Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 252

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 245 ← Archive 250 Archive 251 Archive 252 Archive 253 Archive 254 Archive 255

Nine

If not immediately apparent, nine (9) is the number of successful RfAs there have been so far this year. It is not enough. Not enough to replenish the number of admins lost this year, and not enough to relieve pressure on the admins who are currently shouldering the brunt of the work. I also cannot believe that nine reflects the number of people qualified for the job. I would therefore ask everyone watching this page to look for candidates and encourage people to run. I know that RfA is an imperfect process and can seem daunting, but the simple fact is that we need more people doing the role. The last time we had a big push for candidates, in Jan 2018, we managed to get nine people over the line. Nine more promotions would double this year's numbers. I am sorry that I cannot be more active and do not know the many talented editors who ought to be running and passing RfA. But I ask those of you that do to please do your best to get people coming forwards over the last couple of months of the year. WJBscribe (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nine is lower than the previous record for fewest successful RFAs in a calendar year (which was 16 in 2016). We'll need quite a rapid blitz of successful RFAs (at least 7 in 2 months!) if we are to avoid breaking that record this year. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been posting a generic Help Wanted notice on the talk pages of random wikiprojects. If anyone wants to use it feel free... User:Ad Orientem/Help Wanted Just remember to substitute your own signature. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of editors I see day in and day out who clearly have the interest and experience in Wikpedia. A lot of them have baggage of one sort or another which means they'd probably tank at RfA. And conversely some would probably pass relatively easily and make very good admins, but I personally haven't found the courage to nominate anybody yet because it feels like it could be very risky, and I might be setting someone up for a fall...  — Amakuru (talk) 22:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Certain WikiProjects have added site banners to advertise their events. I'm wondering if a search for admins would be a recruitment campaign worth conducting? Obviously there would need to be a big discussion about how such a campaign would need to be set up and the wording used. We would probably see an influx of interest inexperienced editors, but we might also see some experienced editors possibly step forward. Mkdw talk 22:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Until the ultra high standards from some are relaxed a bit, then this is going to keep on happening. With more bots and automation, there is less to do (that's urgent - I know there are backlogs) which means there is less need to appoint new people; unfortunately, some just add this to their long list of reasons to say why not. Let's be clear - to be an admin nowadays is almost like the qualification for ArbCom or bureaucrat of the past - very long tenure, tens of thousands of edits, recognised content, experience in every area of Wikipedia... and a bland personality (sorry, but it's true - if you've ever said anything that someone disagreed with, it'll get dug up). Oh, and every mistake you've ever made will be held against you. Tell me why anyone would want to go through with it? I'm sure being an admin isn't exactly glamorous either :-) Aiken D 22:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It is to be noted only 16 people have run for RFA this year.Actually only 12 serious candidates out of which 9 have succeeded excluding WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW.The real issue is most talented editors are not interested in running for a RFA and as stated by Aiken D it is not longer sought after or glamorous. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I completely agree with you both. The whole process to become an Admin is not worth the level of effort required and is not appealing to many long term editors. It needs a major overhaul to attract more nominations. JMHamo (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
There was a time (I think between 2005 and 2008) when literally every experienced editor had an RfA, and most passed. It was almost a rite of passage in an editor's wiki-career - 3 months solid editing, a few thousand edits, a "good guy" and you were in. It was still early days for Wikipedia and adminship had status, rightly or wrongly. It was definitely something almost every experienced editor wanted. But because of the hurdle of RfA, and also the fact that if you are an admin now you have no status at all, no one can be bothered. More people are interested in the encyclopedia side now, and that rarely requires admin tools. Aiken D 23:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I for one completely understand why people don't want to spend up to a year preparing for a week-long show trial in front of 200 people all so they get to volunteer to do mindless tasks like deleting spam and blocking vandals while "the community" yells at them the entire time. The lack of candidates makes perfect sense. RfA - both the process and the standards expected of candidates - represents a disproportionately large time and effort commitment compared to the reward it gives. Adminship hasn't changed much, but the process has. And I'm OK with that. Another few years of 9 successful RfAs and maybe the community will be willing to try something new. If anyone ever needs suggestions, might I recommend a system similar to CU/OS: pre-vetting of candidates by bureaucrats or arbcom, a brief community consultation, and appointments made unless serious concerns are raised. The CU/OS system was implemented when the community realized that the CU/OS elections weren't working. Sound familiar? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Maybe we should go back to 2006-2010 standards and simply ditch all of our "standards" if you like and pretty much hand it out on a plate .... That's not me being a sarcastic dick ... I simple don't see a better way forward, Something evidently needs to change,
I could spend all night writing a long paragraph on why I have the stardards I do but like I said maybe it's best we as a community ditch those standards and go back to pure basics .... –Davey2010Talk 23:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The pure basics seemed to work both then and now. Most of our current admins are still from that time period, and I haven't seen any indication that the 2005-2007 era admins are any "worse" than the 2010-present ones. I'm just worried that RfA is so fundamentally broken (the massive participation, the endless questions, the focus on statistics, etc) that we'd be better to just ditch it and try something new. Or have another process in addition to RfA, and let it die a natural death. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
    We have two options (which are anything but mutually exclusive): make the costs of being and becoming an admin less unpleasant than they currently are, and/or make the processes of undergoing an RFA and being an admin both more appealing than they currently are. This is pure speculation, but everyone saying adminship is "no big deal" may have the unintended effect of removing the prestige associated with adminship, thereby potentially making it less appealing to potential candidates. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    LOL at prestige associated with adminship. If anything, admins have considerably less prestige than long-term non-admin editors provided the long-term non-admin editor actually does something useful with their time rather than goof around in Wikipedia: space and talk pages. ‑ Iridescent 19:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    {{slightly-tongue-in-cheek}} That's an excellent point; I've thought for some time that, if one happens to have an "enemy" on the project—speaking absolutely hypothetically, of course, to the lot of ye's :) —the best thing one can do to emasculate that enemy is, frankly, get them made an admin. All the content disputes you once had—pfff, a puff of smoke. Less one "enemy"; more someone with their hands tied :) Of course, the youngsters among us wanting to "level up", etc., don't realise that. They think there's gold in them hills. ——SerialNumber54129 20:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Devolution, also known as unbundling. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
    OK, but what do we unbundle next? allocating the rollback or reviewer rights? protecting and unprotecting pages? and how do we avoid the problems of past unbundlings, people who get that unbundled tool no longer have a path to full adminship, and yet there are a bunch of things that we need admins for that we need experienced admins to move into. I'm not against unbundling in principle, and most meaningful RFA reforms in the last 11 years have been unbundlings. But what else could we unbundle? And how do broaden the path to adminship? ϢereSpielChequers 16:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm going to say something that goes a bit contrary. I disagree about going back to the good old days. The fact is, that a significant number of people became admins who really should not have. I remember all too well the proposals about community de-adminship, that were prompted by concerns about bad admins. The higher standards today largely ensure that anyone who passes RfA won't have to be taken to ArbCom. I'm receptive to some significant adjustment, but not all the way back to a decade ago. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
    The current drought started just over a decade ago in early 2008, with the unbundling of rollback suddenly "good vandalfighter" was no longer a sufficient qualification to pass RFA and you had to have made some contribution to building the pedia. I'm not convinced that RFA has become better since then at identifying and not promoting problem candidates, if anything the shift in focus from looking through candidates' edits to the Q&A section has turned RFA into a more gameable open book exam. There was an upwards drift in the arbitrary but easy to measure statistics such as edit count and tenure, but increasing our requirements in the things that don't greatly matter may have come at a price of less attention being paid to more important things like judgment, temper and communication style. ϢereSpielChequers 08:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I've done my bit. If a very obvious no-brainer 250+ support candidate comes onto my radar and everybody specifically wants me to nominate them, I'll consider it; otherwise it really is time other people gave it a go. The two problems I currently see are 1) The demographic of who turns up to RfA is quite diverse, and everyone has a different idea of their ideal candidate. Consequently, it's perfectly possible for people to oppose over a few things that wouldn't bother most people, which other people pick up on and pile-on top of 2) What I want in an admin is out of step with what most people want these days. I want somebody who can learn how to do anything but has good empathy skills and knows how to manage situations with no more tools than the written word (hint: it doesn't involve Huggle), but it seems the community are more interested in people who do a lot of sockpuppet investigations, which is something I generally don't get involved in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I, too, have tried. I've reached out to about eleven potential candidates, one of whom went for it. Moreover, I have contacted fellow admins, seeking their advice on strong contenders. But the RFA fear factor remains a very serious barrier to admin recruitment; we need to dispel this (reasonable) concern before we can expect better numbers. GABgab 14:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
So I have a couple of questions for both of you: Does RfA seem like a healthy, functioning system if you need to search out and convince people to go through it? And very few people that you approach want to? I've looked at PERM - it doesn't seem that a similar "get out the candidates" effort is required for rollback/pagemover/etc. It's not that people aren't willing to help out with more advanced permissions; they just don't want to go through RfA. And it's been like this for a decade now. What will it take for you all to finally recognize that this is a problem and be willing to actually do something about it? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Essentially, it's not fixable without changing the voter demographics or selection process eg: only admins can vote, only people who have run an RfA since 2010 can vote, only people who've nominated a candidate can vote, a secret ballot and Arbcom's decision is final. Absolutely none of those proposals will happen because there will be too many people objecting to people becoming admins against their wishes. A question for the floor though - how many admins who passed in the last ten years been desysopped for cause? I didn't come out and say it during Philafrenzy's RfA but supposing he passed RfA - on what grounds would you want to desysop him? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause - I've looked at this before, and when you take the relative number of admins promoted each year into account there is no difference between the pre and post 2008 crowd.
I don't think any of the restrictions you listed would make any difference. Failed RfAs have plenty of admins/people who have run for RfA in the oppose section. RfA is the problem, not who votes at it. And we're in an environment where we have collectively made up all of the policies, and can change anything with a simple discussion. So why are the same people who complain about the lack of new admins on this page every ~3 months (almost as frequently as new RfAs these days) also unwilling to do or try anything to fix the problem? I've suggested above that we try a CU/OS type process to appoint new admins - what do you think about that, without getting too much into the technical details? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that consensus doesn't scale upwards as it only works when a group has strong alignment in its goals, and this doesn't happen as it grows. Plus we use straw polls instead of actually balancing pros and cons, which further distances us from actually building a consensus to try out a new process for granting administrative privileges. So major reform is stymied by a decision-making process that is not suitable for a large community. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
That's the most sensible thing I've read on this page for a while. And with that, I'll let all the full-timers get back to their usual arguments. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One idea that I've seen mooted recently which has grown on me is the idea of bundling RfAs. So rather than say anyone can run at anytime we say every other month, or quarterly, or twice a year, or whatever frequency we decide, we'll have an RfA time. Anyone who is interested all goes up for the same period of time, a week still seems sufficiently long even with more candidates to "vet". We continue with the same things otherwise, but perhaps with some safety in numbers the process would be more pleasant overall? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Would that actually change anything? People don't want to spend a year preparing for a week-long show trial in front of hundreds of people. Why would that be different if there happened to be two other candidates at the same time? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
The theory is that instead of an intense spotlight on one person, there would instead be simply a light on a group of people. This could, perhaps, change the atmosphere away from that of a show trial. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We will eventually make it easier to get adminship. Right around the time we get a working visual editor :) Λυδαcιτγ 17:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The pool of active administrators has remained relatively constant. Compared to two years ago, we have just 5 less active administrators than we did back then ([1]). However, this is unsustainable. Off all the editors that have come to Wikipedia in the last 10 years, less than 100 have become administrators and remain so. Chew on that. Until this shows more signs of life, eventually the decline in adminship will cause the number of active administrators to decline. RfA will not be reformed in such a way that we will suddenly see a significant increase in the number of administrators. I'd need further data to back this up, but I firmly believe that RfA isn't the problem. The society of Wikipedia has dramatically changed. 15 years ago, Jimbo said becoming an administrator isn't a big deal. He is as right now as he was then, but for an entirely different reason. Very few people care about becoming an administrator now. We're standing at the main intersection of a ghost town, wondering how we can improve the intersection so more people will drive through it. The problem isn't the intersection (RfA). It's the ghost town (Wikipedia). Ultimately, this goes back on the Wikimedia Foundation. They have no strategic plan to handle the inevitable aging of their projects. Without that, Wikipedia will die. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

---

Indeed the community is evolving, but Wikipedia is far from a ghost town and it doesn't show much sign of dying. Hey Alexa, where does Wikipedia rank? Still number 5. Wikipedia gets 58% of its traffic from search, while most of the other top sites get less than 10%. So, we would have trouble if Google pulled the plug, but what are the chances of that happening anytime soon? There is no shortage of editors trying to get their new articles about themselves or their organizations past AfC, and as long as Wikipedia remains a top ten site, they will keep coming. Tending to the needs and desires of these drive-by editors sucks up a lot of volunteer time, and who really wants to do that?

Community processes are evolving in reaction to the high standards expected of administrators. Going all the way back to the separation of rollback rights, as discussed above. The recent changes that are likely responsible for the new low in promotions at RfA are page-movers, draft space and articles-for-creation. More and more non-admin closes are seen in town. More kludgey round-robin moves that leave multiple log entries where one used to do. And now why bother with formal deletion processes when you can avoid the bother of that with an easy move to draft space, based on arbitrary grounds that the page needs "incubation" rather than a deletion-policy-based rationale. Admins are left with the task of mopping up the redirects left behind by draft-space page movers. So, the page-movers and AfC workers become de facto administrators, while the admins with the bit are relegated to be janitors mopping up after the page movers. That's taken a lot of the motivation away from running through the gauntlet, and besides, many of these new page-mover admins surely know that they are often acting in a way that's a little bolder than the behavior expected of more conservative, consensus-seeking administrators.

We have even less traffic at requests for bureaucrat, but seldom does anyone worry about that. Nobody seems to be bothered at the relatively small number of checkusers and oversighters, or that the Arbitration Committee is actually shrinking in size. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Hang on—the admins with the bit are relegated to be janitors mopping up...isn't that kind of their actual role? Doesn't WP:MOP still redirect to—yes, yes it does. And since when are the tools a pre-requisite for AfC? ——SerialNumber54129 21:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: I agree with you re page movers. I didn't participate in the discussion that established that position, but instinctively I was against it. I also dislike the clunky and confusing "round-robin" page move procedure, and it has simultaneously lowered the bar for RM closures (since those granted the right inevitably think they've collected a new hat and have the right to make more contentious closes) and also, as you say, lowered the incentive for experienced move closers to apply for adminship and the proper vetting that comes with that - even though such people will very often evolve into administrators involved with other roles which are needed by the community. We should be very careful about splitting out administrative functions in future and concentrate instead on turning people who would apply for such things into actual bona-fide admins.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Yay! Now it's ten! Finally, RFA is coming back to life! Sure, ten successful RFAs in an entire year is still the lowest in the history of the English Wikipedia (the old record was only 16 in 2016), but it's still more than nine. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I was walking past a tall wooden fence the other day, you know the kind you see outside a building site. As I walked along beside it I heard chanting coming from behind the fence further up... they were chanting numbers, or rather just one number.
"Nine, nine, nine, nine, ..." they excitedly chanted. It sounded like a small crowd, young and old; men, women and children. All of them saying the same number over and over.
As I approached I saw a small hole in the fence just big enough to look through. The hole was right where the sound appeared to be originating from.
So, with the crowd continuing to chant "... nine, nine, nine, nine" and it seeming to become more intense as I leaned down to place my eye at the hole and work out WTF was happening in there.
Just as I put my eye to the hole a small finger like that of a child poked me in the eye and the crowd stared cheered loudly and started chanting again...
"Ten, ten, ten..." Bradv🍁 17:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: The old 'uns are the best! D ——SerialNumber54129 21:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: It's one of my favourite jokes, and it seemed appropriate. RfA is not entirely dissimilar from getting poked in the eye. Bradv🍁 22:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: Dead right; although perhaps not so much a single poke in the eye as a wek long kick up the a———!!! ;) ——SerialNumber54129 22:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
That's pretty saddening..that we're excited about reaching 10 successful RFAs in an year.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Just in case it wasn't obvious, I was being sarcastic when I was "celebrating" the 10th successful RFA this year so far. Such a tiny number is certainly not deserving of celebration here. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There was a time back in 2005 when we were promoting 10 admins every 4.5 days. We're never going back to those days of course. Yet, Wikipedia in most ways operates pretty much as it has all along. An interesting set of circumstances. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: make the RfA process a true "peer review". What I mean by this is: Only Admins questions and comments to the candidates hold weight. Of course the "community" (such as it is) can chime in with whatever cockamamie commentary they choose to provide for illumination purposes, but the crux of the election balances on "wise and experienced editors who have no particular ax to grind (ie. Admins and Bureaucrats) Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And what problem is this supposed to solve? You know that plenty of "wise and experienced editors" are not admins, right? Bradv🍁 23:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
It has been pointed out that the current RfA process resembles a hazing, rather than a peer review. If you need to attract people, then position must be seen to be somewhat attractive to them. This will not be accomplished if the candidate is attacked and castigated by editors who have no interest in the project beyond venting their spleen in an easy to use forum. The type of editors who know their words will be considered (how ever lightly) by other editors. Since admins know better than most other wise and experienced editors what admin duties actually entail, their review would be a more effective and "on point" vetting of the candidates. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Where is this pointed out? It is nowhere on this page. I think that your suggestion is naive, out of date and bluntly, wrong. There is ample Admin. vetting of potential candidates in preparation for RFA. Let's see what others think. Leaky Caldron 00:08, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Leaky Cauldron, I am almost sorry to say that I am not inclined to go and find the dif. for you, in particular. But, it is out there in the land of discussions about Rfa from the past week or so (on one of the myriad boards.) For the record (and this is directed to the vast majority of editors who adhere to WP:DICK): I don't have a dog in this race. My suggestion is merely predicated on the idea that Wikipedia is Not a Democracy. If you want things to run more efficiently, then you will have to make some impactful changes. Whatever they are. For example, Xeno has proposed a bold move here [2] that negates a long standing (original?) precept of the project. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
The "hazing" comparison is not new: as early as 2009 one can find WereSpielChequers making this comparison, and Andrew Lih made the same comparison in 2012. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I sense that many of the problems we see at RfA is down to the fear of the community that they are voting in a colleague permanently. The reality that removing an admin involves a drama filled and tortuous process adds to the often unreasonable tension and pushback against potentially good admins we see in voting I suspect. I would suggest a 2-tier form of adminship. For the Cullens in the community, those who in the eyes of colleagues unambiguously should be given the mop, the present RfA should suffice. There should be a second form of RfA however. Call it cadet admin or probationary admin or whatever. This would involve a six month probationary period after the RfA, after which time the community would confirm the appointment, based purely on their admin actions in the proceeding 6 months. Noms would act as mentors. This would cut out ancient corpse digging or some of the other crap we see at RfA now. This probationary RfA would begin with a positive result from our present pre-RfA assessment system, (which I think has been one of the best things to have come from the community in years) then the probationary RfA. The point is that many potentially good candidates I believe would benefit from this, because the community would relax in terms of the present fear that they might potentially be voting in a dick for life, and be more willing to give the candidate a fair go. I think RfA numbers would increase by this measure, and equally more potentially excellent candidates would come forward. It would truly make it no big deal. At least the community and candidate gave it their best shot, in good faith. Simon Adler (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Simon Adler, that's a bad idea or so I guess:(
Natural human tendency dictates that a probationary admin would work in the most-mildest of all areas:-- deleting PRODS, closing AFDs with a clear consensus, blocking hard-vandals, deleting G7s, performing hist-merges et al i.e. in areas where raking up any controversy is quite impossible.
I bet that seeing them anywhere near contentious AE threads or at AN discussions that has spiralled into a mud-slinging-fest and demands some unpopular action will be an extreme rarity. ∯WBGconverse 04:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
∯WBGconverse I hear you on the human nature part, but I'm thinking that with the right motivation from nom advisors and previous WP:CLUE that the candidates may have picked up, some will be ambitious. Activity beyond comforts zones could be made part of the probationary admin's criteria. This could be hashed out more systematically on the relevant board. I assume one of the village pump boards? Simon Adler (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Bradv I thought to expand my answer to you, and I think my idea would be best explained by an analogy: We work in a huge corporation with tens of thousands of employees. Management sees a likely candidate from the rank and file and decides that they are due for a promotion. They call that person into a meeting where they are vetted by management. In very few cases that I know of are there other rank and file employees who are asked if that candidate is suitable for promotion. To continue this analogy; if a particular manager is not doing a good job, then the shareholders (in this case the WP "community") can ask top have them removed from their jobs, just as other managers might. So, the community has the same rights to ask for removal of a rogue or improper admin. as always, and in that case the weight of evidence at the "Board of Inquiry" is in the hands of management. No community input, other than evidentiary. Regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the various proposals here, it is worth looking at the Adminship section of WP:Perennial. Similar ideas have been proposed, and rejected, many times. ZettaComposer (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hamster Sandwich: one of the many differences between us and a corporation is that admins are not management. They are simply trusted users with a very specific set of tools (really just two tools at this point – delete and block). Other editors are given different tools based on their trust level and area of interest – rollback, file mover, template editor, page mover, bureaucrat, steward, arbitrator, interface admin, etc. However, all decision making, including regarding user rights, has always been by consensus among the entire community. Bradv🍁 02:43, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Hamster Sandwich: Actually come to think of it, there is one decision regarding user rights that is not done by consensus, but rather by elected representatives. But there is no consensus on whether/how to change that. Bradv🍁 03:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Bradv -any admin tools aside, many areas of WP are hierarchical in nature, particularly in areas of dispute resolution/ mediation that require no tools at all, save for intellect and ... what? (An even approach to discussion? A brilliant and empathetic legal mind? Extreme charisma and popularity? A winning approach to current trends?) Let's agree that it requires a special skill set... So, although there is mopping up and blocking incorrigible editors/ vandals work aplenty, (and let's also agree- that is THE most important of admin functions) there are are areas in WP that are far more specialized. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am going to introduce a hypothetical situation here, as another analogy to WP process. (Please forgive me this indulgence, but I think it bears some thought):

An editor decides at one point (and this is hypothetical part) decides to form a musical group and go on tour. The band achieves popularity through hard work, and the formerly active editor seems to disappear from WP spaces. All good things come to an end and the band calls it quits, BUT they managed to release six albums and they sold a bunch of them. The former editor returns and decides that they (for whatever reason) want to take on the "Heavy Burden of Administrative Duties on Wikipedia, the 5th Biggest Deal on The Internet". Long story short, they go on their old band website and say "Anybody who still loves me will go and vote in my RfA. Don't say my real name or I'll block you on FB, or like... whatever..."

Now, if someone of my limited faculties can dream up a scenario like that, it can happen. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  • That's a corner case. I'm quite confident there's been undetected vote stacking at RfAs before. Doesn't really matter. The project's never ground to a halt because of it. It's not a big enough problem that it needs solving. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Non-transcluded RfAs

It appears a whole bunch of RfAs have been recently created; all of which look filed in good faith, but I assume haven't gone live because of the extended-confirmed protection on the main RfA page. I think all would be closed quickly as WP:NOTNOW, but I don't think any can be G6 deleted as they are all editors who have done some work. These are :

Any ideas of what to do with him? I realise they aren't causing any harm, but the various RfA bots pick them up and keep checking them to see if they are "live", which they won't be. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • "Him"? These all appear to have been created by different people. The "DJ Cane" one can probably just be deleted - it was someone's first edit, so I would assume a school buddy of DJ Cane did it as a joke or something. The others look to be "serious" self-nominations (although obviously ones with zero chance of being successful and could probably be resolved by talking with the respective users on their talk pages and letting them know that more experience is generally going to be required. --B (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You guess correctly :-) ... what I'm interested in is why they were all created recently? I wonder if they all saw the "A request for adminship is in progress" watchlist notification that was up last week, went to the main RfA page, thought "ooh, I'll have some of that", then got stuck when they couldn't transclude. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the RfA bots, does anyone know why Cyberbot I keeps on removing and readding users at User:Cyberpower678/Tally? That's a lot of unnecessary edits.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, @Cyberpower678: pls look into this. Perhaps the tally should only track transcluded Rfas. –xenotalk 14:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I thought these untranscluded RfAs had something to do with it, hence having a look at them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but there's still no reason for the bot to do that; and it should be coded not to. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I recall at some point last week I saw the bot had blanked the userlist, and thought "oh great, Galobtter's withdrawn the RfA". :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
(glad that didn't happen :D) I too saw my RfA dissapear from the list at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and was wondering what happened to it :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The bot has been doing nothing else for three days. ——SerialNumber54129 14:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
It might help if we hide the nominate button at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate from non-extended confirmed users. But that would require new interface classes, like MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css, since we don't habe an equivalent of sysop-show, or even MediaWiki:Group-extendedconfirmed.css. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 16:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Just noting that Bellezzasolo's proposed changes were taken care of by Xaosflux and Writ Keeper ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Delete them per WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. Leaky Caldron 16:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Has anyone reached out to the editors? Otherwise (except for the G6) this would be for MfD right? Crazynas t 16:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • (ec) Delete them; I doen't even think we need to cite IAR as WP:RFA says " RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6" which surely applies to all four three of these. But the editors should be notified afterwards.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I already deleted the DJ Cane one because it was created by another editor who did not notify the nominee of its existence. The others are self-created, so I agree that the polite thing would be to ask the editors what they are thinking first. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess there's no harm in doing that. I was thinking of what happened as a result of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bjkun16 but that was for malformed RfAs that had been gathering dust for some time as opposed to these which have been created in the last few days.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I have left messages for the other three editors. --RL0919 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • None of them will pass RfA, but the community should really do something to help them become more involved if they're interested. Apart from recommending they visit WP:AFD, WP:RM, and WP:VPP (or giving them a pile of articles to work on) I'm not quite sure what to do myself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If we all agree that none of these RFAs have a snowball's chance in hell of passing, why don't we just delete all of them (after all the nominators have been left a talk page message explaining why, of course)? IntoThinAir (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd give them at least 24 hours to respond to the messages RL0919 just left; but yes, unless they protest otherwise, these can be deleted G6. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to note, I've left Tornadosurvivor2011 a personal message based on their answers to the standard questions. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

How about engaging them in discussion regarding their intentions and, if it seems that the editor wants to work on the page over an extended period of time, offering to move the page to a subpage of the user's page? isaacl (talk) 19:38, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

On a related note (and I fear I'll get pilloried for canvassing) : Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AirportExpert. As I said over there, I don't particularly like just G6 deleting these, even though I probably wouldn't get any flak, simply because this people have filed RfAs with a genuine sense of wanting to help the community, and we need to see if we can chat to them and get some more ideas. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:14, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I reallise the importance of on-boarding, but if these are from kids, or just a prank, I would be inclined to delete them, and take it from there. There are enough in-your-face warnings and information about not running for RfA. If they can't read them then it's a case of WP:CIR.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I seem to recall we dealt with a whole bunch of similar RfAs that never transcluded or were otherwise defective a couple of years ago. IMHO if the RfA never transcluded, does not have any votes or comments from other parties, and anyone with more than two functional brain cells would SNOW close the RfA if it did somehow appear... then I'd just zap it and drop a courtesy note on the editor's talk page. If they really want it back it can be userfied on request. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Found another one. There's a lot of weird stuff you can find if you go on Special:RecentChanges and look at WP: namespace page creations by new users. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Is there any way to make WP:RFAOPEN redirect the most recent open RFA? Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 03:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: directly to the RFA (e.g. to Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/JJMC89 right now)? If so, no - these are atomic pages and the redirect wouldn't know about it (even ruling out edge cases like subsequently opened and early closed RfA's). — xaosflux Talk 03:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I know it's just a typo and I'm saying this humorously, but I love the idea of "atomic pages"! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected, in that someone just informed me about Atomicity (database systems). But it's still a rather amusing thought. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
A tool could be written that would, though, and then RFAOPEN would be a soft redirect (you'd still have to click once) there. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the the current(new) redirect is as efficient as that would be. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: its trivial to write a lua script to parse the through User:Cyberpower678/RfX_Report and get the most recent RfA like this though unfortunately the hard redirect doesn't work. We could make it a soft redirect, though. SD0001 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, I was referring to hard redirects. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I could probably write a script to expand WP:RFAOPEN to the current RfA when you type it into the search bar. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
What about when there are multiple concurrent RfAs? Natureium (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Natureium, multiple concurrent RfAs? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
We have had multiple concurrent ones so it would be hard to redirect to two.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd make them both appear as search suggestions. Enterprisey (talk!) 17:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I've done some more thinking and here is what I came up with. The current watchlist noti says
In light of the above discourse on redirects, I see that making request for adminship into an automatic redirect to an open RFA (Vast majority of RFA run singly instead of multiples concurrently) would be difficult, and I think might be more convenient for it to read
  • A request for adminship is open for discussion. [dismiss] [1]
and in the case of concurrent multiples
  • A request for adminship is open for discussion. [dismiss] [1] [2] [etc linking]
or
  • A request for adminship is open for discussion. [dismiss] [name of user in RFA] [name of more RFAs]

Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Another solution is to make a bot to constantly redirect it to the current open RfA, and in the case of two or more to keep it as it is now (to a section of WP:RFA). Enterprisey (talk!) 18:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Two-factor authentication

There has been quite a bit of discussion lately about how admins, other users with advanced permissions, and maybe even all of us, should use 2-FA. Some editors have said that it is something they care about when evaluating RfA candidates. I want to say first that I am very far from understanding the underlying technical issues, so I'm simply repeating things that I have read. There was recently an opinion piece in The New York Times: [3], that says that hackers can get past 2-FA surprisingly easily, and that a physical key works better. It makes me suspect that we should put less value on 2-FA than has recently been the case, and that very strong passwords may really be the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Passwords are equally vulnerable to phishing sites, though. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Tryptofish: a few nutshell items - having a strong password PLUS 2FA significantly increases your account security. 2FA doesn't offer strong additional security if an attacker compromises your device that you have 2FA software and secrets loaded to (be it a phone, a computer, or a keyfob), and it doesn't strongly improve security in situations where you are tricked in to giving up your token code (such as if you go to en.wikipedia.org.org.org.thisisfake.org instead of en.wikipedia.org). What it does greatly increase security for is a situation such as if you use the same password on other sites (even though we tell you not to) and they get hacked or trick you in to revealing your password there. It also greatly increases security against attacks based on guessing your password here such as by guessing words in a dictionary (we have some other counter measures against that as well). — xaosflux Talk 23:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
That's informative, thanks. It sounds to me like the most important things are (1) having a very strong password and (2) not using it anywhere else. I can see how 2-FA can correct for weaknesses in those things, but it's not clear to me that it adds that much when those two practices are followed carefully. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
There are no silver bullets when it comes to account security; nothing is going to reduce the risk to 0. But both strong passwords and 2FA can block attack vectors, leading to a substantially reduced risk, even if some risk remains. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Also, it is very hard to enforce the "strong" and "elsewhere" rules. — xaosflux Talk 23:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Good points, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
"Elsewhere" is certainly difficult to enforce. Strong is easy to enforce, and I think we now do so, the days of 6 digit alphanumeric passwords are over. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If a password is compromised, and not protected by a second factor, it can be exploited at the attacker's leisure. A key benefit of 2FA is that the second factor generated key expires fairly quickly, and if it is compromised, the attacker must basically use it immediately in real-time – it can't just be harvested to be exploited at some point in the future. Mojoworker (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

  • The hacks of 2FA that have been described in the last few months concern sophisticated phishing where the attacker crafts an email for the target using information learned about the target. That allows the email to be reasonably convincing, although it boils down to "to avoid security problem, click here". Clicking on the link goes to an automated website that looks exactly as if it were, for example, logging in at Wikipedia. The website relays what the target does to the real Wikipedia. If the target has 2FA enabled they are prompted to enter it and that allows the hacker's website to log on to the real Wikipedia. That logon remains valid for an extended period so the target will not know that anything is wrong, possibly for months. There have been many reports of successful hacks of that nature (defeating 2FA) but no public reports that I've seen regarding such hacks at Wikipedia because it requires a fair bit of trouble. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback here, which is quite interesting to me (although it may be old news to editors with more technical knowledge than I have). The principal reason that I brought it up at this talk page was that I've seen some editors say that they will oppose at RfA unless the candidate commits to using 2FA. I'm wondering to what extent that is a valid reason to oppose? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The concerns that have been raised by some regarding the lack of a good recovery mechanism in case of a loss of the second device/program are reasonable (it's hard to re-authenticate users who are essentially anonymous albeit with a handle). It comes down to trust: does the community trust the candidate to follow through on the security requirements to maintain account security, either with or without using two-factor authentication? isaacl (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree about that. I guess a more specific way for me to ask that is whether a hypothetical candidate's decision not to use 2FA, while still using other good practices, is a sufficient reason to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I guess it depends how much faith the commenter is willing to place in the candidate's assurances, and how ardently the commenter feels about using two-factor authentication. I don't personally believe it's absolutely a poor reason to oppose, but given that most of the administrative population does not use it, I think the added risk of one more admin not using it (while still maintaining good account security practices) is minimal. isaacl (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
A {{committed identity}} is the standard for a recovery mechanism. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Getting new admins to agree to a 'internet usage code of conduct' would be something better than 2FA. Don't click on links in e-mails. Use adblock to prevent 'malvertising' exposure. Use passwords that don't comprise words and instead use a combination of letters, numbers and symbols with the help of a trusted password manager program to help them remember the various passwords that are needed for different accounts. An up to date Anti-Virus with a firewall. Preferably don't click on references on Wikipedia articles without a virtual machine to limit the harm of compromised websites (legitimate and illegitimate) - a games console's internet browser is the perfect tool for doing this for various reasons. Bit too much to ask for though? -=Troop=- (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If having a committed identity could be a prerequisite for signing up for two-factor authentication, that would be helpful in ensuring a possible recovery path. It requires you to reveal your secret string to identify yourself, but since it hopefully isn't a common occurrence, it's not too bad. It's a bit technical, though, so not sure how well it scales up to a non-technical population. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Isaacl, not really. A committed identity is basically just a backup password. It's just stored on your user page, instead of in the database of the software. It's one way to recover for sure, but a rather convoluted way and really not much better than PRINTING YOUR BACKUP CODES AND STORING THEM SECURELY, just like the 2FA instructions tell you to do. I also suspect there are LOADS of people who have either forgotten their committed identity, won't be able to reproduce it correctly (whitespace/punctuation differences) or have chose a word that is as weak as their password. Just because it's a concept we have used for a long while, doesn't make it 'better'. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Without specific data I didn't want to say it, but I agree: remembering the secret string can be a similar issue as storing the backup codes. isaacl (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless something has changed significantly in the last few weeks, the 2FA extension on Wikimedia sites is not developed or managed by the WMF; it is created by a volunteer, maintained by a volunteer, and has no dedicated support at the WMF for either troubleshooting or code development. There is no process for account recovery developed, designed or supported by the WMF, except in a very ad hoc basis; and you have to know the right people to get your account back if you have a problem with 2FA, which is known to happen. Until the WMF formally takes ownership of and responsibility for the support of this extension, I do not think that there should be any project or permission that absolutely requires its use. The only reason it scales right now is that only a tiny number of users are required to use it, and they all own their own equipment and can add software to it. If just all admins on WMF projects were required to use 2FA (that's over 5000 people), the WMF would have to have at least 5 people for whom this would be a "drop everything" job (they could do other things as well, but this would be the bare minimum for 24/7 support). The more users who want to enable 2FA, the more WMF support staff are needed. Risker (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Risker, "no dedicated support at the WMF for either troubleshooting or code development." that part isn't really true. The current code is critical for WMF operations and thus supported. While current changes are mostly volunteer based and there is no new development occurring for 2FA to adapt it for a wider audience, that doesn't make it unsupported. Almost all software of the website is in this state 'status quo' until it becomes necessary to work on it (again). I do agree that in the current state it absolutely shouldn't be a requirement for any roles other than the likes of stewards and interface admins. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    P.S. one of the reasons I do not think it should be encouraged is because in my opinion, we shouldn't let WMF get away with not investing in this area. If they want more people to use 2FA, they should work on it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am not disputing that 2FA support is important, TheDJ, and I thank you for engaging on this. I note, however, that I've been involved in this discussion with WMF staff including security staff within the last few months; while 2FA is something lots of people are very interested and excited about, nobody at WMF has ownership of it at this time. The current 2FA only works if the user is able to upload software to their equipment. This would exclude people who edit from any computer they can't upload on - workplaces, libraries, etc., as well as most active duty service members in the armed forces of a large number of countries. We should not be requiring that users with administrator permissions be wealthy enough to own expensive electronic equipment and have the right careers. And the current documentation (as well as WMF staff) confirm that there is no way to generate new scratch codes without disabling 2FA and then re-enabling 2FA. That's just plain bad practice. The documentation on 2FA is pretty unclear when it comes to users who regularly use a variety of hardware (for those who are lucky enough to have more than one computer, like me). As importantly, only people with shell access are able to re-enable an account that has problems with 2FA - and there aren't that many of them, none of them specifically tasked to manage that. This is a big issue, especially when requiring users with limited technical knowledge to use this extension. (Technical skills are only occasionally considered when selecting new administrators.) In none of the current documentation pages does it explain who to contact or how to initiate contact if one has a problem. Risker (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • If something is not a requirement it should not be an actionable reason to oppose, ie. should be discounted by the closer. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Admin candidates should have MFA enabled prior to being promoted. It's very simple to enable, and if the admin doesn't have a compatible device, secondary tokens are provided. The recovery process is lightweight, with an email to the WMF to verify. I personally have lost my phone and MFA tokens, but after providing some confidential but verifiable information, I was able to regain access to my account. TL;DR, use MFA at all times, especially if you have advanced privileges. Nakon 08:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • There are functionaries that do not have it enabled. I personally do, but I know of some CU/OS who have very good reasons not to enable it. If we don't require it for CU/OS (and I don't think we should, for the record), we certainly shouldn't be requiring it for +sysop. The reasons intadmin requires it is because they can twiddle with things that impact the entire website. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I will again point out the the most important thing is having a strong, unique, password that is not reused on other sites. If you do this, your account will likely be safe. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • TFA may be easy to enable, but in practice it's a hell of a hassle, and it's additionally unreasonable to expect everyone to have continuous access to the needed software and indefinitely keep a hard copy list of backup tokens. Having to divulge confidential information in the event that these capabilities are lost is not a reasonable recourse. There's no reason to connect a non-2FA account with being an "unsecure" account.  ~~Swarm~~  04:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone who makes an oppose vote on RfA because the candidate does not have or does not intend to have 2FA should have their vote struck and possibly be T-banned from voting in the future. It's time for a wake up call for the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, harsh punishment for civil dissent is the best path to a thriving community. Look how well it worked for the Soviets, for example. --RL0919 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While I have no desire to oppose people for their use of 2FA, I cannot see any fault in those who do. It is their choice to do so and banning people or striking votes for it is effectively saying that your opinion is more important than theirs. I'm quite aware that I'm in the minority of people here that think 2FA is undeniably beneficial to enable, but I'm also aware of those who may not be able to (though I did list various alternatives a few months ago). Anarchyte (talk | work) 09:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Risker here. 2FA is good and having WMF 2FA is generally more secure than not having 2FA, but the current implementation of WMF 2FA is below standard, and requiring all admins and functionaries to use 2FA means we exclude large sections of society from eligibility. Therefore we should encourage admin candidates to use 2FA, but votes that oppose a candidate simply because they don't use 2FA should be considered contrary to policy. Deryck C. 09:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Deryck C.'s comment pretty much sums up my own conclusions from this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
      • It seems like adding "Oppose because the candidate hasn't enabled 2FA" should be added to WP:AAAD and then ignored if/when it is made in an actual RFA, rather than being considered grounds for a topic ban. Based on my own experiences with Andrew D, it is clear that the threshold for actually getting topic-banned from RFA !voting is extremely high and often much harder to meet than you would expect. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Another WP:NOTNOW RFA

Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/ScienceUnderPressure. I have left a message on the user's talk page regarding why they shouldn't run for RFA this early in their "career". I suspect that the RFA itself should be speedied per G6 and WP:NOTNOW. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

They are not extended confirmed so I don't think they can self nominate. But I agree that they should not be looking at RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RfA post mortems

Okay, everyone knows the line "RfA is a horrible and broken process". Nobody can ever put a finger on exactly why it's broken, but I think it's fundamentally because the demographics of the Wikipedia community, and what each regular wants to see in an admin, are so diverse that getting everyone to more or less agree on things is incredibly difficult. I don't think I could ever point to any particular comment or voter on any RfA and say "yup, that's your problem". Some of the most aggressive badgering of oppose voters happens when the candidate is on 95% support and extremely likely to pass.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask those who opposed RfAs, particularly those that passed anyway, to give us your views on those candidates now they're admins (if they passed) or more experienced editors (if they didn't). Have you changed your mind, or do you think you were proved right?

Looking through my own track record, I don't have any particular views on JJMC89 or K6ka so I guess the right decision was made. I still think Oshwah makes a rod for his own back by leaping into things without as much tact, but you could say the same about me from time to time. I would like Dane and Cameron11598 to give RfA another go and hopefully this time I'll be in a position to support them.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I do not think I ever opposed an RfA which passed. I think all the candidates I opposed stopped editing, though I might have forgotten a case or two.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I also have a habit of leaping into things without much tact, so here goes again. Where does all of this insistent navel gazing lead? More navel gazing. Leaky caldron (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I was going to say: "mixed metaphors?" But your answer works too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you link to previous discussions over this? Usually, what happens is the RfA passes and everyone forgets about it, but in my case I have wondered what exactly happened to RfA candidates I opposed, and wondered if I was doing the right thing or just contributing to the problem. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
RFA !vote "accuracy" rate (i.e. % of time their !vote matched RFA result):
For Ritchie333: 84.2%
For Ymblanter: 87%
If nothing else this indicates that admins and the RFA voting community as a whole tend to agree on whether someone should be given the bit. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thinking back over the times when I have opposed an RfA that passed (and I'm not going to list names), I can think of roughly equal numbers of times when I later concluded that I should have supported, and times when I later concluded "I told you so". Without actually counting, I'd estimate that it's fairly close to 50–50 between those two, not a strong trend either way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Before the current RfA, the only oppose I made where the candidate was successful was Primefac. I’ve said many times that opposing him at that RfA is the biggest mistake I’ve made on-wiki. Can’t think of any I’ve supported who I regret. There are those who I opposed and they failed who I don’t think should ever be admins, and others that I’d be neutral on going forward. I can’t think of any opposes that I’d support if the RfA were re-run. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the only successful RFA I opposed was that of Ceradon, and though I know of no errors on his part, I don't think that was an unreasonable call. I guess all that really goes to show is that I'm a more tolerant RFA !voter than most. Ritchie333 I really appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I wonder if a more productive approach wouldn't be to specifically select those RFAs which "should" have passed, look through the opposition, and contact those amongst the opposers who are known to be reasonable folks. If you'll forgive some sweeping generalization, I think recent contentious RFAs have had opposition from three categories of people; serial opposers with very specific criteria that few (or no) candidates meet; editors opposing based on a grudge deriving from previous interactions; and reasonable RFA regulars who take a specific concern more seriously than those supporting. The first two of these categories offer no hope of change, but the third might. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking at my own voting record, I find that I support 93% of the time, and that there were only three votes against candidates who succeeded anyway, two of whom were JJMC89 and K6ka. Coincidence? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I've definitely been in the position a few times where i've regretted an RfA vote I made - luckily, most of the times i've realized this prior to the close and corrected it. I have one RfA that I opposed that was successful. The admin didn't do any damage but they did resign their tools voluntarily for one of the reasons I listed in my oppose vote. As for me, thanks Ritchie333, perhaps sometime in the future when I have more time. I help on the project when I can (mostly in ACC but occasionally other areas) but right now my activity is limited due to graduate school. -- Dane talk 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind and I'm glad to have the opportunity to say that. I opposed the RfA of User:Justlettersandnumbers. I don't regret my vocal opposition but I think they worked out just fine. I haven't been scrutinizing their activity as an administrator but what little I've seen looks quite good to me. I'm happy to admit I was wrong. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no correlation that I'm aware of between why people oppose and the outcomes of RfAs that succeeded anyway. As I recall, RfA is a poor predictor of subsequent success or failure. I just looked at the last ten administrators who were forcibly removed from adminship by ArbCom, who had RfAs that were done on project and not on email. Their combined !votes were 931 support and 52 oppose, for 94.7% support. Of those 10, only 1 was below 80% support. Those former administrators averaged 7.6 years as an administrator before losing the bit, or more than 76 years combined as administrators. Whatever reasons people have for opposing candidates have little bearing nor predictive value for their futures as administrators. I've opposed 4 RfAs that went on to succeed. I don't think my comments had any impact on their subsequent activities. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think I regret supporting many that were subsequently unsuccessful — most tried again and vindicated me succeeded, a few went inactive — but there are only two oppose !votes of successful candidates. I can go into lengthy detail if anyone wants, but rather than subject you all to that, I'll just say that while I don't think I was wrong to oppose I clearly shouldn't have as they both are excellent sysops. I took a good lesson from one which lead to two subsequent (successful) nominations. If I had to draw a conclusion, I'd say that when I miss, boy do I miss good! I think it's good to learn from your own participation record, and to adjust your future behavior according to those lessons; having some introspection and contrition as !voters goes a long way toward improving the process. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Replying to @Ritchie333: - One useful analysis is to look at the RFAs for editors who later become problematic admins, such as those sanctioned by the ArbCom, and look for patterns. Another useful analysis is to look at the RFAs of high-contributing admins who have not drawn undue criticism. I have done this and have concluded that the main problems that RFA has in selecting good candidates are an overemphasis on specific types of article-related contributions and an underemphasis on consensus building, dispute resolution, and sharing the project's core values. UninvitedCompany 18:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany, This comment deserves to be more prominent. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333:, I have very rarely opposed a request for adminship. If I have doubts, I generally don't vote. I can think of only one case where the candidate I opposed was successful. I believe he is still practising, which doesn't mean I was wrong to oppose, any more than supporting successful candidates who have since lost their adminship means that I was wrong to support them. I think it's important not to beat ourselves up over making "mistakes" but to concentrate on improving the process. Deb (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

How old were the crocodiles when entering the bayou (three years later)

As a side effect of some specific RfA, I had done some statistical work in 2016 at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/GeneralizationsAreBad#Discussion about general historic trends in RfA process. Where are we three years later?

This graph shows the numbers of current admins according to the year they joined en:wp as editors. As it should be, the blue line (dec 2015) encompasses the orange one (jan 2019).

They were 1336 non-bot admins, they are 1175 now.

This graph shows the numbers of current admins according to the year they received the adminship. Only 33 present-day admins were selected in the last three years.

This graph shows the number of current admins according to their seniority (in semesters=6 months) when adminship was granted. Semesters are ceil-rounded. One can say that the admins of now were recruited as a bunch of youngsters: 728 among 1175 had less than two years of seniority ! And, mind the graph, how many with less than a full semester ?

This graph shows the average seniority (in semesters=6 months) according to the year when adminship was granted. Here semesters are not rounded. One can see a strong trend (variance reduction factor= 22 !) of roughly a semester by year ! The 2019 figures are clearly out of the trend (11 instead of 17). Do we have a trend reversal or a small sample effect (only January versus a whole year) ?

methodology: 1384-162 of the included admins are acting under the username they had when they ran for adminship, while quite all RfA are archived. In this case, date_of_adminship is clear. For rfa granted 2001 or very early 2002, the value max(creation, 2002-01-01) has been used. Concerning the 162 admins without grandfather clause or RfA archived under their current username, quite all can be put in correspondence with a former name. In fact, a lot of redirects were already in place. I had doubts about creating the missing redirects since, perhaps, it could remain some privacy matters. Some date_of_creation given by the interface are clearly the date_of_creation of the new account, and are to be corrected. The others were not checked, and therefore a small uncertainty remains but, IMO, not that much. Pldx1 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pldx1: Thanks for these. You might like to clarify how long a semester is. It's not a term used in the UK. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Done ! Thanks for this remark. Pldx1 (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep

Typical candidate's brain after RFA question onslaught

Yep, sure ain't as many canderdates as used to be in deez here perts that's dern for sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

File:Hooting song of tawny owl (Strix aluco).webm indeed Lectonar (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
That there's some mighty fine owling in the night. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, I'm afeard yer right, pardner. I musta had me too much o' that sarsaparilla. I'll stop my bellyachin'. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Heck, only the good lord knows. But I ain't never been no redneck and I sure as shootin' ain't gonna become one na. Weez all just been talking like this o'er here recent-like, and I thinks were a drivin' each other crazy from it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ick liebe die Idee een Berlina Rotnacken zu sein :). Lectonar (talk) 11:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Whoever did the April Fools prank, I applaud you. bd2412 T 01:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New RfC: Limiting bureaucrat discretion

WP:SNOW
I watched this discussion for 24 hours and it is absolutely clear it is not going anywhere but down. This clearly suggests 'crats have the discretion to promote/discuss oustide of the discretionary range.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:09, 14 April 2019 (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.

I haven't posted here in nearly three years. I hoped to never do so again. But with my 2015 reforms now front and center, we need to settle this. Get to the point and have a straight up-or-down RfC on bureaucrat discretion.

Question: Should the discretion of bureaucrats in Requests for Adminship be absolutely confined to the range between 65% and 75% (inclusive) raw support, with no exceptions and, for this sole purpose, notwithstanding any other Wikipedia principle, policy and/or guideline that might be interpreted as permitting otherwise?

If your answer to the above is "yes," support. If your answer is "no," oppose.

For supporters, also specify whether rounding is acceptable. Does anything from 64.50% to 64.99%, or anything from 75.01% to 75.49%, fall within the discretionary range?

Biblio (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

  1. "Support" - because arithmetic must kick in somewhere and the community gave the 'crats a 10% discretionary range to play with last time so their hands are hardly tied, are they? The community also demered in reducing the range below 65% so the logical conclusion of the combined impact of the 2 related RfC is that the lower edge cannot be below 65%. But it is clear that will not fly. There is ample evidence of anxiety expressed in a couple of recent close call RfA that suggest concern about 'crats. decision making. That should be of general concern. If I might suggest therefore that improved transparency in the dubious !vote "weighing" process at the heart of this? Also finally, if perhaps a bit more thought might be put into the manner in which opinions are actually written? Several of the Rexx 'crat "opinions" clearly did not instill confidence, contributing to the dissatisfaction. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Support Acting beyond the discretionary range has needlessly politicized our bureaucrats. When bureaucrats can ignore any number of votes they don't like, any voting at RfA becomes purposeless. We all expect bureaucrats to eliminate sockpuppet votes but editors can have legitimate concerns about RfA candidates that ought to be respected. Making the discretionary range firm prevents outcomes like the RexxS RfA. Of course, as evidenced by the names below, seldom does anyone voluntarily accept limits on their own power, hence why it's so important that the community enforce a strict limit. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Strongly Support During the RexxS vote, I asked a question what was the difference between kinds of votes and was given different answers. The Crats used the adjectives to find their own consensus. Normally one wins or loses a vote but for administrators there is a sliding scale, 100 - 75% you are in. Three years ago a discretionary percent of 65 to 74% was added authorizing the bureaucrats could find consensus and let you in. The rules had middle ground. With RexxS they said 64% is close enough and ok because he would be a good administrator. My problem is that it appears if the Wikipedia insiders like you, the guidelines can be read to find consensus as the insiders want. I am a political scientist and that is no way to run an organization. The rules should be made clear. I think rules were clear and if below 65% you lost. Others thought differently and used their power to declare a winner. Those who are opposing this rule change should think again. Find a system that editors find fair and equally enforced and they will stay or like many institutions, you too will fade away ie. churches, political parties, Jaycees, Boy Scouts on and on. Eschoryii (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Support a defined absolute cut-off, whichever number is chosen (65%, 60%, whatever). I didn't participate in the RexxS RfA and have not commented in all those related discussions, but a clear rule in future would avoid all this aggro. There obviously is already a de facto cut-off somewhere within the percentage scale (e.g. nobody would suggest the crats should discuss a candidate with 45% support), so agreeing what that is, and stating it clearly, is a fairer way of proceeding. Having an ambiguously defined, sliding scale of eligibility for admin status, to an extent disenfranchises editors who vote in RfAs. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Support You need to draw the line somewhere, and you can avoid controversy if you have logical set rules. An approximate 2/3 supermajority was intended (~66 % or 65 %). Low 60s percentage is a poor result. It means you don't most likely have the community trust when you're closer to just half of the editors trusting giving the tools to you. That is divisive. Simply put, without a bottom number, the support percentage for succesful RfAs gets too low and it just gives power away from the community to the bureaucrats. This is not to say that 65.1 % would be a significantly better result. It's not, and many candidates have withdrawn if it's looking they end up low in the discretionary range. --Pudeo (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. I'm just starting this to clear things up, because so many have argued for a hard limit on bureaucrat discretion. I, for one, think it's useless wikilawyering. Biblio (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. I strongly oppose any hard-and-fast numbers rules for determining consensus on any discussion, whether XFD, RFA, or RFB. For example, imagine a case where an RFA candidate gets an admin friend of his to block some potential opposers when the RFA starts, and this information is only discovered 6 days into the RFA. Such an RFA would almost certainly fail if that information was known from day 1, but, instead, it finishes at 85% because most people don't revisit the page. Or imagine a case where a non-notable band canvasses their fans to go vote keep on their article's AFD. Should a bunch of canvassed voters count more than policy-based delete rationales? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Our 'crats are some of the best folks we have. I have far more confidence in their ability to exercise discretion than in the community's ability to not cast silly votes. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per fifth pillar. Nothing about the change from 65.1% to 64.9% support makes consensus suddenly disappear, and our policies should not act like it does. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 01:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per needless instruction creep. I also oppose on the basis that we elect Bureaucrats to be able, among many other things, to decide among themselves the outcome of an RfA and to have Bureaucrat chats. If we don't agree with the outcome of a Bureaucrat chat, that's natural. What's not natural is to pull an RfC to try to limit their discretion every time we don't agree with the result of their actions. Finally, the probable reason for this RfC is the latest Bchat on RexxS's RfA. I found the arguments there totally logical and mainstream, both pro and con. That one side prevailed is perfectly OK. It was a very well-done, convincing, instructive, and thoughtful Bchat. It demonstrated the expertise and thoughtfulness of the participating bureaucrats. Kudos to all participants. Dr. K. 01:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose This is contrary to both the letter and spirit of CONSENSUS and NOTAVOTE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per all the endless discussions elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  8. Strongest possible oppose per others’ comments. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 01:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. Oppose per above Leviv ich 02:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  10. Oppose because a) there really are often !votes that should be ignored if not struck altogether, and b) that's what we have the crats for anyway. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - Wikipedia is governed by WP:CONSENSUS, which is the opposite of democratic vote counting. Trying to enforce percentages in wholly against the spirit of Wikipedia. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Swarm and others. Simply not the way Wikipedia works. The proposal opens the RFA process up to gaming, if opponents know they only have to force the tally under 65 to get it nixed without appeal. We hire crats to make precisely this decision and some good faith, and accepting the result even when it goes against you, would be in order here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per my opposition to all thresholds hard or soft and TheRamblingMan's well argued points above. I strongly believe that every !vote at RFA needs to be judged on its merits and weight applied accordingly. Any arbitrary threshold is contrary to that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per LeakyCauldron, who has demonstrated admirably how establishing consensus is far too nuanced to broken down into math. ——SerialNumber54129 09:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Bureaucrats are appointed for their skill of judging the consensus of public opinion, which is not usually policy-based. In a straightforward election such as for Arbcom numbers and percentages are essential with a limited number of seats but this isn’t the case with RfA. Aiken D 10:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  16. Oppose while it should be rare for crats to go beyond the normal discretionary band sometimes it is merited. I think we can all agree on certain scenarios where it is merited and certain ones where it isn't. The real bun fight begins on the reasons that are contentious, I listed several on WT:RFA and I imagine that this will be a major topic for a future RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 10:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  17. Oppose and can I express just how disappointed I am in the behaviour of a small number of editors who refuse to let this issue rest. I am unable to escape the feeling that two sections on WT:RFA and one section at WP:RFAR can be boiled down to nothing more than "I don't like it. I'm not happy that I'm not getting my own way". RFA is already a deeply unsatisfactory affair when one third to one quarter of the community can over-rule two thirds to three quarters of the community. There's not even any evidence that admins with low pass percentages are more likely to be subject to reversals of their actions at venues such as DRV, reports at ANI or desysopping via ArbCom. I've actually tended to think the admins most susceptible to problematic behaviour are those with at or near 100% support at RfA, they don't necessarily get that little voice shoved into the back of their head saying 'remember what so-and-so said at your RfA about doing that or saying that - just re-think this action' so I've absolutely no hesitation in supporting what our bureaucrats do, how they do it and that they be permitted the flexibility needed to continue to do it.
    I said some of this at the Arbitration case page, but to repeat and expand, I would implore the community to ensure their comments at RfA are easy for the closing bureaucrats to understand and act upon, that any issues or problems with a candidate are clearly enumerated (with diffs, of course) so that other editors may more easily understand the concerns and determine how such evidence may impact on their own thoughts regarding the candidate. If you make a flippant remark despite having a serious concern, you cannot be surprised if your flippant remark receives less weighting than a detailed comment with diffs and discussion showing how those diffs may impact on adminship. I would ask that people reading this think about applying this advice to Suppose comments just as much as Oppose comments, a good well rounded discussion, which is what RFA really needs to be, given the difficulty of the process now, aids not just the candidate, but also the participants, it's particularly useful as an admin to come along and see a few comments, be they Support or Oppose which might give me something to think about, have I and the community drifted apart on a particular aspect of deletion or blocking policy, for example. Nick (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, don't want to bore you, mostly by convincing short point by Adrian J. Hunter above (no. 3), and with thanks to the bureaucrats who have shown reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  19. Oppose- IMO, if a discussion at the extreme end of the discretionary range is closed the other way, there need to be clear, compelling, and and exceptional reasons. That didn't happen here. But this concern doesn't directly call for establishing rigid boundaries. Actually crappy or trollish opinions should be tossed out- I just wish the crats hadn't done the same to so many legitimate ones this time. Reyk YO! 12:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. The bureaucrats are chosen for their ability to judge consensus, and consensus is not numbers, and the bureaucrats should not be bounds by numerical constraints because that is contrary to the nature of consensus decision making. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  21. Oppose I'm happy with zero-100 being discretionary zone for crat-chat backed decisions if any feel there is sufficient grounds to suspect consensus either for or against is different from the raw numbers. 65-75 seems ok for discretionary for a closure by an individual crat, but I'd expect only ones where it is pretty clear what consensus is in this range to be closed autonomously. As many above said, and SmokeyJoe's recent comment in the preceding section says it well, Wiki Consensus is based on strength of argument, not raw numbers. If you want to go to raw numbers the crat role is redundant. I'm sure there are a few users around who would quickly game the system if it ever goes to raw numbers. ClubOranjeT 14:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  22. Oppose RexxS passed. Get over it. Some people asked the candidate to resign. An SPI was filed and declined (after Arbcom were asked to comment) which could have had a bearing on the case. The crat chat talk page attracted too many people trying to influence the crats after the RfA proper had closed. A second request to Arbcom was declined 0 to 10. Then there is yesterday's RfC on this page - which venue will be tried next? ANI? Jimbo's talk page? Snapchat? There are many things to do on Wikipedia, and being picky about a subjective judgment is not one of them. Discretion does not allow for purely objective criteria, so 64.0625% being a fraction of one percent less than 65% is neither here nor there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Simply, as consensus is not a vote. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  24. Oppose for as long as we seek "consensus" and not simple mathematics, we should allow 'crats to IAR and do what they believe is the best for Wikipedia. Of course, those against such principles are entitled to seek the de-crat of anyone they believe to abused their position. If they don't do that, then I guess they don't truly believe that any 'crat actually did act outside of their entitlement. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I want to go on record as feeling very strongly that we should never reduce the process of determining consensus to simply being a matter of arithmetic. If the result of this RfC ends up being a strong consensus that the editors who are objecting on the basis that 64≠65 have gotten it wrong, then that would be a good thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  26. Pile-on oppose. Only elections can have clear cutoffs. RFA is a discussion, not an election. If you want clear cutoffs, establish consensus to turn RFA into an election. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  27. RfAs are a debate. They are not a poll/election/vote/plebiscite. Oppose. AGK ■ 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Bureaucrats should be permitted to do their jobs. That 10% zone where their discretion comes in should itself be subject to their discretion. It's not like they're regularly rejecting the views of the community, they almost always follow the guideline. Occasional exceptions should be tolerated, or even encouraged, under the theory that bureaucrats are supposed to determine consensus, not count votes. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - Crats are chosen for their good sense and discretion. We should let them use it, even when outside of the discretionary range. I might change my tune if I saw a grossly inappropriate RfA closure, but I'm not holding my breath. Tazerdadog (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - We limit the bureaucrats corps to those we particularly trust to gauge consensus. These trusted community members should be given leeway to judge consensus as they see fit. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per the 10 other discussions we're having about this same non-issue. Natureium (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  32. Oppose It's not really about the numbers. I would be fine with a 62% RfA passing as long as the bureaucrats are properly reading the consensus of the community. People are talking about the wrong thing here and are getting needlessly caught up in numbers. The issue is the bureaucrats who misread the consensus based on their own view of the candidate. Nihlus 01:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  33. Oppose: Bureaucrats have discretion because judging consensus is not a mathematical process. The RfC provided community views that the threshhold / standards were not reflecting community beliefs and provided guidance as to what was more in line with community expectations. It did not dictate that the nature of RfA was to suddenly be purely !vote counting outside a range and that the quality of arguments was only relevant inside that range – such an outcome would be perverse, but is the logical inference from strict "must promote above" and "must not promote below" boundaries. Bureaucrats should be commended for taking the time and making the effort to carefully evaluate consensus in edge cases, and I hope that they continue to carry out that responsibility diligently even though it is inevitable that some editors will disagree in these cases. EdChem (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  34. oppose this is why we needed crat Hhkohh (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  35. Oppose per Nick, who articulates my thoughts on this much better than I could. Pawnkingthree (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Mostly no per my points at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Order_of_operations above. If we want to see a hard-and-fast rule perhaps it should be larger, overlapping the existing - such as (always reject under 50%+1 numerical vote, and always approve when >90%) - but I really don't think that is needed as I can't ever recall a closure outside of those ranges in the other direction. — xaosflux Talk 01:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm happy with a ten percent discretionary zone. The issue is whether exceptions to that 10% band should be rare or not allowed at all, looking at the above we probably have consensus to stick to rare. ϢereSpielChequers 10:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Bottom only - there are some concerns about last minute radical changes causing rapid falling of support % in the last 24/36 hours - which we have seen, though not to just outside the threshold. Perhaps an amendment to the idea, making it fuzzy over 75% and hard under. 'Crats usually support candidates these days, so I think it very unlikely a candidate who was on 76% but not undergoing a rapid changing of support/oppose would fail to demonstrate consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Biblio's incorrect use of "in general" mischaracterized the 2015 RfC. The community did not support a fuzzy limit, which would really be no limit, at all. Please see how allowing leeway has created an incentive for 'crats to meddle with this. Protect our 'crats by limiting their authority. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    I think you are mistaken. The 2015 contains no consensus to create a hard numerical cutoff. The question was only whether to change the at the time existing 70-75 range to 65-75. There was no suggestion to change the spirit of the rest of the text which beforehand read Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion. Before and after the 2015 RFC, it was clear, as evident from the strong opposition above, that there was and is consensus that any numbers mentioned are merely historical precedents (afaict, there has been wording to this effect on the page from the beginning in one form or another). Regards SoWhy 18:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    If there is a numerical range, then the number actually matters. If the actual decision always rest with bureaucrats, then RfAs can pass at 20% and fail at 90%, with no reason other than 'crats choosing which group of votes matter. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    If such an unprecedented and impossible to believe absurd decision were to made, we can establish a consensus to decrat the gone-mad crat(s). —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Protect our 'crats"?? Trout for Troutman. WOW. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    I know that anyone is more likely to be corrupted when offered the opportunity. During the Mérida Initiative the idea was to put more authority within the Mexican Army because the Federales were known to be corrupt and untrustworthy, not recognizing that the Federales were corrupt only because many sought to corrupt them while ignoring the Army because it wasn't in law enforcement. Once the Army was put in place of the Federales, they proved just as corruptible. Giving 'crats this sort of authority to pass or fail any candidate will only ruin them. If you cared about the institution more than this RfA outcome, you'd recognize that. But you were desysopped for cause, so maybe you didn't think through it all the way. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Nothing to do with corruption whatsoever, but good try, I'll fire up the barbie for that massive trout though! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think whoever is wrong and whoever is right, it is time to drop the stick.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well perhaps we need a cratchat to determine who is right and who is wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not if everybody drops their stick. Otherwise we might need a dead horse chat.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Propose Speedy Close per WP:SNOW This, like pretty much all of the related threads that a handful of editors have been using to vent, is going no where at the speed of light. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Sure, go ahead. I only started this so we could have some clarity on the core point of contention here. Fortunately there is already a 94% consensus: the discretionary range is not a hard-and-fast absolute. Case closed, move on. Biblio (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I would strongly argue NOT to close this early. Since there has been so much dissension caused, having a very clear decision in this issue is important. Unless consensus changes some day in the future, which of course it can, this provides an affirmative response to those concerned about closes outside of the 65-75% range. Closing this early would have the effect of reducing its authority. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2019 (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.

RfC: Should Crats give greater latitude to long established community members when closing RFAs?

Consensus seems to be that this isn't a useful RfC. ansh666 21:26, 14 April 2019 (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.

Whether on not the Crats have discretion outside the 65%-75% discretionary zone, there are various things that have been posited as factors that crats should or should not take into account when weighing RFA consensus. Some of these may not have been discussed by the community for some time, by discussing them individually hopefully we can reaffirm or end consensus as to which of these considerations are reasonable for the crats to focus on in crat chats.

Question: Should the discretion of bureaucrats in Requests for Adminship include giving a little extra benefit of the doubt for very long established members of the community? (In practice this would mean that an RFA candidate who had been here for over ten years would, all other things being equal, be more likely to pass RFA at 65% than someone who had only been here five or six years)?

If your answer to the above is "yes," support. If your answer is "no," oppose.

ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Oppose Tenure is important at RFA, It has been a while since anyone has passed with only 12 months activity. Nominations make a big thing of the amount of time that candidates have been on wiki, and rightly so as longer established editors are more likely to have adopted the values and learned the skills that we like to see in admins. However, the voters already take tenure into account, arguably as one of the most easily measured things at RFA it already has too much weight in RFA discussions, and therefore I do not think that Crats should give extra weight to long established editors when assessing RFAs in crat chats. ϢereSpielChequers 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    It’s really bad form to pose questions for yourself to oppose. Confusing, convoluting to the logic, not a positive way of moving forwards. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Fully agree. No need for 'crats to double down (or up) on a characteristic that has been fully expounded by the !votes. 'Crats should concern themselves with the marginal factors in the marginal decisions they get involved in. Anything else is effectively them imposing a personal choice. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. Oppose and strongly suggest this is ended, as we've got enough RFCs going on. I know of several "established" editors who don't know the first thing about adminship, who would make terrible admins. As I mentioned somewhere above, there aren't a limited number of admin seats, so there's no need to compare how long people have been here and prioritise those who were first. It doesn't work like that. Aiken D 10:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    With respect to WSC, I see this as a genuine attempt to synthesise an improved narrative for the 'crat chat process. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per nom. Slightly unusual, that! ——SerialNumber54129 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. This is getting fucking ridiculous now, or have I missed the proclamation stating that everybody has to run a fucking RfC now ? I've said much of this repeatedly over the last few days, if you don't want your comment at RfA to be discounted or to receive less weighting, make sure it's clear, rational, includes evidence where appropriate and that comedy/flippancy doesn't obscure the underlying intent of the comment. Nick (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    In the most recent Cratchat one crat clearly stated that "The Opposition is largely concentrated on one issue in relation to which limited evidence is presented despite the candidate being a longstanding contributor." My emphasis. So at present your clear and rational oppose could be given less weight simply because the candidate is a longstanding contributor. I'm not sure if the community still agrees with that, hence this RFC. ϢereSpielChequers 11:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    I read that quite differently. Less weight may have been applied because, even though the candidate had been around for a long time, the opposes could only find limited evidence to support their case. ClubOranjeT 12:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    (ec with ClubOranje) WereSpielChequers perhaps WJBscribe could clarify, but I understood the comment to mean something like "Because the candidate is a longstanding contributor, if the issue was persistent, it should have been easy to present lots of evidence. That hasn't happened, so it's probably not a persistent issue." Not "The candidate is a longstanding contributor, so having just one problem issue is ok." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's how I would read it too - that concerns expressed could be considered 'out of character' rather than 'indicative of character'. Nick (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Crats should not be micromanaged. Crats are chosen for their ability to read the fuzziness of consensus, and people who don’t understand that should stand back. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. I agree with WereSpielChequers summary above. Longevity and level of community engagement are certainly valid factors, but they should emerge in the !voting at the RFA rather than given special consideration by crats. I disagree that this was a major factor in the recent controversy though. If the crats mentioned this in the chat it was because it was something that was emphasised in the support column, not because they were using it as a reason to apply different rules.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  8. per @Nick: The 'Crats have broken no policy that I can see: They haven't given favoured treatment to a longstanding editor; Closing 'crat felt the RFA fell in the discretionary zone once discussion had been evaluated, but a complex discussion so the closing 'crat didn't do a discretionary close. Instead, invoked the collective opinions of other crats who determined after considering the opinions, and probably the foundations behind those opinions, there was greater call for promotion than not and ruled consensus was such. Isn't that what they are (not)paid to do? Evaluate consensus and close RFAs? Why would we feel we have to keep telling them how to do their job.
    Imagine how good Wikipedia would be if we all spent this time improving content, adding sources, welcoming new contributors, fighting vandalism, Maybe we need an RFC to see if we need some more RFCs to distract us. If "Yes", keep arguing, if "No", get on with actual useful tasks. ClubOranjeT 12:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. Wrong Question: The 'crats have a single task at RfA – to decide on whether consensus is present to grant access to the sysop tools. They are (and should remain) free to take into account whatever is needed for them to reach a conclusion on whether consensus is present. I agree with SmokeyJoe that micro-managing them on what to consider and how to decide consensus is unhelpful. Either we trust the 'crats to do carry out the duties for which they were supported to undertake, or we don't trust them and should be replacing them. Trying to guess at everything that might be relevant in a future case to deciding consensus and then mandating how it should be handled is not a sensible way forward, and the tenure issue raised in this RfC is merely one example of a possibly relevant factor. We don't have to agree with every decision to retain confidence that the 'crats are acting in line with their mandate and coming to defensible / reasonable conclusions in individual RfA closes. I believe that they should retain a breadth of discretion as this allows flexibility to deal with individual circumstances / situations as they arise. Consequently, I oppose mandating how they must examine any particular factor or issue. If there is an RfA with 80% support but 'crats can make a sensible, reasonable, evidence-based case to explain why there is no consensus, I'm fine with that – and equally if a consensus to promote existed despite 60% opposition. I don't know what those circumstances might be, and I'd certainly want to take a close look at the reasoning offered in support of the conclusion, but if there was solid reasoning and the conclusion was reasonable then I'd accept that they have the necessary discretion to reach that conclusion... and if it was ridiculous supervoting in the face of a clear consensus to the contrary, we can approach that 'crat to reconsider, ask other 'crats to step in, call for a resignation, and ultimately take the 'crat to ArbCom for decratting if needed. What we should not do is tell the 'crats they may only decide consensus while standing on one foot and reading the discussion in a mirror while shaving their other leg (assuming that the 'crats are all two legged). EdChem (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  10. The question correctly advances the principle that RfAs are a debate, not an election. The question then fails (as so many are recently doing) to grasp the difficulty of assessing consensus after a debate with a prescribed yardstick or formula. We cannot expect bureaucrats to do their job while also saying they must "weigh experienced editors' comments more heavily" or follow some other rule no matter specifics of the given case. At best we can provide bureaucrats with a vague and unquantified list of factors to be considered, which seems useless and like something a bureaucrat knew well enough. It would be action for its own sake. And we would still miss the point that prescribing the methods for assessing consensus is difficult to do on a hypothetical, theoretical basis. Our system gets round this by selecting experienced users (bureaucrats) to make the calls in practice, from time to time. To then tie the hands of those making the call undermines the system to some degree. We seem to keep having conversations where this issue is not recognised. AGK ■ 14:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  11. This is not workable, for the reasons given by AGK and EdChem.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  12. No, but the community is free to do so in their RfA comments, or not to do so. If there is a borderline case and the crats observe comments from the community that take tenure into consideration, the crats can evaluate that along with everything else. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the existence this RfC

  1. Sorry, but this is ridiculous. The fact that Maxim said that an established community member should be given the courtesy of a 'crat chat does not mean that the consensus was any different because RexxS was here for a long time. We have 21 bureaucrats for a reason: if one has a dumb opinion, the other 20 will say so. I highly doubt any of 7 the supporting promotion decided to promote RexxS because he was a member to the 10 year society. I also echo Nick above, but I find this RfC so offputting that I refuse to answer and give it the clearly pre-determined outcome it was designed to have. WereSpielChequers, I respect you, but this is honestly the most ridiculous RfC I’ve ever seen put together and only serves to increase drama. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. Unask the question. Discretion is discretion. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. This RfC does not make much sense; support early closure. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2019 (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.

Placeholder neutrals

I've noticed a trend of RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders, before they've actually begun their review of the candidate. Usually something like "Neutral for now as I review the candidate". I feel like an effort should be made to dissuade this sort of behavior. If you have not reviewed the candidate and are not yet sure where you stand, then you should wait it out and not enter any votes yet. Only vote neutral if you have fully reviewed the candidate and truly aren't sure whether to support or oppose, laying out your reasons where appropriate.

After all, a neutral vote does not affect the support percentage that is used to inform the final result of the RfA. Instead, the content of a neutral vote can shed insight into a candidate that can inform other participants supporting or opposing the RfA, and it can also inform the bureaucrats closing the RfA about various concerns that may be important if the RfA is really close, e.g. in the discretionary zone. A neutral vote that just says, "will vote later, haven't reviewed the candidate yet", isn't very informative. In fact, it may actually make the experience of the RfA more stressful for the candidate. Realize that the same situation is achieved by thinking quietly and voting only when you are sure. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I have observed this behaviour as well. I believe this is caused by a subliminal thought like "I should make others aware that I saw the RfA, and I dont vote without reviewing the candidate." Neutral section is not a place for that, its not a waiting room. If there is a balance between opposing, and supporting rationales in your head; then you go to neutral. I think we should let the voters know about this, but I am not sure how to do it. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    Ban "neutral votes" for the first 5 days (or whatever). Realistically someone can only be neutral after a decent amount of time, weighing up the options and reading what others have written. Nigej (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree with above, I’ve always thought these kinds of “votes” to be ridiculous. Aiken D 22:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Totally agree. Strikes me as a form of pointless showboating. Leaky Caldron 22:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Also agree. The neutral section is not meant to be a place where you go as soon as you see that an RfA has started and stay there until you've done a review of the candidate. You should only cast a !vote in that section after you've performed a review of the candidate and still can't make up your mind, with good reasoning. Using it as a placeholder is useless, imo.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree as well, but honestly, I'm not sure why (or if) the neutral section should even exist at all. If people want to make comments about a candidate without taking a side on whether they should be an admin or not, isn't that what the "general comments" section is for? IntoThinAir (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • These types of neutral votes aren't new but...they are indeed annoying and come across as attention seeking. The neutral section is useful for those who have evaluated a candidate but can't fall into the support or oppose camps; this, in turn, can help others make more informed decisions. But going neutral before evaluating is unhelpful at best and borderline trolling at worst. It doesn't benefit a candidate or other participants. Acalamari 03:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think placeholder statements project an air of self-importance and encourage editors to skip them. As with many things with Wikipedia, though, it's more trouble to try to eliminate than to ignore them. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Do the 'crats not have discretion in this area under existing RFA management arrangements? Leaky Caldron 16:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
We can certainly ignore them. Something that just said "placeholder neutral" would by definition have to be effectively ignored by a closing Crat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Placeholder neutrals aren't necessary but not sure they're really such a problem that we need to spend a lot of time discussing (really, complaining) and trying to "solve" it (I certainly can't recall neutrals causing me much stress in my RfA :)) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    Heh, fair enough. I guess I wanted to just put this out there, and hopefully some of the users that might be thinking about using a placeholder neutral will be encouraged to avoid doing so now. I don't think it's worth it to go through the motions of implementing a substantive process change as a result of this. Mz7 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Noting that I also believe these votes are unhelpful. While RfA is a live discussion and should be edited regularly - it should only be edited when the individual has something to add. I would say the same about any other discussion on Wikipedia - it would look odd in an RfC to have a placeholder - and I think the only reason we have this happening is the layout of RfA. WormTT(talk) 16:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's helpful to talk about bureaucrat discretion to disregard the votes. Very few of these votes remain in a placeholder state at the RFA's conclusion. This issue affects the conduct of RFAs, not their closure. xaosflux's suggestion to update the editnotice seems like a better first step than adopting a standing rule. AGK ■ 19:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I fear I have been misunderstood. My reference to discretion relates to the discretion to remove the totally pointless Neutral !Votes which are the subject of this thread. Such as number 3 in the current RfA. Leaky Caldron 19:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
    I suppose that could be moved to the General comments section, but I'm not sure it's incredibly important. If there were something like a dozen "null" comments skewing the (S/O/N) tally (that raised the question "Why so many neutral?"), it could be a consideration but there's only 1 which I don't think has much of an effect. [Coincidentally, the user who put forth that placeholder had also been 'placeholdered' on their own RfA some months ago. I wonder if that had any contributory effect.] –xenotalk 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Placeholders would be annoying if they became too frequent. In small quantities, they might have a positive effect, e.g. as a reminder that it can be a virtue to take one's time before expressing an opinion on sensitive matters like an RfA. Checking out the contribs of a few of the placeholder placers, I don't agree the motivation is always egotistical. Sometimes its likely the opposite; they are just trying to be polite, signalling that they're giving fair attention to the candidate. That said, the most interesting question here is maybe Mr Z's point about whether placeholders are likely to add to the stress experienced by the candidate. On reflection, I think on average, they probably do. So support xaosflux's suggestion FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the bigger problem, in many ways, are the assumptions as to why an editor appends such a placeholder !vote in the first place. Of those ascribing the motives likely at bear, I wonder if any have considered asking the editors beholding this practice why they do it? Like FeydHuxtable, I presume a benevolent intent, and have had occasion to message neutral !voters of an RfA's impending close if they have not indicated the finality of their !vote after giving such a placeholder notice. I agree, if consensus is that it should be dissuaded, that a gentle admonition in the instructions would be a good and well placed start.--John Cline (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I have every confidence that the editors in question have good intentions; I was providing feedback on how placeholder statements can be perceived. When someone announces they will be doing something, there is an implicit assumption that others are interested in this future event. This may be true for some future commenters, but it's a practice that doesn't scale up well, so there's also an implicit message that the announcer feels there is a particular importance to their future comments, warranting a specific announcement. As I said, I think it's more trouble than it's worth to do anything about these announcements. A tweak to the instructions would be more than enough, and I might have done it if the template were not protected; I don't really want to get into a long back and forth about the wording first (admittedly I would be the one at fault, looking for ways to hone the text to be more concise). isaacl (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      How's this for concision? Special:Diff/876664935 –xenotalk 18:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      I was mulling over something less special-purpose, along the lines of "post a comment only after you have reviewed the candidate", but in the interest of minimizing time spent on this matter, your edit is fine. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      This is just a note that I am following this discussion, and will come back later to express my opinion. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) Seriously, I think Xeno's edit is the right outcome. This isn't something that can be legislated in a binding way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      Agreed. But also wonder if, for the avoidance of doubt, the word neutral could be added somewhere? Leaky Caldron 21:45, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      Regardless of where it is placed, a note saying you'll comment later after reviewing the candidate is unnecessary. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
      Precede it with:

      "Neutral" means genuinely neutral, not undecided or not yet decided;

      followed by the remainder of the text suggested above. Kablammo (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pending an Answer - I think it makes a little more sense when it is placed as a conditional on an unanswered question - it has the effect of stressing that that question is a tie-breaker for at least a couple of participants. Obviously this might well be self-aggrandising if only ever done on a question you've posed, but I've seen 5 neutrals (or variants thereof) waiting for one particular answer before, which might discourage a blank leaving. That said, I can see some of the grumpiness points above. Nosebagbear (talk)
  • 5 days is nuts - just wanted to clarify that there was one suggestion above to bar any neutral !votes before 5 days were up, since time was needed to judge. On that logic, we shouldn't allow anyone to make a !vote until 5 days were up. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Brilliant idea, much better than mine. Why not have a day or 2 or 5 where people ask questions, make points, express opinions, etc. but don't vote - AKA a debate. Then a day or 2 or 5 where people vote, perhaps adding brief explanations of why they did so. Nigej (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Nigej: - touche, memo to self, be careful about leaving unchecked holes in my rebuttals Nosebagbear (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Sometimes one already knows to support or oppose, based on previous experience and interaction with the candidate. In those cases waiting a day or 2 or 5 may serve no useful purpose. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    I believe this idea was most recently discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 238#2 days discussion, 5 days voting (wow, doesn't feel like it was in 2015). As I mentioned then, if there is a desire to include those who edit once a week, then each phase will have to be at least a week long. While someone might feel they know the candidate well enough already, I think it is still useful to have a vetting phase so there can be a minimal baseline investigation of the candidate available when people starting expressing their support or oppose opinions. Some people say this format has been tried once, but that attempt was somewhat different, with an initial question phase without discussion or investigation. There wasn't a lot of popular support for a multi-phase RfA before (I believe the additional length worries some people, and others probably don't feel a strong need for it). isaacl (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    The modern RfA trend seems to be pretty consistent (I assume as an unintended side effect of the most recent reforms), and I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed it: there's always a large onrush of supporters at the beginning, and it may take a day or two for legitimate opposition to develop (if it does). Once it does, it gradually builds on itself, often with supporters striking their support and moving to oppose, and the percentage progressively ticks downward until the RfA closes. This is potentially concerning, because people with legitimate reasons to oppose an RfA are disadvantaged by an initial onrush of thoughtless support. For that reason, I think it makes sense to discuss and vet candidates before voting opens. Then again, perhaps it's a good thing that it's harder to tank an RfA without strong arguments. Perhaps RfA should be tilted in favor of the candidates. We do desperately need more admins, and I would not want to see anything that makes it harder than it already is. The system is not perfect, but I think it roughly works.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  09:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    The "modern RfA trend" you describe is indeed quite noticeable (ignoring the two extremes 99% support/SNOW). To me it shows that there's some flaw in the current system. Perhaps it just shows that the opposers are waiting longer than the supporters to show their hand but there's clearly some sort of Bandwagon effect too. Nigej (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    That trend isn't actually quite as clear cut as it originally looked. This is because many of the admin candidates who saw this trend occurring withdrew around day 6. Those that carried on, and candidates who never went below 75% (but still saw significant opposition) actually had slight upturns on the final day - a "rallying" of support. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • But we should prompt - I just had a check through the last few standard close (non-SNOW/withdrawn) RfAs. There were non-removed placeholder neutrals in all of them. It would be worth a ping to each of these 24 hours before RfA close. This would be better to agree rather than just do on an ad hoc or it lays the pinger vulnerable to accusations of canvassing for whatever side they opted for. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Serious opposers take longer to show their hand because they do some serious research. That may be the reason why influential voters make a 'placeholder' neutral comment while they are doing their work. Apart from that, for better or for worse, RfA does what it says on the can, but it's still not a process that encourages candidates of the right calibre to come forward. That is due to the behaviour of the voters, nothing else. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Um, "I've noticed a trend of RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders" – It's not a trend, it's a normal practice that's been in use the entire time I've been on Wikipedia which is something like 13 years. This would probably be more apparent because back then we had multiple RfAs open most of the time. There is no rule against it and if the community wanted a rule against it we would have implemented one over a decade ago. It's perfectly fine for to people start getting involved in a RfA, with some questions and concerns unaddressed; the candidate, the nominators if any, and other RfA participants are often able to provide answers, and many neutrals don't stay there. "After all, a neutral vote does not affect the support percentage that is used to inform the final result of the RfA", and "We can certainly ignore them. Something that just said 'placeholder neutral' would by definition have to be effectively ignored by a closing Crat." – Exactly. This entire thread is busybody pot-stirring, a "there oughta be a law ..." urge to suppress a different approach that someone subjectively just doesn't like because it's not their approach. We have WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP for a reason; we do not need new wiki-regulations to "fix" things that are not actually broken.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC); revised 02:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I think it is becoming rather more common, and has always been a somewhat prattish thing to do, implying the community is on tenterhooks to see which way the individual will come down. AFAIK, it is generally not the "influential voters" (Kudpung above) who do it. Still too soon for a rule though. Johnbod (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: Sorry, I didn't see your response until now. My intention here was never to create any kind of new rule or regulation or add to the bureaucracy of RfA. However, it's true that I do want to dissuade placeholder-voting by starting a conversation about it. It's not that I "subjectively" don't like it because it's not my approach – I genuinely believe it is a problematic approach. As you know, neutral votes in that past have brought up concerns which open the door to pile-on oppose votes. In that sense, neutral votes can and will be stressful to RfA candidates, so it is disheartening to seeing people voting neutral for apparently no reason at all. My hope is that linking to this discussion in the future will inform those that are considering entertaining a placeholder neutral vote that it is pretty thoroughly unnecessary. I suppose I don't want to force them to stop, but I do want to say, "I think they should stop." Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Johnbod, It's not possible for one individual's random fence-sitting (in one of the only processes on WP that is actually a vote, with explicit pass/fail cutoffs, and in which people have notoriously variable and detailed criteria most of which require evidence examination not knee-jerk assumptions) to somehow represent the entire community being on tenterhooks. And if, as you say, "influential" participants don't do do placeholder neutrals, then I'm right back to my original comment: there is no actual problem to address here, since the practice has no effect.

Mz7, I'm not speaking to intent, but effects. We can see from where this discussion is going that people either don't care much, or they want to change the rules; there's not a lot of middle ground. I'm opposed to the latter. Discussions like this have a tendency to rapidly exceed the bounds of what the OP had in mind. >;-) That said, I really don't agree there's a reason to discourage temporary neutrality. Except perhaps meaningless temporary neutrality, with a comment that raises no questions or concerns. Everyone's neutral by default, so a post no more substantive than "Neutral for now." is just noise.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this is about neutral votes per se. I certainly have absolutely no problem with considered ones. As stated at the top, it is about "RfA participants putting in neutral votes as placeholders, before they've actually begun their review of the candidate. Usually something like "Neutral for now as I review the candidate"." Or Smallbone's witty one just above! Let's not drift off topic. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
We are contemplating the implementation of an idea that lacks a clear definition. There is a generally agreed-upon idea that mere "placeholder" votes can be annoying. Therefore we merely want to suggest that judgement be exercised in voting "neutral". We can't be more specific than that. We want to leave open the leeway that allows for natural conversation. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Shameless promotion of my own essay that everyone drafting new RFCs at a rapid rate should probably read

Read it learn from my many mistakes in this arena. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Shameless....good read though. The Under a cloud section is very apt just now. ClubOranjeT 08:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Good one. I linked to it from WP:Writing policy is hard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS Hysteria

This is getting out of hand. He passed. Arbcom is not getting involved. The community is not going to strip crats of their discretion. We are not going to abolish CONSENSUS and or NOTAVOTE. These endless debates and proposals that have zero chance of going anywhere are getting close to being vexatious. Suggesting a newly minted admin resign w/o evidence of abuse of the tools is shockingly inappropriate. All of this crap needs to stop. It's fine to state your strong disagreement with the outcome of a contentious community discussion. Been there and done that. But at some point everybody needs to step back and drop the bloody stick. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Spot On.
Do you mean this [4] as request to resign as characterized by Redrose? Because it does not actually look like a request to resign. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Alan, thanks for at least getting the initials of my name right; it's so vexing when others spell it wrong. Lourdes 11:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC))
(edit conflict)Not sure who is asking him to do that - certainly not me. His situation is irrelevant. There are concerns expressed about competence, consistency and communication skills. 'Crats should be the very best at demonstrating those important attributes and there is clearly concern in some situations. Leaky caldron (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support opening statement in this section. Crats are not software automatons. We cannot confine their intellect to the arbitrary numerical limits 65%-100%. We should thank them for exercising their discretion so capably and for their lucid and persuasive reasoning while doing so, not criticise them for it. Dr. K. 17:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dr.K.: - I feel we should confine them to 100% - we should look suspiciously on those RfAs with more than 100% support ;) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Lol, yes. Setting the RfA pass limit to 100% would solve a lot of problems, including making the software programme needed to reach a decision much simpler, as it would require very few steps of code. Obviously, there would be no requirement of Crats or any kind of chat, thus the process would be greatly simplified. Over 100% support would be even better. In that case, we could also apply for a perpetual-motion machine patent. :) Dr. K. 17:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • As one of the more vehement opposers in the RfA, I endorse this. I appreciate that I was given the opportunity to state an opinion, and I respect that consensus went the other way. This process has run its course. Geogene (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone thinks crats are automatons. Recently, a crat found it important to say that crats are fallible human-beings. We don't expect them to be philosopher kings, either. But, as between "consensus" and "no consensus", they make it still look like a vote. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This whole drama is nothing but a tantrum being thrown by a small handful of users who are unhappy that they didn't get their desired result. Their procedural argument is dubious on its own merits, and goes against every basic ideal and norm we have on this project. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOTVOTE, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, WP:5P5. These users would throw our most fundamental tenets in the garbage, just to block a user who got a 64% instead of a 65%. It's ridiculous. The 'crats came to a strong consensus that there was a consensus to promote. No one has any legitimate grounds to suggest that these 'crats did anything other than their jobs—to competently assess consensus. These 'crats are the most thoroughly-vetted, trusted users on the project. One needs a very strong reason to question their readings of consensus, and procedural stonewalling is the opposite of a strong reason. We do have some "relic 'crats" who were handed the permission in the early days of the project with minimal scrutiny, and one could argue that their credentials are dubious, but in this case, that wasn't part of the promotion. If anything, these "relic 'crats" voting against promotion, while our two new 'crats vote in favor, just further erodes their credibility, along with the argument that there should not have been a promotion: half the users who tried to rule "no consensus" were not screened for their position by modern standards. There is just no credible case to be made here that the decision was wrong. ~Swarm~ {sting} 19:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This. The one redeeming feature of this enormous clusterfuck is that I've now got the names of another three or four users I will oppose if/when they decide to play RfA wheel-of-misfortune themselves. Nick (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed. Thanks Swarm for a succinct analysis. The few individuals to whom you allude are doing themselves no favours and would do well to step away from the whole saga. I respect their point of view and they had every right to express it. But I know as well as anyone that decisions on-Wiki don't always go your way, but when they don't you move on and go back to building the encyclopedia, in whatever way you do that, which is why we're all here in the first place.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "If anything, these "relic 'crats" voting against promotion, while our two new 'crats vote in favor, just further erodes their credibility."..."one could argue that their credentials are dubious."... Swarm, I voted for Rexx and I don't agree with some of the decisions of the crats. But these are low statements you probably never make, and probably should not make. I leave it to you to decide. Thanks, Lourdes 11:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
On the contrary, I don't mean to personally attack these users in any way whatsoever (nor do I call them "relics" as a pejorative, I just think it's an accurate descriptor). But, examining the crats as an institution, this is the most restrictive user group on the entire project, and one can not ignore that some users were appointed to the role in the early days of the project, without the modern standard of extremely high vetting and community approval. These users very strikingly lack the same community mandate as the rest of the crats to justify their right to the position. They inherently represent the weakest part of the crat corps, in terms of credibility. I don't think it's a low blow to simply point this out, particularly in a situation where 100% of "relic crats" are taking a dissenting position from a strong majority of crats, that includes our two most current crats, in a controversial situation where people are attempting to discredit the majority in favor of the dissent. ~Swarm~ {sting} 18:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Swarm: I'd just like to point out that all active bureaucrats but six have passed with an approval level >90%, or a 9:1 support ratio. There are only four "true" relic bureaucrats, one promoted at 89.3% without a cratchat, and one promoted at an 82.7% after a long cratchat. Of these "relic" crats, only two partook in the discussion, and they agreed with two other bureaucrats who passed by well over 90% (one was unopposed). So I think the concern about "relic crats" is a bit overstated, personally. -- Avi (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Support percentage is irrelevant, because it was RfX itself that was different during this period, and that's the whole point. You know as well as I do that nascent proto-RfXs were low participation, informal, lax, without established standards, and without significant vetting. The users who passed these casual, low-participation RfBs in 2004 might not pass an RfB by modern standards, much less an RfA. This is not a "concern", just a simple reality. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)\
As I said, there are only four active 'crats from 2004 and only two partook in this discussion, agreeing with two more recent 'crats. The rest of us are from 2007 and subsequent—all of whom but one passed with at least WP:100 (Dweller had 99 suupports)—at which point RfB most definitely was the hurdle it is today. I have the scars to prove it . -- Avi (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm precisely referring to those two/four users. I'm not even sure what you're disagreeing with me on. My point was simply that the crats are among the most thoroughly-vetted, trusted users on the project—with the arguable exception of crats who were handed the tools during this "proto-RfX" era, and were never held to the standards of the modern RfB, and who potentially couldn't pass an RfB today. But if you are to factor that in this situation, it would actually weaken the case that there was no consensus. In conclusion, there's no valid argument to be made to question the crats competence over this crat chat, which brings me back to my original point, that it is a temper tantrum. ~Swarm~ {sting} 02:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not going to argue there . Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The 'crats don't evaluate on a score card points system. They each have their own way of examining the evidence for support or oppose as objectively as possible and that's what we pay them for, but it would needlessly prolong the process if, for example, a unanimous verdict were to be insisted upon, a minimum quorum, or laying down some strict formula for consistency, or a firm numerical cut-off.
Thus comparing the RexxS and the JBHunley RfAs is comparing apples with oranges - the only similarity was that they were both in the discretionary zone and both went to a 'crat chat. There was actually far more drama surrounding the Hunley RfA than the RexxS but nobody saw fit to re-debate the RfA system or the role of the Bureaucrats. The community needs to wake up to the fact that we have the Bureaucrats, a user group with the highest level of trust within their sphere of remit (even higher than that of Arbcom) and we have conferred on them the responsibility of adjudicating on close calls.
Anything else that may be wrong with RfA is the fault of the voters themselves: vindictive voters, clueless voters, trolls, vandals, socks, general drama mongers, and those who always resent the role and existence of admins. Biblioworm's reforms lowered the bar and doubled the voter turnout, but none of them addressed the core issues or led to an increase in the number of candidates coming forward. It's time to put an end to this drama and look for ways to address the real problems with RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the core problem is the voters themselves. The only way to fix that is to directly restrict who can vote and how they can do so. You have made clerking proposals, and I did also, but none of them passed. I don't think it will ever happen through an RfC. People simply will not reach a consensus to rein in their own irrationality. Biblio (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Voters are only the problem if we treat every point that one of them raises in the debate as a vote. Votes are to be weighed equally with all others, and striking is a serious development. Debates by their nature see points all across a spectrum of quality or validity; weighing them differently is natural. The real problem is whether RfA is an election or a discussion. AGK ■ 14:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    People simply will not reach a consensus to rein in their own irrationality.. Nicely stated, regrettably true. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If I may suggest, we replace voters with a few hundred dices and flip the bits depending on how many sixes they get. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @QEDK; if the target is to find administrators who won't misbehave or do things wrong enough to get de-adminned, then throwing dice actually stands a pretty good chance of doing as well or even better than RfA. You'd have to put a low limit on history/contributions at some arbitrary level. RfA does an absolutely horrible job of predicting whether a person will be a good administrator or not. I'd venture to guess that chucking dice would do a better job. Now, I am NOT suggesting this as a course of action. Rather, my intent is to highlight that RfA as a process tries to vet people for their suitability to be an administrator, and has a horrible track record of doing so. Of course, the same could be said for real-world electoral processes. Thus, all the argumentation that RfA needs to be reformed is likely to fail since the real-world hasn't come up with a better way to select political leaders either. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    RfA as a process tries to vet people for their suitability to be an administrator, and has a horrible track record of doing so.[citation needed] Where do you get this idea from? In my experience the vast majority of admins do a very good job and exhibit the kind of good judgement, fairness and conduct that we would expect of them. So at least for those that pass, RfA looks OK. As for those that don't pass, and whether they'd actually have made a good admin after all, that's impossible to say because they don't get the chance to demonstrate. Some of those who fail fairly narrowly might well have been OK I suppose, but other than that I'm interested to know what you base your assertion on. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I commented about this earlier [5]. That looked at 10 admins forcibly de-adminned by ArbCom. Quoting myself, "The last 10 admins who lost their bit for cause passed RfA with a combined tally of 928/52/29." I haven't looked at the flip side of that; those who didn't become administrators and whether they would have become good administrators...I think there's three possible proxies, which have their limitations. One, you can look at those administrators who didn't pass the first time, but passed on a subsequent RfA. Two, you can look at editors who never passed (without SNOWing or TOOSOONing), and see what happened to them subsequent to their failed RfA(s). Three, you can compare the population of administrators who barely passed (say, below 80%) vs. those who passed strongly (say, above 90%) and see if there are differences in outcome between the two populations. It would be interesting to look into this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, did those deadmined get deadmined like two seconds after they were passed by the RfA? We already know, it's a bit ridiculous (but hopeful, nonetheless) to have a process which tries to predict the future. And ok, on did not f-up enough to be de-sysoped (or was not caught for a long time) but that's rather minimalist, and leaves lots of room for poor calls over a career (especially since admins often tell us they don't have to use the tools to be admining). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Methods: The 21 successful RFAs in 2017 were examined. Of these, the only ones with support (i.e. #Support/(#Support+#Oppose)) below 90% (n = 5) were K6ka, Primefac (2nd), Amortias, GoldenRing, and Ansh666. So the other 16 all had support of 90% or higher. The lowest % support was 67% for GoldenRing. All five of these "low-support" admins still seem to be active as admins here, and one of them is now a bureaucrat. Though to be fair 2017 is relatively recent, maybe some problems necessitating desysopping will arise with these 5 in a few years. IntoThinAir (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_252"