my support too, when the day may come that you are an RfA candidate.--John Cline (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • For the record, I had actually intended to post this as a subheader to the broader discussion above. I find the present-day standards too onerous; I've seen editors opposed for raw edit distribution, which fails to take other potential factors into account. That's just silly. Kurtis (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no 'present day' standards. The small but influential core of regular voters have been using their same criteria for years. What you have is this transient set of hundreds of one-off voters, especially now that the community decided to advertise RfA very widely, who think it's cool to ask for ridiculous standards that they just apply willy-nilly without any clue of what RfA is all about, and newbies who ask racist and disingenuous questions, and editors who suffer from systemic bias trying to trip he candidate up over over LGBT, Gender Gap, or oher socio-political issues. Like I keep saying, fix the voters and RfA will fix itself.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
While there are no standards; present day, it is a safe bet that RFA candidates will be scrutinized for content creation. Rather than the purview of passing trolls, it most often will be users of good faith who find it a criterion of interest.--John Cline (talk) 03:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Nudging prospective administrators to requesting adminship

Administrators without tools is an essay meant to be used for encouraging well qualified users to consider their own RFA candidacy. It has been effective where it has been used. I believe its wider use would be exponentially, (by the number of editors who use it), as effective. I invite others to use the essay, and its included talk page substitution whenever they may.

Also, the essay itself would improve, by those same editors, if they would copy-edit or expand it unto a more collaborative endeavor. I will certainly appreciate any help that may come.

I am also curious to know how others feel about increasing the visibility of this essay, and if so: please also suggest of the ways. Thanks.--John Cline (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Kudpung's general opinions about this: We need to fix the voters first, and then more people will run. KSFTC 23:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Tangentially related. I just found THIS, which is a surprisingly decent log of the number of sysops over the past 5 years. Comment posted above. Striking here per MULTI — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_243"