RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Pickersgill-Cunliffe 0 0 0 00:35, 15 June 2024 5 days, 22 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

2003 - 2004 - 2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 - 2010 Most recentTemplate:ArchivelineTemplate:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Current time: 01:40:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

I understand that this has already been established, and there's probably something along these lines in the archives, but I wanted to get some discussion going on this again. I've done a quick tally of successful vs unsuccessful RfAs from 2005 to 2010. The data is below:

• In 2005, there were 387 successful and 213 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 600 people had an RfA in 2005, and of these, about 65% were successful.
• In 2006, there were 353 successful and 543 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 896 people had an RfA in 2006, and of these, about 39% were successful.
• In 2007, there were 408 successful and 512 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 920 people had an RfA in 2007, and of these, about 44% were successful.
• In 2008, there were 201 successful and 392 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 593 people had an RfA in 2008, and of these, about 34% were successful.
• In 2009, there were 121 successful and 234 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 355 people had an RfA in 2009, and of these, about 34% were successful.
• In 2010, there were 75 successful and 155 unsuccessful candidates. In total, 230 people had an RfA in 2010, and of these, about 33% were successful.
  • As you can see, there was a large decline in successful RfAs between 2005 and 2006. A small increase occurred between 2006 and 2007, but the percentage dropped about 10% between 2007 and 2008.
  • The number of candidates increased between 2005 and 2007, but the number of candidates fell sharply between 2007 and 2008. The number has been decreasing steadily ever since.
  • Somewhere between 2007 and 2008, something happened that caused the number of candidates to decrease. I think it's important to know what caused this sharp decline in candidates so it can be corrected.

--The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed that at least part of it was that up to 2007, the number of active editors had increased, but from then on has been falling. See File:Activeusersenglishwikipedia2.png.  -- Lear's Fool 15:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm misreading the graph, the blue line indicates editors with 5+ edits, correct? That's where the sharpest decline is. Potential admin candidates would be the purple line, which indicates editors with 100+ edits. The data shows that that particular number has increased only very slightly decreased. Again, I may have misread the graph; please let me know if I did. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the rate of new admins will be related to the number of new editors, not to the number of current editors. Since 2007, the rate at which we gain editors has fallen dramatically, and so there will be fewer editors reaching the level of experience required to become an administrator. There are, no doubt other factors, but this one should be easier to quantify.  -- Lear's Fool 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point there. But I do think that something else besides the fact that we have less active new users is causing this decline in candidates. It may be that we have unintentionally made our expectations stricter than they were in 2005, for example, or 2006. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of new users is a red herring. The number of new users each week will increase for a certain period until the number of users, amongst possible users, becomes a majority. Then the system will tend towards a saturation point where we have less and less new users because almost everyone that could use Wikipedia does use it. Imagine a month with not a single new user, but when everyone in the world already was a user! We have to study how many active users there are, i.e. the number of people stopping editing is just as important. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just thought of something. If you look at the level of activity by new users in September 2009, it's about the same as it was in June or July of 2006. However, less candidates ran in 2009 than in 2006. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few other things some good numbers could help with:

• What percentage of admins promoted during the "looser" periods (where a higher percentage of RfA attempts passed) have since been sanctioned (including being placed under ArbCom restrictions related to admin actions, involuntarily desysopped, successfully recalled, or found to have "resigned under a cloud"), in comparison to those promoted during the "tighter" periods?
• Have the number of administrative actions reversed by ArbCom or community consensus decreased since the "tightening"? (This one would be hard to nail down, but awfully instructive).
• Have the backlogs on tasks requiring administrator intervention become more or less severe in duration, frequency, and occurrence?

I suspect, that if a lot of people I know to be awfully good admins were to run today, they wouldn't pass. Given that, I think we need to know if the "standard tightening" is worth losing potentially good candidates. Has it really made things run that much more smoothly? If it's really worked, maybe there is something to be said for it. If not, we may actually do better to pass more admins with different talents in different areas, and perhaps encourage people to have less rigid requirements. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Our "tight standard" policy isn't really doing anything good, as one can see by the numbers in my first post. Perhaps we could do as you suggested and encourage people to stop being so stringent towards potential admin candidates. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 21:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. Until someone figures how to reduce the impact of the absurd standards that many RFA regulars use I don't see how we can actually fix anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Remember when I suggested we lower standards? If not, I could probably find it in the archives. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you there. Maybe asking bureaucrats to vet candidates is one thing we could do. There are some bitter people on RfA that have failed, or that would never pass, that don't want to see people pass. There are some people on RfA that don't understand the job and what properties an admin should possess. I'm tempted to say that admins and bureaucrats should vet the candidates because they're the only ones that really know what qualities are required; but asking admins might lead to a conflict of interest. I don't know. But we need to get rid of bitterness, spite and ignorance. RfA would be a better place without those three things. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Perhaps, if there are so many biased and rude opposes that the candidate can't pass, a bureaucrat could make the final decision? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what they're already supposed to do? Malleus Fatuorum 23:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats currently decide close calls, such as RfAs with 70% of support. What if there was a pile-on of biased and bite-y opposes, and the candidate only got 40% support? Instead of failing the RfA, the bureaucrat could look at it and count how many of the opposes didn't use the bite-y excuse, and make the decision from there. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my recollection they already do that in the case of former administrators for instance, who are not expected to meet the 70% barrier, as it's become a meme that all good administrators will make enemies. The bad ones will for sure, which is where the trouble starts. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a possibility that 70% is too strict? Could we slightly lower the percentage to, say, 65%? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Might lead to a conflict of interest"? Wake up and smell the coffee. Malleus Fatuorum 23:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wheeling out mindless, old clichés isn't the most constructive response to someone making an effort and putting forward their thoughts. It's gone 11pm in the UK and I don't even like coffee. Get a grip! — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the opposes in some recent RFA's are about on incident, a disagreement, or just because the editor does not like the candidate, and opposes for some silly reason. Everyone has a different view on what it takes to be an admin, some people are very strict, 5,000 edits, a FA, and lots of content work, others not so much. It is personal opinion, which, can be an issue. If there was a set "standard" (if we could ever agree on one) maybe that would be better. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One incident can be one incident too many. Until there's an easy-in, easy-out then there's no way that RfA can possibly be made to work. Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But should one incident really be held against a user? Have we overlooked all the good that the person has done? Or do we go right to the bad, it sure seems that. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the way it works, in fact the way that life works. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A change of the passing percentage is something that needs looking at. A man can be president of a nuclear armed state with 51%. But to have some extra buttons on a website you need at least 70% to be confident? You can undo a deletion while you can't undo a nuclear attack. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need 51% of a much larger number :) -- Avi (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally, and utterly, irrelevant. That's why percentages were invented. You may well have 51% of more people, but you'll also have 49% of more people that don't approve. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You may want to calculate and compare the probabilities of getting a 70% success rate out of a population of 30 people (21+) where the probability of each individual success is 40% against the probability of getting a 51% success rate of 131,000,000 people where the success rate is, let's say, 49.9%. Which is more likely? (Unless I'm wrong, I think you'll need to use the normal approximation with continuity correction for the second, which is actually more accurate than the Poisson approximation for the first, I believe). -- Avi (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or, 49% who do approve but just prefer the other guy. Unlike presidential candidates, RFA candidates have no competition, they just have to convince people they'd do a good job. The percentage should be higher when you've got no competition. (Not to mention that, assuming you were referring to US presidents, they get to be voted out again.)--BelovedFreak 00:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Figures, who came up with 70% anyway? When was that "set", and evan at 70%, many go as no consensus. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, I think it should be changed at least to 65%. But, knowing what other people think of my ideas, probably nobody will agree with me. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the difference, 65, 70, peeh, I don't think anything different will happen. Maybe lower? Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower? I agree with you, but I don't think anything lower than 65% could get past the rest of this courtroom. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

65% is an improvement on 70%. Big changes are made little by little. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea has always been that administrators need to have the trust of a significant majority of the community. If more than 30% of the folks commenting at any given RfA, for whatever (sincere and considered) reason don't have that trust in any given potential administrator, that's probably not a good sign. Lowering the percentage might slightly increase the number of folks foolish enough to put themselves up for public ridicule, but I'm not sure it'll actually solve the problem. jæs (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "public ridicule" may be the key phrase there. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the public ridicule aspect, although for a few yes, and especially if first time doesn't work out. But mainly it could be that the RFA process is not something that article editors encounter. It seems that plenty of potential admins are floating around just doing good work without a thought for being an admin. What is all the work they would do as an admin anyway? I'm not aware there is a requirement for more admins. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the case. If it was, how do you explain the fact that 920 users had an RfA in 2007? The data doesn't match your claim. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Public ridicule" is the key phrase there. Enough users have clearly stated that it's the reason they won't run the gauntlet. Along with the often unfair and irrelevant 'optional' questions, and the general incivility.Kudpung (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be on to something. The nitpicking that opposers tend to do almost always borders on incivil. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Public ridicule" sums it up. I really don't feel the need for some 14-year-old kid to question my maturity, to say nothing of the many revenge votes. Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't really know. I'm guessing that there is no need anymore. I wasn't here pre 2007 so can't comment on why so many previously applied, was RFA generally advertised in some place back then? Since 2007 there always seems to be an abundance of admins, even excessively so at places like ANI and few tasks obvious on the content side that require the mop. Could it be that amazing tools such as User:ClueBot unleashed in 2007 have removed most of the need of the admin power. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 03:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also reject the notion that we are desperately short on admins an there is an impending crisis. This has come up here again and again, yet the supposed crisis has failed to materialize. However I do like the idea of lowering the threshold to 65%, and lowering the "discretionary zone" still further along with it. As it stands now anyone above 75% always gets in, anyone below 65% does not, and in between we go do the crat chat to resolve. I suggest the bar be 55% for a crat chat, as it is still a clear majority but not quite a two-thirds supermajority. 65% is a more reasonable bar, and an achievable change as it not too drastic. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers provided some pretty convincing stats and a highly rational exposé in Signpost - people seem to have forgtotten that. The thresholds are fine where they are. It's the quality of the !voting that needs looking at and the silly 'optional' questions that are deliberately designed to faze even the most mop-deserving candidate into submission, or cause follow-my-leader pile-ons. Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit I can't find that; can someone link to it please? Unless it's just a transclusion of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month, which I've seen. —Soap— 13:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I found it, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Admin_stats. I just didn't look back far enough in history. —Soap— 13:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that thresholds are not the problem, and the stats showed that changing them would make little difference. We do not have a plummeting success rate, but we do have a steadily falling application rate.

The problem is the mauling at RFA which puts off more candidates from applying. Even exceptionally good candidates must feel like they have spent a week in the stocks on a very busy village green well-stocked with rotten tomatoes, while borderline candidates go through an experience that would make stay in Gitmo seem appealing.

I recently asked an experienced editor to accept a nomination. He took a look at a few recent RFAs, and said "no way" ... and since this editor is no shrinking violet, I cannot believe that his response is unusual.

Reform of the process would not be complicated. One possibility is reducing the week-in-the-stocks element by requiring questions to be endorsed by more than one editor before moving to the main RFA page; another possibility is to turn the whole process into a more structured form of decision-making, either by examining the candidate under pre-defined headings, or an RFC-style process of discussing various motions.

But at this point, I still think that Jimbo is right to suggest it's worth trying to untie the knot of editors imposing high standards because adminship is open-ended. I have previously suggested trying a process of initially-limited-term adminship, where a first RFA is for a limited period. It may not be a long-term solution, but we could learn a lot from seeing how much that helped everyone to relax a bit ... and for now we are stuck in an impasse where even modest trial reforms are rejected because they won't instantly solve everything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A limited term admin process could work, but how would that attract more candidates? We also need to find out how to attract more candidates. Although we're not short on admins, we are short on candidates. Perhaps we could put up advertisements on the most viewed Wikipedia pages? I think somebody said this before me; I can't remember who it was. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that by making RfA less arduous, you encourage more candidates. I don't think there's a lack of awareness of RfA, just a lack of people willing to put themselves through the process. Using limited-terms for first RfA would be an interesting experiment, but is obviously susceptible to being gamed. But this page never achieves consensus on how to change the RfA process, so I think efforts should be focused on changing (somewhat) the nature of adminship. For instance, if admin recall could be made binding (this doesn't mean compulsory)—that is, any user who pledges to be open to recall at their RfA is forced to remain so, and forced to be de-adminned if they are not reconfirmed—then I would be far far more liberal in my support for people. Since there's currently no obligation, then there's always an element of doubt. Trebor (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but how will making recall stricter cause an increase in the number of candidates that put themselves forward at RfA? As Kudpung and BHG said, people aren't putting themselves forward because of the borderline incivility and ridiculously difficult optional questions. At this point, I think that writing definite RfA !voting and questioning guidelines is the solution to this problem. Any suggestions as to how to follow-up on this? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that going to a two-tiered system (6 months to a year of the initial term, followed by a confirmation for permanent status) would accomplish both needs. Voters might go easier on candidates they can revisit later on. But it does nothing about some of the other problems that show themselves here regularly. There can't possibly be too many admins, and the only real way to counter the impression of admins as an elite class of users is to have them be so common that it is not seen as a special status. But I still think that we need to modify the entire definition of adminship so that it is, by policy, viewed as a status. We need to establish that there are behaviors that rise to the level of "conduct unbecoming" of that status. This acknowledgment of the obvious would then allow for ArbCom to remove adminship for actions that do not involve the direct use of the admin tools, but reflect poorly on the admin corps and the project as a whole. As long as "misuse of the tools" is the only viable cause for removal, I believe that the high standards will remain an issue at RfAs. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but the question still stands: how are we going to do this? As I suggested, I think that writing guidelines for !voting and questioning is a good solution. Also, perhaps we could try and think of other means by which to "de-admin" administrators? Others may disagree, however. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said over and over again that the arb committee serves as a place to review tool use for those concerned with how admins use tools. I generally incorporate that in terms of how I vote and comment here. For some reason that seems to get lost in the noise somewhere, and seems to me to be a straightforward fact that might make some folks give more editors a bit of a chance (????). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim isn't lost, it's just that too many of us see the reality. Can you honestly still claim this after arbcoms most recent deriliction of duty?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a lot of us would like to see ArbCom fulfill that role, but we are not convinced that they are actually doing it, as opposed to talking about doing it. Casliber, if you can move the Committee in the direction of doing a better job of that, I and (I suspect) many other users would be very happy to see that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just not forget that the reason candidates are not coming forward has nothing to do with ARBCOM, probationary periods, recall, raising or lowering the bar. It's all due to the silly questions, the bickering, and the general drama. I think the first steps are as The Utahraptor echoes the sentiment of many: writing guidelines for !voting and questioning is a good solution. The fist rule would be that the additional questions are genuinely optional, candidates should only answer them if they think it would enhance their chances. That would put an end to the trick and silly questions. Best of all of course, would be to go back to old days and have no extra questions at all. I'm convinced that some of these questions are posed by people who are just trying to be clever and show off their own knowledge (or lack of it). Too many of them are posed by people who don't have an inkling of what adminship is all about, but can nevertheless cause the pile-ons and make a trainwreck out the candidature of a most mop-deserving editor. --Kudpung (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So straight up/down voting without the silly pretense of community discussion. I'll pass.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can add as many disclaimers as we like to "This question is only optional", but as far as RfA outcomes are concerned, I think that truly optional questions are only possible with a change in how many !voters think; and that would be rather difficult to engineer. bobrayner (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals: change how questions are asked

Okay, so reading the above there does seem--and this is unprecedented--that there is broad agreement regarding the general uselessness/hazing of the 'optional' questions. We all know these questions, except for silly ones about haikus and favourite elements, are truly not optional. Given the fundamental impossibilities of changing behaviour or the admin-for-life concept, it seems logical to change the process by which we question the candidates. So, three proposals. I would ask that for the sake of showing support or opposition to these proposals, everyone look on the bright side, and assume for now that we can achieve consensus to make them work; one of the major roadblocks on Wikipedia is the "naah, can't work, oppose" mentality that prevents even trying something new. Supporting does not mean immediate implementation, it is merely an indication of which avenue(s) we should pursue. → ROUX ₪ 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To begin I disagree that there is "broad agreement". There's agreement within a narrow group that comes to this page to complain that RFA is too hard.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a statement of fact and a realisation of the truth. It is too hard! — Fly by Night (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is of course somewhat contradicted by all the complaints about how hard it is to get rid of a bad admin. If it is so hard, logically only the most qualified would get in. Logic of course is often out of the picture in the back rooms of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Just because it's hard to get through doesn't mean that those that do get through are qualified for the job. The point is that RfA, i.e. a selection process, is broken. Let me make an extreme example to make the point: what if those that represent the USA in the 100 metre sprint at the Olympics have to throw a shot put 75 feet to qualify? That's almost impossible to do but, even if you did manage it, you needn't be a good 100 metre sprinter. As I've said, there's some level of bitterness and spite involved, it's partly a popularity contest. None of that has to do with being a good admin. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fact" and "Truth" are often worlds apart. See WP:TRUTH--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to use a dictionary to understand the meaning of words. Princeton say that a truth is a fact that has been verified. So I can't see how they are often worlds apart. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: Standardized questions

Each year, members are elected to ArbCom with a slate of standardized questions that are generated by the community. These questions are designed to gauge potential Arb attitudes towards various policies, decisions made throughout the year, and so on. Likewise, a set of questions aiming at finding out potential admin attitudes regarding admin functions: blocking, deleting, protecting. We could use either hypothetical examples, or historical situations which involved complex decision-making. (I would also note a personal preference to include the frequent "what are some reasons someone shouldn't vote for you?" question; it shows introspection and self-awareness, something sorely lacking in many admin/candidates.)

The benefits to this are multiple: we will see what the candidate's attitudes are, and even more important, we will be able to assess their responses in comparison to the responses of others.

There is a potential downside, inasmuch as candidates could over time game the system by parroting answers. Easy enough to foil; come up with half a dozen questions that explore each admin function, and only ask two per RFA. Or something.

• I admire that you're putting forward some proposals, but I can't see what the proposal is here. Is it that we ask a candidate why people shouldn't vote for them? Could you please be more explicit? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was explicit. Please read the sentence starting with 'likewise.' → ROUX ₪ 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sentance you mention is 18 words long, and the post was 177 words long. Without you telling me what your point was, I wouldn't have known. I'm sorry, but I don't call that explicit. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why you're being a jerk about this. The sentence is perfectly clear, particularly when one notes the preamble, outlining a similar process. Oh well, your failure to read clear English isn't really my problem. → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, it wasn't at all clear to me. I'm sorry for expressing an interest and actually wanting to know what you wanted to say. I'll leave you to it next time. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 2: Vetted questions

Though it failed, this is a decent model. We can see where it went wrong (way the hell too many questions), and fix those problems. I propose a modified version of what happened there: candidate indicates their candidacy, community has five (four, seven, three, whatever) days to come up with questions. The community then votes S/O, top 10 net supports are the questions the candidate answers. After answering all the questions, voting begins and lasts however many days. Think of this proposal as closer to filling out an application for a job.

Proposal 3: Hybrid approach

Take the two proposals above, mix in a blender. Perhaps lower the number of vetted questions to 5. I personally feel this is the best approach, as it allows us to examine commonalities across candidates, while still asking questions tailored to the specific situation.

Proposal 4: No optional questions

Encourage voters to do research on candidates, and to vote based on what the candidate has actually done rather than how responsive they are to an RFA quiz. If a voter must ask a candidate a question, let that happen on a talk page somewhere.

Proposal 5: move all optional questions to the talk page

A simple, achievable change. Using a talk page format instead of the "exam" format currently used will allow easy back-and-forth between the candidate and those asking the questions. Also users who want clarification on a point can just ask instead of doing something like putting a !vote in the neutral section to pressure a candidate to provide a better answer. It might help, it might not, but it would be easy to implement and if it didn't do any good it could be just as easily reversed.

Comments

• Comment. I'm not sure that I buy the opening premise that there is really consensus that we have to fix the questions. And I'd be reluctant to go too far in restricting anyone's ability to ask questions. No one's ability to choose to disregard questions is currently being restricted. As a general observation, I wish those who make a habit of asking these questions would, voluntarily, adopt a policy of "first, do no harm" before posting the questions to the page. Perhaps it would be a good idea to modify the second, vetting, option to still allow questions while the RfA is in process, but to ask that a second user endorse a question before it can be posted. In other words, if no one else sees merit in your question, it shouldn't be used. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentWouldn't it just be easier to have crats disregard any opposes that cite unanswered optional questions as a reason for opposition? Then the questions would truly be optional, and there would be no need to create complex rules governing questions and their formulation. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a nice idea, but if people know that citing an unanswered question as a reason for an oppose will mean their oppose will be discounted then they'll just find another reason. The search for a new reason being motivated by the unanswered question. — Fly by Night (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that RFA is broken, and I agree that the question section is distracting editors from assessing the candidate's edits. Though questions can be useful if they are based on diffs found in a candidate's edits. And reforming the question section is distracting from some of the sillier aspects of the current RFA process, such as opposes based on the percentage of automated edits. I would probably oppose a candidate who didn't have any manual edits, but a candidate who has 10,000 manual edits and 30,000 huggle edits may have only 25% manual edits... But have far more substantial contributions than a candidate with 7,500 manual edits and 2,500 automated ones. In my view the quality of the manual edits is the thing that really matters, and I don't see how doing tens of thousands of huggle edits reduces the value of a candidate's manual edits. ϢereSpielChequers 20:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would agree that there are some problems around optional questions, but I think it important to have the capacity to ask questions that are tailored to the question rather than "generic". Sometimes we get specialist candidates who are focussed on a particular niche, and they could be grilled on subjects which the average candidate knows little about. Sometimes we get candidates with an unusual personal history and it's reasonable to ask a question specific to that (for instance: "You got in trouble a couple for X, Y, and Z of years ago; how can we trust you as an admin who might work with X or Y or Z?"). So, out of those options, I would prefer 2 or 3. I'm not sure that this is the best solution to RfA's problems, but if this approach has potential to mitigate the problems, I'm happy to jump on board. bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Since comparisons are made above to the process for the ArbCom elections, perhaps it would be worth considering some of the other approaches used in those elections:
  1. Each editor is permitted only one question on the candidate page.
  2. Questions are limited in length, which precludes the "one question" from being a multi-part monster.
  3. Questions must be candidate-specific, not repeats of questions asked of every candidate.
  4. Questions may not be redundant to those already asked by others.
  5. Questions that do not meet these criteria may be entertained on the talk page if the candidate wishes.
  6. Questions are not vetted in advance, but they are subject to amendment or removal if they do not follow the rules.

I think these may actually be more useful ideas for RFA than any of the proposals above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I would disagree on some of these points. Obviously, users shouldn't be asking five or six questions to every candidate (those users will, I suspect, quickly be "dealt with"), but I think the issue is more on the type of questions. I try not to ask the common "What's the difference between a block and a ban" because it's overused and should be basic enough. I don't like asking things about when someone should be blocked without warnings unless it's a regular part of the area of work in which the admin indicates interest (SPI, AIV, etc.). And using the same questions over and over is not something I like, but it's OK to reuse them occasionally—just not every single RfA for the sake of asking questions. I personally prefer two types of questions: ideological/philosophical ones, from which I try to better understand the candidates "approach" to editing and I usually gain insight into the candidate's work; and situational questions, which is where I disagree about the length concern. For example, there is no issue with a multipart question of a long one—it's Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia where really complicated and long-winded drama occurs. Shielding an admin from a BLP mess a week before it could happen won't help. Sure, we should be more tolerant toward honest mistakes within answers to complex questions, but that's something for a crat to weigh in closing the RfA. I agree that redundant questions are not needed, and that the talk page is always open—RfA talk pages should be used more, I think. But removing questions isn't necessary in my opinion; additional questions are meant to be optional and if a candidate feels uncomfortable answering one, they don't need to. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but your last sentence is completely unconnected with reality. There is no such thing as an optional question at RFA. Yet again, we may call them optional, and that may well be an ideal to which we should aspire. In the real (ahem) world, they are about as optional as flair. Again... you want to change behaviour. That is vanishingly unlikely. The only way to change the behaviour is to change the stimuli presented. → ROUX ₪ 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I know they're only called optional now, but if people actually treat them as optional ... well, that's changing behavior, as you say. Which is why I don't think there's an RfA problem, just the usual problem of an individual's behavior. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added my own proposal (#5) as a simple solution not requiring any complicated vetting or other new rules, just a slight change of venue to encourage discussion with the candidate as opposed to an interrogation. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The problem with standardised questions is that the areas where admins can work are numerous and not everyone intends on working in every single area. Someone who is good at closing AFDs might not intend on working in say copyright or username violations, or even CSD. Either we'd have questions which would not be relevant to the candidate, or the questions would be so general as to be of little use. I made it clear in my RFA which areas I would and would not work in, and the optional questions reflected my areas of interest and thus adapted to my candidacy. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: We don't need to make any changes to RfA itself

I dislike "RfA issue" threads and proposals, but I'm making one anyway. I think there's no "RfA problem". What the problem is, is specific users badgering other users because they think certain opinions are stupid. It's an opinion, FFS. I support discussion but I don't support pile-on badgering. It is perfectly valid to hold an unpopular opinion; that's part of the "marketplace of ideas" concept—we should be "free both to speak and to listen" and this "ensures that nondominant views are not squelched simply because they are different" (Krotoszynski, Ronald J. (2006). The First Amendment in cross-cultural perspective: a comparative legal analysis of the freedom of speech. NYU Press. p. 14. ISBN 9780814747872.). Now, one must be careful in applying principles of the U.S. Constitution to Wikipedia because our governing principles are quite a bit different, but I think this concept is perfectly applicable for RfA.

Here's my proposal about badgering (perhaps not the exact wording):

Every user is entitled to his or her opinion. Other users are encouraged to discuss views they disagree with, but excessive badgering is not acceptable. Users should not post comments such as, "This is the lamest, silliest, and worst-thought-out reason to [support/oppose] I have ever seen." If the original author of the comment in question requests that others stop badgering him or her, other users should respect the existence of alternative opinions and allow the closing bureaucrat to weigh the values of the respective arguments in determining consensus.

It's not a vote. It doesn't matter that much what the percentage is. It doesn't matter what questions are answered or what questions are asked. Limits on questions are unwise; there are no limits in the size of a messy incident on Wikipedia. If I see, say, a pedophile, and block him/her, I can't just say, "Situation dealt with" and move on—what if they sockpuppet for two years, stalk me, harass child editors? Questions are useful for getting a sense of the candidate, and not just "what's the difference between a block and a ban"-type question. (We need less of those, I think, but that's not the point.) The questions are not the problem; they don't have to be answered at any rate. (Although, all users will encounter situations they cannot avoid, so it may be sensible to answer all the questions anyway.) The issue is users who are constantly harsh, uncivil, and plain bothersome at RfA. If people take an extra second to help the candidate improve and not write oppose in a rude manner, then it doesn't matter why they oppose—that will be weighed later. If people don't act as if they are taking personal offense to someone else's opinions, valid or not, and complain about how stupid their ideas are, then RfA might not be thought of as a bitter place. And if people would stop saying things like, "You're a good writer, but not good admin material" or, "Come back in 6–8 months and try again" and actually put some thought into their comments—how would they like to hear that—RfA might become a bit less cruel. Seriously, if you can't say/write something nice, shut the hell up just turn away. And if you make a comment you later regret or did not really intend, strike it and apologize.

I'm not claiming to be perfect and I'm trying to improve my own attitude at RfA. The issue isn't the RfA process itself, it's some users who make it a bad place. I'm not saying it's the same users, nor am I saying every user at RfA is rude, but everyone needs to make an effort to be more thoughtful with word choice. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You want to change behaviour. That is a fantastically difficult thing to do when when one has incentives to dangle in front of the people one wants to change (this is a well-established concept, and informed a lot of how we worked in my former career, which was in employee incentive). We have zero incentives to make people change behaviour, making such a change virtually impossible. Second, I take enormous issue with you saying that RFA is not a vote. Yes, yes it is. We can lie to ourselves as much as we want, but so long as there is a numeric formula for who passes and who fails (with scrutineers checking the edge cases and making a call), it is a vote. Period. Anyone who keeps pretending that it isn't is, sorry because I generally respect you around here, part of the problem; willful blindness is a major problem on Wikipedia, and it does nobody any favours to continue propagating the bizarre notion that RFA isn't a vote. → ROUX ₪ 23:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, no, I'm know full well the memes around here, but it's only a vote if it helps my argument :P. Seriously, though, it's not as much of a vote as it could be—and if we had more crats that considered arguments more carefully and closed RfAs like AfDs—where I would argue that it's much less of a vote because often in controversial cases, the decision is not in favor of the majority view— RfA wouldn't be as much of a vote as it currently is. There shouldn't be a set percentage, but more weight should be put into strong rationales and less or no weight to weak rationales. (But then there's the old debate over people simply signing supports whereas one must explain oppose thoroughly—an example of its vote-ness currently.) I completely realize this is an unlikely goal, just as impossible as erasing incivility from ANI, but what else can one do? There's nothing majorly wrong with RfA itself, people just need to ignore the rudeness and not take everything personally because people probably won't change. I just stated my opinion because I hope that at least one person who reads it is compelled to write something a little nicer at the next person's RfA. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to consider badgering a problem, but it usually isn't an individual !voter that finds his vote badgered. Take a look at the difference between WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 and WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 4. Do you think it was a coincidence that I waited for a time when A Nobody and Okip/Ikip had been blocked before submitting myself again? A dedicated opposition can completely disrupt and distort an RFA.—Kww(talk) 23:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't need to make a change to RfA itself, but we need to make a change to the way that some of those who take part look at it and the way they conduct themselves. That's why I suggested letting bureaucrats and some admins do the vetting instead of it being a free-for-all. If it does have to remain open then we can't change the way the !voters behave, in fact it'll just get worse. So we need to reform RfA to compensate for problems caused by the !electorate. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but this is what I think roux would call wishful thinking, just as I consider any major change to RfA wishful thinking for the most part. I want to change how people look at RfA and how they vote, but only letting certain users vote isn't, I think, the right option. At the very least this will lead to the formation of some RfA cabal. All we need (at least now) is, when consensus is being determined, the more "silly" and "lame" opinions discounted. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think having only admins and crats choosing new admins is ever going to be doable, but there is some merit to the idea of having the crats vett candidates before their RFA is posted. It could be done by email, the same way it is done for CU and OS candidates. NOTNOW cases could be told gently and not in public that they are grossly unqualified, others could be told of any red flags detected and advised of how it will affect their chances. This could help reduce some of the nastiness, but as roux says there is precious little we can do change people's attitudes given the lack of incentive (other than the incentive not to be seen as a jerk, which usually does not apply on the internet). Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One or two very good suggestions there, Beeblebrox, but still doesn't change the fact that the current situation of a drop in the number of candidates could be easily resolved if people would just refrain from posing silly, unintelligent, and and trick questions, and being generally uncivil.Kudpung (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem that is 3/4 resolved by any of the proposals I made above. → ROUX ₪ 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my proposal in the above section to move all optional questions to the talk page. It is my opinion that it is more or less impossible to craft a policy that clearly defines what should and should not be asked. Therefore, trying to legislate the optional questions will most likely lead to endless fights about whether a particular question violated the policy or not. Getting rid of them entirely is not a viable or wise option either. Moving them to the talk page might help change the whole experience. It might not, but it would be so simple to implement that I believe it is worth trying. And not just for one single RFA like the last experiment, we need to give it an actual chance to succeed, at least a three month trial period and we can examine what impact it has had. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is getting rid of the questions entirely not "viable or wise"? Why not try a no-quizzes rule for three months and see what happens to the nomination count? Townlake (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an extremely interesting exercise, one which I would strongly support. But try and get a consensus to it... --Kudpung (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be wise. I have spoken to many users who would seem like they could pass RfA based on activity, time here, edit count, articles written, etc. but in reality have no clue whatsoever. I think questions are useful for helping users unfamiliar with a candidate get to know what they do and their editing style, or for clearing situations where someone might have misunderstood what happened and actually oppose a user for an invalid reason. Of course, as Kudpung said, if people used common sense in asking questions, there wouldn't be an issue, but that's not going to happen. And when all the questions are essentially non-optional, one can't just skip the poor questions. I dont think questions are a big issue if handled correctly at the end—if someone doesn't know the difference between a block and a ban, that's ... unfortunate, but if there is a complicated question and they get most of it right or they get opposed for differences in editing decisions or opinions on, say, an AfD, bureaucrats should be able to discount or put less weight into those opposes. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can get to know what a user does and their editing style by looking at their past contributions. I have no idea what you mean by "oppose for an invalid reason," but I oppose all the time for what users do in quiz questions, which might or might not be a valid reason to oppose but it sure promotes me being lazy. I'd be the first in line to have this crutch removed so I'd have to go look at what a user did before the RFA gauntlet and consider their whole body of work instead of having excellent reasons to oppose served up by the candidates themselves via a hypothetical-based quiz. Townlake (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, if I see a situation on a user's talk page, and I misunderstand what happened and think they were in the wrong, I might oppose for it. Asking them a question lets them clarify what happened for non-involved watchers. I certainly agree that looking at the contributions is necessary, but eliminating questions altogether is something I feel is unwise. I don't mind moving questions to the talk page or asking them in a less formal manner, but people should have the chance to ask something. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, We want to make RFA look and feel more like what it really is. Going through it now it feels like an interrogation in front of a mob who will lynch you if you don't give the right answers, and quick too. If we can make the questioning more conversational it will be more like an interview for a job, which is what it actually is. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worse than that, it's sometimes like an interrogation where half the mob will lynch you if you answer one way, and the other half will lynch you if you answer the other way. Complex policy questions should be hashed out somewhere else — not in an RfA where the candidate is intentionally put in the crossfire between opposing camps and used as a scapegoat. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And very often a scapegoat for the answers that the interrogators don't even know to their own trick policy questions. Kudpung (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had one of those at my second RFA. I was opposed for giving the wrong answer to a copyright question when there was a quite long discussion on the talk page about what the right answer was and it was clear that there was substantial grey area around the issue. What the right answer was was not resolved and the image in question is still here and has never been challenged. I think it was only one or two opposes and obviously I did get through, but it was still frustrating to be opposed for not knowing something that nobody else knew either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to echo Richwales's comment about RFAs "where the candidate is intentionally put in the crossfire between opposing camps and used as a scapegoat", but also to note that there are two aspects to this. If an oppose is explicitly based on a judgement that someone doesn't like a candidate's position on a policy debate, then however inappropriate some may feel that to be, at least it's upfront. Unfortunately what's been happening is that we have some opposes on that basis which misrepresent the policy disagreement as an error judgement by the candidate, and the resulting debate causes much drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test case type trick questions of the kind mentioned by Beeblebrox should definitely be disallowed, as well as any others that are deliberately conceived, like a TOEFL exam, to lull the candidate into making the wrong answer. Perhaps a first step, if we can't get the 'optional' questions banned altogether, would be to allow the supervising crat to remove any questions that are deliberately intended to have a negative impact on the RfA. RfA at the moment is like forcing a new driver to take his driving test in central Marseille or Bangkok in the rush hour instead of the traditional routes through the leafy suburbs and round the housing estates. --Kudpung (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: Comments by !voters such as "I reverted my support because i did not see his contribution count" are a clear indication that we need to insist on a better quality of !voting. Such comments are also evidence of 'follow-my-leader' style pile-ons. Kudpung (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments regarding edit counts, types of edits, content creation, etc. also illustrate the fact that there are serious disagreements and a lack of consensus regarding qualifications for an admin. Regarding content creation, for example, there are good arguments being made both that it's essential and that it doesn't matter. IMO, efforts should be made to resolve issues like this outside the RfA process — and to the extent that any consensus can be reached, the crats should feel free to discount !votes whose rationales reflect a failure to accept the agreed-upon criteria, even if that means a given bid ends up succeeding or failing in apparent defiance of the stated opinions. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue with trick questions is, what might seem completely obvious to one user might seem extremely misleading to another. This could lead to a lot of "well, any admin should know that" and "it's not fair to the candidate by asking this question". I'm putting a lot of hope on the crats, but I think any opposes from an answer to a potentially misleading or purposely double-sided question would be given less weight, especially if it was not a likely situation. However, tricky situations do pop up all the time. Banning theoreticals would lead to questions of "How would you close [some AfD]" or "What's wrong with the current BLP policy" I imagine. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the system that is preventing successful RfAs, it is the community. No matter how the system is changed, the community will adapt to the change and the frequency of successful RfAs will turn out the roughly same. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Yes, if we tinker with the system, there will be a short term effect. But in the longer term, the community will continue with its current expectations for prospective admins.; it goes without saying that if the pass threshold falls, the proportion of editors who will oppose a candidate that they're unsure about will be higher. In the long run it won't make a difference, and I wonder whether increasing the proportion of those who oppose marginal RfAs will lead to more or less drama.

The question is whether the decline in successful candidates, and indeed of active admins, is a problem for Wikipedia. If it isn't, then this discussion is a waste of time. If it is, then surely we need to evaluate whether the current system of tenure, and an all-or-nothing approach to the tools, is in Wikipedia's best interests? Only when (or if) that (ever) happens will a discussion about the RfA procedure be worthwhile. —WFC— 05:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The decline seems real enough according to the stats. As long as the crats' hands are tied to a simple tally of !votes (except in extremely marginal cases), they will never risk invalidating even the most silly !vote, support or delete. On a recent RfA, following one trick question, no less than thirteen (13) !voters directly or partly based their opposes on the candidate's not-too-wrong answer, and a 600 word opposing diatribe from a blocked, confirmed puppetmaster. That candidate would have passed. I'm sure the question was posed in GF, but it was totally misplaced. Let's not imagine for a moment that there is any 'consensus' as there can be in an RfC or an AfD. The system is practically a trial by fire, although generally it does seem as if most of those who should pass, get the bit. The vast majority of those who don't, either withdraw, or fail blatantly by SNOW/NOTNOW. Problem is, it's the trial by fire that's holding the good potential candidates from coming forward. Plenty of them have said so. The advice of one well known and well respected admin recently to a cogitating candidate was: "RFA? May the gods have mercy on your mortal soul. Have you considered any more relaxing alternatives, such as gouging your eyes out with a rusty baked bean can whilst enjoying a holiday at Bagram?" --Kudpung (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just Wikipedia getting bigger, but it's also the different aspects of Wikipedia editors leading to major disagreements and different criteria for successful adminship. Obviously, the rate of successful rfa's is going to keep declining as history has shown us. --Monterey Bay (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its something thats stewed on the back of my mind recently (I dont necessarily agree with the following thought as being good or bad or that it would actually improve anything, might even make things worse), But when it comes to participation and tone of RFA, I wonder what a Request for adminship discussion for a candidate would be like if only people who had a previous RFA discussion themselves participated in the discussion for the candidate only? Ie, if you ran for adminship whether successful or not only those who ran before would participate in the voting/discussion/asking questions for the candidate. I just wonder what the tone of an RFA would be like with only that type of participation..... Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In one current RfA there are about 80 !votes, while in another there are about 140. I've seen these discrepancies before. There's no way to tell exactly why these instances occur, but I imagine part of is that some editors go to an RfA because they know the candidate or are involved around issues pertaining to the candidate rather than go to an RfA because they've looked at User:SQL/RfX Report. In fact, some editors may not know that User:SQL/RfX Report exists. I propose that we add to the RfA template a smaller version of User:SQL/RfX Report that would list only the RfA candidate column (but maybe renamed Other RfA candidates) and either the Ending (UTC) or the Time left column. It could be automatically listed in the same place we put "RfAs for this user:" or listed at the bottom of RfAs. Doing so would allow editors aware of only particular RfAs to be aware of concurrent RfAs. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. I think a way to get even more exposure would be to link the User:SQL/RfX Report from the Wikipedia:Community portal page. -- œ^™ 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the level of involvment in an RFA (the interest) has to do with the number of page watchers a paticular user has, combined with the points turtle mentions above- Just a hypothesis and as said no way to really tell. As for the proposal I dont think it would hurt. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean how many centijimbos? ;P -- œ^™ 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess thats the scale. :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we just have the User:SQL/RfX Report placed at the top of every watchlist by default, with an option to hide it ? --Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think RfA is something that many users will be interested in. I mean, participation is good, but most users simply don't care about RfA. In addition, I don't know if a bunch of new users looking to "get involved" and seeing RfA is a good thing—they often (in my observations) misunderstand the process or vote based on the "trend" instead of actually looking through contribution histories. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right to the extent that Kudpung's suggestion of putting it at the top of every watchlist is a bit overboard, since the average person with a watchlist probably doesn't care. But if notices were placed at venues more commonly visited by editors with a greater interest in community issues, then I think that would be a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One feeling i get about the whole watchlist theory is that, a user's page (in this case a candidtae for RFA) is added to a watchlist becuase another user has an established interest in that user. Where the if the SQL/RFx report is added to the watchlists it might not necessarily establish interest in a user participating in discussion at RFA for a candidate. However if anyone loves statistics, Id love to see a graph or something showing the participation in individual RFAs versus the amount of users the candidate has watching their user page (has this information, or simmilar info, been compiled before in the past?). Obviously theres other factors involved but it might look pretty interesting. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to keep the watchlist as free as possible of announcements. Also, placing it in the watchlist would be more like a recruiting tool, and recruiting is not what we need. I think we just need a way to better spread the word to those already interested in engaging in RfXs. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those already interested in RfXs are likely to have it watchlisted (or they might check manually). I like the idea of reaching people beyond the current clique of RfX !voters, but don't want it to be spammy... that's a tough balancing act. bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this many times before: I think it would solve a lot of problems if more admins would take the initiative to participate in RfA and and support the process that got them the bit by regularly !voting. I'm not saying that all admins are more responsible than any of the run-of-the-mill one-time !voters, but it is to be hoped (and I think they are) that most of them are pretty good role models, and lead by example. Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite so sure about that. If new admins are elected by other admins, there's a risk of creating a self-perpetuating group. I'd much prefer to see more participation by experienced editors who are not admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure about that; it's a terrible idea. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, BHG, you're getting very close to the things I'm not allowed to spell out here, but which have a lot to do with a famous statement by Malleus that is quoted on my user page.Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longstanding users

<-I've thought for a long time that the one thing that could do most to improve RfA would be greater participation by longstanding users. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, perhaps a "currently running" item in the signpost would help. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea, particularly if it's not substed, so it reflects the current runners at time of viewing, rather than when the Signpost was published. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following this idea at all. Given that The Signpost is distributed on Tuesdays, why wouldn't any honest and rational person delay their nomination until a Monday? Unless of course they hoped to fly under the radar, in which case they might choose to wait for a day. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that's why Dweller suggested not substing the info. Of course you'd still have the phenomena that presumably the readership is skewed towards the publication date, and some will decide to start their RFA busy and others to end it with a rush. But both RFA and Signpost are on a 7 day cycle so I don't see a great problem ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's by now well established that the early pattern of voting in an RfA determines its outcome; how many are affected by a last-minute deluge of votes? In the grander scheme of things though I agree with you. Compared to everything else that's wrong with RfA it's hardly a problem that some are advertised and others aren't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<-IMHO, the Lear's Fool RfA was significantly affected by a last-minute deluge of !votes (actually, post-last minute, as they came after the originally-scheduled close) and some at least of those !voters were probably prompted to go there by the "advertising" of the RfA being discussed at BN. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds appears to have done it at last, on his seventh nomination. Has anyone else ever gotten in after so many attempts? I don't think so but maybe I'm not remembering one. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient. The Fat Lady hasn't sung yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously laughed out loud to that. Certain more rotund members of our 'crat team haven't closed an RFA in years after all; I'm sure a slender crat will belong shortly to close it..... Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now it's being closed, and obviously the crat has no choice but to promote, so back to my original question: is seven a record for passing RFA? Has anyone ever even run eight times? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone has run 8 times. One person has failed 7 times. Name withheld to protect the guilty. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e.c.) If a 'crat fails the RfA at 96% support, I suspect that would be a certain record for highest support in an unsuccessful RfA – not that that is a record Ironholds would want to hold, of course... EdChem (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just flipped his switch, we have our first admin of 2011. Since nobody seems to know for sure I am going to go ahead and believe that this is the record. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's tied with Jaranda. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the person behind the Jaranda account went through RfA a couple more times than that - 9, I think, including another username - plus IIRC they claimed they'd try to get the mop directly from arbcom (or whoever) when the most recent RfA didn't turn out how they wanted. Personally, I'd count that as an additional attempt to get the mop. It's hard to keep track of all the drama; I may have miscounted, and there might even be another username that I'm not aware of. Had I known the full history at the most recent RfA, I would have hit the "oppose" button, and I think other editors might too. bobrayner (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that Jaranda also requested adminship via ArbCom – I haven't checked whether s/he actually did that – but including Aranda56, Jaranda went through 7 RFAs in just 9 months before being promoted. However, Jaranda lost (or resigned) his/her admin rights a few times, and eventually went through a reconfirmation RFA in July 2007, which was closed as successful. Jaranda then retired in September that year. HeyMid (contribs) 14:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The highest percentage support in an unsuccessful RfA in the last three years, excluding withdrawn ones, is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWY2190 at 75%. Hut 8.5 11:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about this sort of thing some time ago and created User:Useight/Multiple RFXs, but it's out of date and likely missing information. Useight (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry I won't run for another RFA again as my illness prevents me from running, I have to go though ArbCom. If I'm forced to run again I won't look at my RFA and answer the questions from my talk page, which means I would never pass. That's what happened with all these RFA I can't handle the stress of RFA. I could handle the tools though, as it's not stressful. Lets avoid my name here please. Secret ^account 15:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Others had avoided mentioning your current username, until you replied. Apparently you're now leaving the project, as you have many times before; perhaps not the best way to renounce drama, but that's your choice. You don't have to leave. You are, like many thousands of other editors, still welcome to improve encyclopædia articles - surely that should be a priority for every editor. If you want to stop hanging around at RfA, that's fine by me; if you want to spend time improving content, even better. bobrayner (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not leaving I just started a new account that ArbCom knows. I want to start off fresh without the drama hanging over my shoulder, eventually people will catch up that it's me because I have no other interests other than sports articles. (I signed off on purpose) 131.94.55.108 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New account? Well, that's your choice and I hope you do much more productive work on articles. But why would you tell arbcom about it? They don't really need to be involved in a clean start - unless, of course, you plan to apply for adminship again. bobrayner (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got desysopped by ArbCom so they should know, and I'm not planning to apply for adminship again for a long time, and if I do get the tools back, it's by ArbCom. 131.94.186.20 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? HeyMid (contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be difficult to figure out based on the comments in this thread. However, revealing the new account (which would link it to the old account) would defeat the purpose. Useight (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Input would be appreciated at this bot request, as the bot will require administrative privileges. Please also see WP:ADMINBOT. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those who persist in believing that RfA is the best of all possible worlds might like to reflect on how often this kind of thing happens. As should those who persistently nominate candidates who are certain to fail. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience (and here I know what of I speak), much the same could be said of the real world. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you about RfA, though.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think certain to fail may be your opinion, as the nom (HJ Mitchel) and those who supported did not feel that way. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tryptofish: In the real world people are paid for their work, and so are hardly likely to walk off in a huff after being turned down for a promotion.

Reply to Tofuwitch11: Anyone who had been paying attention would have known that this RfA was doomed before it even began. That the supporters and the nominator failed to see that speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Malleus, albeit really off-topic: That's true, which makes it all the more painful when the person has to live with disappointment. Conversely, one can always walk away, whether temporarily or permanently, from Wikipedia, with no loss of income, heck, maybe even a gain. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess what I'm getting at is, if one asks to be judged, don't be surprised if you are judged. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Your "real world" analogy falls short on so many different levels. When you attend a job interview you're not being "judged", and you aren't told either during or after the interview that the reason you failed to get the job is that you're a childish, immature piece of shit. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Regardless of your opinion, (you did not even vote in that RFA) if people were not so rude in their opposes, saying "Easy Oppose Sorry, but this is one of the easiest opposes that I've encountered." The strike out of the "sorry" is completely unnecessary. If people did not say things like that, maybe this would not happen so often (users "retire" after RFA). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Tofutwitch11, I'm not sure who you are addressing that to, but I agree with you about that. And Malleus, I think you just showed me that you know less about the real world than I do. And with that, I will, temporarily, walk away! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really believe that I know less about the real world than you do then I suggest that you consider seeking psychiatric help immediately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we try to have some respect for each other around here? That's part of the reason so many people leave here is because of the constant fighting and "I'm better than you" comments and attitude. Frankly, telling someone they need "psychiatruc help" is certainly uncalled for and simply rude. As mentioned, it's no wonder people are walking away from here. Lets try to be nice, if that is even possible. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to vote in any RfAs until something changes here; wikipedia will continue to get the administrators it deserves. Why is it so hard to produce a job description, instead of the tediously banal supports based on "I see no problems", or the even more tedious "no big deal"? Dishonesty or incompetence? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a problem with someone's editing that causes you to oppose then you can explain what you find problematic and why it's a dealbreaker. If there aren't any red flags then there's not a lot more you can say. That is why so many opposes go into great length and why so many supports are short and bland, or at least part of the reason. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with a candidate's editing are swept under the carpet, under the guise of "no big deal". That opposers are required to write PhD theses while supporters are allowed to say "why not?" says all that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So which would you prefer? That supporters should also have to write PhD theses, or that opposers should be able to just go "oppose- nope" without being asked to elaborate? The former as I've explained is unworkable because if there are no problems with a candidate's editing there's nothing to be said but "no problems here". The latter isn't going to work either; I'll explain why. Let's say someone's up for RfA that I have worked with extensively, I've always been impressed with their demeanour and clue levels without being aware of any misbehaviour. Of course I would support them. If some other editor opposes them, of course I would want to know why. Perhaps I've missed something. If so, I would want to know and modify my vote accordingly. The reverse doesn't really apply as much. If I oppose someone I'm not likely to be as perturbed by subsequent supports; maybe they've missed something or they don't put as much weight on my concern as I do. Either way, no biggie. I would, however, be interested in hearing from people who might argue that I've been unfair in my oppose or have made a mistake. Finally there's the fact that you need ~75% support, which makes an oppose about three times as much a big deal as a support and therefore an oppose attracts three times as much scrutiny. So yeah, intense scrutiny for oppose votes and less scrutiny for support votes is pretty much natural and inevitable. If this is a symptom of RfA being broken it's a benign one. I for one am more concerned about trick questions with no correct answer from people who have already made up their minds to oppose. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a rational and logical approach, starting with a job description for the role of administrator that voters can either agree or disagree that the candidate meets. That's not an original idea of mine but one floated by User:SandyGeorgia. Right now all we have is "I like him" vs "I hate him", and those who hate him have to write an essay that his supporters will do their best to rubbish. Hardly healthy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To have left the "sorry" would have been disingenous to say "sorry" as I then admitted that I was actively watching wt:rfa for this RfA. My Oppose clearly indicates that *I* am not completely impartial when it comes to GW---and I intended it that way so that my !vote could be assessed with that bias. I have no problem with opposing him, I think he would be a miserable admin... but I have to agree with MF. The fact that the major issue of opposition was still on the users talk page indicates that the nom didn't really review the candidate before making the nom. Anybody familiar with RfA (and this nom is)should have realized that that incident would have doomed the RfA. Having a favorable opinion and good experience with a candidate should not be the sole basis upon making a nom. The nominator should check the noms history to see if the candidate as any skeletons in the closet that might garner opposes whether real or imagined. Thus, I was really surprised to see the RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said before that nominators have a responsibility to their candidates, but there are some who just chalk them up as trophies. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but that's extraordinarily true. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. How awful. I've not participated in an RfA before and I didn't expect that this one would end like that. I certainly didn't intend to distress Giftiger and, whilst I wouldn't change my oppose to support, I would word it more carefully. I regret that I may have caused him any distress. In future I will be much more attentive to the tone and manner of my comments. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three thoughts, none of which are a reflection on GW or anyone else, because they largely go against accepted WP practice:

• A job description or outcomes-focused selection criteria for admins, as suggested above, would be good. It would help focus the minds of RfA !voters, both supporters and opposes. The GA and FA criteria would be good examples. The criteria need not be prescriptive. I'd envisage broad criteria that most of us could agree on, like (a) ability to deal with stressful situations while maintaining civility; (b) knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines; (c) capability to use administrative tools in a variety of areas. The parts of the project that use criteria to guide discussion tend to work a lot better than RfA.
• Self-noms are good. If you want to be able to delete people's work and block people, it is appropriate to put yourself forward for the job. No nominator can ever know how many skeletons are in your closet. (Disclosure: I've made the occasional offer to nom someone myself, although my own approach was to go it alone)
• Watchlisting ANI is bad enough for the health of an admin, let alone a non-admin. I agree with NW's comment in GW's RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a set of standard criteria would help a lot. If someone did subsequently make an argument which didn't meet the criteria it would be more likely to be challenged and bureaucrats would be more confident in dismissing it. Over time it would probably result in a reduction in the number of bad arguments. Processes on Wikipedia which are devoted to determining whether the subject meets some defined set of criteria, such as deletion discussions, don't have the same problems as RfA. Even if it isn't possible to come up with such criteria it may still be possible to come to a consensus that certain types of reasoning aren't valid. Hut 8.5 09:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a job/person description would look, but it couldn't do any harm to try drafting one. (Even if we couldn't agree a standard, a few competing ones could serve a purpose a bit like the Arbcom election voting guides.) But really, I wish we could get some kind of informal discussion before RFA (Editor Review) as a matter of routine; this was discussed here but the discussion ran into the ground. Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't take part in the RFA in question, but would agree that having a good faith editor leave is one of the worst outcomes one can get from an RFA, almost as bad as promoting a candidate who becomes a bad admin (though we've had at least one RFA where the candidate was rightly blocked by the end of it and such RFAs do serve a grim but useful purpose). Agreeing a set of criteria that candidates are expected to meet is a perennial suggestion, and while I still strongly support it I'm realistic enough not to expect this to fly. A minimum criteria before candidates are allowed to self-nominate is also a perennial suggestion, but we've been close to consensus in the past. In the last two years we've had scores of candidates burned who could have been gently dissuaded from running if we at least had a 1500 edit requirement for self noms. I think there are a few other criteria that we could probably all agree would prevent a successful run. I'm not suggesting that we go as high as my own criteria for nomination, but is there anyone here who would seriously consider supporting a candidate who had less than 1500 edits, less than 6 months editing experience, or a block log that wasn't clean for the last 12 months? ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a job description is that no one can agree on what an admin has to have. Some expect 2 years and 10,000 edits, with at least 1 FA. Others are happy with about a year, or 5,000 edits with no significant article work. We have Wikipedia:Administrators, which clearly says "Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience ... however ... considerable experience is usually expected. Each editor will personally assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way..." This is the issue - on one RFA, we may have an abnormal number of "tough" voters, and on another a high number of "why not" voters. It is never, ever consistent. Not everyone votes on every RFA, which makes each one unique, and not fair.

What we have is a popularity contest to become an admin. An editor, like Ironholds, for example, recent passed his RFA with well over 100 supports. Most RFAs which pass have less than 60 or so. This is not necessarily bad (I supported IH, fwiw), but it means if you are well-known, you're more likely to get more votes. This is also unfair.

No one will ever agree to a set standard of criteria, and besides, if we implemented it, what would be the point in voting? A bureaucrat would just have to check they met them, and if they did, promote them. I've concluded the only solution is to appoint an RFA committee who will appoint admins. A group of, say, a dozen editors, changed every 6 months perhaps, would be the only ones to vote on candidates. Other people could of course offer information and opinions, but like Arbcom, the committee would be the only ones to get a vote. Furthermore, if we find the committee has made an error, they should be able to easily reverse it.

Obviously, we'd need a way to appoint this committee, which would undoubtedly be by a vote, but I don't see any other way about this. AD 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, but there is a difference between a "job description" and the "skill set required for the role";

• Real World Job Description - "to be able to make up customers order of foodstufs in an accurately and timely fashion"
• Real World Skill sets required - "to be able to work under pressure, to be able to cook fries and to not sneeze on the food"

The job description for an admin does not exist; (WP:ADMIN for example is more about the technical capabilities of the tools). The skill sets required has seen, as noted, endless debate (edit count, tenure, type of ediitng etc.) and we are still, and indeed never likely to, come to a consensus on what it is. In the real world analogy candidates for a job without the right capabilities will not even get an interview in the first place. On WP you can self request the "interview for the admin job role" anytime you like. That's a crucial difference. The nice thing in WP world is that you can't lie on your CV of course. Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin capability criteria

(Largely re WSC and AD) Criteria expressed as minimum standards certainly won't fly with the community. But what about generic capability statements against which RfA voters can assess contributions and answers to questions. For example, as a rough start, a candidate could be assessed against the following:

1. Sound judgement and experience relevant to the broad range of administrative tools.
2. Adequate knowledge of policies and guidelines relevant to the use of those tools.
3. Ability to use administrative tools without involvement, bias or improper purpose.
4. Ability to manage stressful situations.
5. Civil behaviour and the ability to avoid unnecessary escalation of conflict.

All very bland, but it can help focus discussion. For example, "too many automated edits" is an oppose that would need to be with reference to the criteria to carry any real weight. On the other hand "Support. Good editor." would be similarly unhelpful.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bland perhaps, but a major improvement over what exists now, which is of course nothing. And if it helps to curb or reduce the value of those "Support, I like him" votes as well then so much the better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see is that the basic requirement for being an admin is "trusted." While this is a difficult thing to quantify, this can be as simple as "won't delete the Main Page" or as difficult as "Lack of experience in Admin-related areas" and is strictly a matter of opinion by those bothering to state one. The biggest wiki-based problem I see on a meta level at RfA is that it works in complete opposition to most other actions we take. WP usually works on the basis of that which exists, exists for a reason, and those who seek change have the burden of proof in support of change (WP:BRD, WP:AfD, et al)). RfA is one of the few places where the underlying premise is that change is the default position - i.e. "User:so-and-so is trustworthy and should be made an admin" and those opposed to the change are subject to the burden of evidence. While I completely support the idea of content creation as a necessary requirement for Admins (nobody should be trusted with the delete button unless they have created content!), I also understand that there is no general definition that will ever meet all needs. As we become more specialized, the role has definitely become too large for the generality in the current definition of the role, both software-based and community defined. There are a great number of editors that I would trust to edit protected pages for reasons like grammar, punctuation, and even NPOV (aka gnomes) who I still do not wish to have access to the delete button. Protected templates are a great example. There are editors with incredible experience in that kind of wiki programming who should be able to edit even our most highly visible templates without concern. Currently, they need to have access to the delete and block functions in order to do that. While they show competence in a specific (and highly needed) area, I do not know that the level of trust necessarily carries over into other admin areas. I believe that splitting the admin tools is an eventuality we must face, but until we get to that point, I don't know how we allow that much power to be concentrated into that few hands without continually running into legitimate opposition. We either need to allow many more users to be admins in order to reduce the amount of power/prestige of the position, or properly divide the tools in a manner that allows purely administrative functions to be separate from editorial ones. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are excellent criteria and really, demonstration of all those in a candidate encapsulates the notion of "trust". !Supports and !opposes can revolve around the evidence in a candidate's editing history which demonstrates or refutes each of those qualities and would help to focus discussion. There remains the vexed question of "not enough article work". To the extent that some of the content-auditing processes can be fairly brutal themselves, achieving audited content would demonstrate criteria 4 and 5. Beyond that I would be interested to know what those who insist on a certain level of article work feel is being demonstrated. Commitment to the encyclopedia? That can be done in many ways other than article writing. So what more is there? Franamax (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me, at least, it is about empathy for those who actually create. It is demoralizing to have one's work nominated for deletion, let alone actually deleted. Those with access to the delete button must have "skin in the game" to completely understand the work involved in content creation, and that can never be demonstrated through gnomish, administrative, or especially deletion tagging work. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can grasp that. For my own part, I think I gained that empathy by realizing that I was just never going to be a great article writer, which gave me a ton of respect for those who are. I tried to compensate for that with copy-editing, adding sources and sentences - things that would qualify as gnomish work. That left me with nothing really solid to show as a demonstration of that empathy, but it was there nevertheless. I would think also that deletion tagging combined with rescue of new articles that could go either way would be a similar demonstration. I think it's important to try to bridge the gap between the "article writers" and the "doesn't matter" groups so that there can be demonstration of that empathy (which I agree is an important quality in an admin) without necessarily requiring GA's and FA's or X number of articles created. Franamax (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "not enough article work" is indeed vexed, and I'm not sure there could ever be a one-size-fits-all solution to it. I know how much effort goes into writing GAs and FAs, and I understand that not everyone is confident that their writing is up to it, even though it may be. What I take exception to though are those admin candidates who proudly say that they have no interest in writing, all they want to do is whack vandals/delete articles/write abuse filters/whatever. My personal criterion is the relative number of edits to article space vs projects spaces like this one, or user talk pages, especially the candidate's own. I'm less concerned about the raw number of edits, although I do think that it would be common sense to state a clear lower limit ("if your first posting to wikipedia will be this RfA then it is unlikely to be successful"); ideally I like to see 50% or more of a candidate's edits to articles. Whether they're big edits or small ones they show an appreciation of what wikipedia is about: writing an encyclopedia, not policing one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the usual caveats about gaming and numerical targets and editors who sandbox their new articles then copy rather than move them to mainspace, I personally agree with what you're saying. Is there a nice anodyne way of saying that so that it could be added to the criterion list above? "Commitment to content improvement"? Obviously this will always be avaluated subjectively, as will #3 above - but that's OK, so long as it can be discussed and elaborated on in a focussed way. I do like the idea of a "checklist" as both supporters and opposers can be questioned equally on how well they have assessed the candidate against the criteria. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, such a list could help immensely with candidates who unknowingly walk into a situation they're not ready for, and nominators who should know better. It's an up-front notice that you will be evaluated on all these aspects, so you better be sure you have it all covered. Franamax (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Demonstrated commitment to content improvement"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Personally I'd like to drop #5 from the list, else I'll never get that promotion.</joke>) Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with including that. The wording you suggest "demonstrated commitment" is good: as I read it, it doesn't require FAs or GAs or a minimum %ge of article space contributions, just a demonstrated understanding of why we're here. In my view it could include copyright cleanup work or article rescue. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you'd still be in there as one of the "NOT LIKE THIS" exemplars. ;) I really like this concept, hoping to see some more views on it... Franamax (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. It could even be spelled out in the job description that "demonstrated commitment" includes things like copyright cleanup and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about the "broad range of administrative tools" in #1. I certainly understand the rationale about this (no need for anyone to tell it to me!), but I note that there have been candidates who state that they are particularly interested in particular areas, not all, and I don't really think that there is community consensus that a successful candidate must have prior experience across the broad range. I remember plenty of !votes stating that candidates can learn other areas as they go along etc. Maybe delete "broad range of"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe rethink the wisdom of handing out such a broad range of tools that in truth no administrator is properly qualified to use. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of 1 is fudged a bit to recognise that no candidate will be experienced across the board: the question is whether we trust their competence to go outside their specialised areas when that inevitably happens. In the rare instances that a candidate asks for the tools to only do a narrow range of tasks and guarantees not to do others, supporters could invoke IAR (which is what they essentially do now).--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Switching over to a discussion of unbundling the tools will almost certainly doom this effort, although I tend to agree with you Malleus. For me, the criterion would be satisfied if, for instance, when asked about the spam blacklist the candidate said "here's basically what it does, I have no plans to ever touch it". It's fine for a candidate to indicate detailed knowledge of the areas they wish to act in most, but they should be examined on, especially, knowledge of blocking policy whether they indicate an interest in it or not. That is certainly the most sensitive of tools and if it stays part of the package, capability to use it needs to be assessed. Knowing how the MediaWiki space works - well, you should know what it is, and know enough to stay away from it unless you're really sure you want to change it. Again though, it will always be a subjective judgement on whether the candidate has sufficient familiarity with the available tools and spaces. If the candidate wants to work in general areas, they need to demonstrate knowledge of all those areas. If they want to work in one area, they need to demonstrate expertise in that area and give a convincing account of how well they know their limitations in other areas. Franamax (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand and agree. What I'm concerned about is I don't want to see someone using the current proposed wording to say "oppose, because the candidate hasn't done (fill in the blank with an obscure area of administrative work)". I just see it as wording that can and will be gamed back and forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Broad range" doesn't mean every single administrative tool, or even necessarily most of them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, it's too vague. How many are enough to be broad? One? Two? Half? Most? All? What precisely does "broad" mean here? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moot now, I'm glad to see the draft below has taken care of that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Working knowledge of the broad range of administrative tools and sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied"? E/C'd, I have to catch up. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a very rough working draft here. Please feel free to tool around with it, annotate it with comments, or whatever. I'm well aware that nothing substantive ever gets up on this talk page, but it's worth continuing to move things forward at least while there seem to be a few editors here who support the idea in principle. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this process is going in the right way. A good starting point from Mkativerata's fine post. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's any help there is a load of stuff I have been gathering here. Warning: there's a lot of it! Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of good material in there-- almost too much! I'd like to see some of the other "RFA regulars" put together a chart of their "hits and misses" like User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#How I voted, and compare percentages (how often did you support candidates that passed, and oppose candidates that didn't). Your point about the "quality of voting" has been my main concern, as well as the quality of candidates put forward by "regulars"-- how about a chart showing percentage where regulars agreed with the community consensus on those promoted and those not? I also saw a typo in there somewhere (to much instead of too much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is here, but it is slightly outdated. I can go back and add any recent ones I may have missed. And I could add percentages. Useight (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down :)

Whoa ! I'm very sorry to see what happened to Giftiger; I didn't know him well, but I did have good experiences with him. But I'm very glad to see such productive work here! I've been watching the brainstorming, waiting to weigh in. I've got a lot to add, but don't want to interfere yet with the brainstorming process, except to say ... please, please, don't start putting up mockups and "voting" yet! That's a sure-fire way to not gain consensus before you launch an idea. Let more ideas come forward first! I don't think you're yet to a stage where you can put something in front of the community in an RFC (which *will* be needed eventually), or have had enough input, or have yet a product that the 'crats can use to judge if consensus is shown by !voters that a candidate meets criteria. No voting yet, and I think you've got a ways to go before you put forwards drafts. Has anyone reviewed, say, six months worth of RFAs to be sure you've covered all oppose rationales? Has anyone considered the idea that we have at FAC of "actionable" opposes vs. non-actionable? We would ask the 'crats to consider "actionable" opposes per the criteria-- are you sure you've got them all? Those are just some starter ideas, but moving too fast on a major reform like this is a sure way to help it fail. This is cool stuff! But slow down to assure success and get broader feedback and input. Go, Malleus-- I'm sorry that it took the unfortunate loss of Giftiger to motivate this, but like at FAC, if you have criteria, ill-prepared candidates hopefully won't be put forward. I see some pitfalls, but don't want to bring them forward while such good brainstorming is happening. An RFC will eventually be needed, and slow and steady wins the race. I hope this might eventually head the direction where the crats' job would be to judge if consensus is shown for promotion based on the criteria, so perhaps consider Template:FAC-instructions and WP:WIAFA in terms of whether you've covered any similarities that might be warranted here, and how the criteria might be grouped to reflect different kinds of editors. We do have some excellent, specialized "technical" admins who aren't content contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking for an hour or two about asking you to get involved Sandy, so feel free to pour a bit of your brain in too. :) What got me thinking about asking you for an opinion was the writer/gnome so-called "divide" and how to bridge that with some relatively objective criteria. As far as I'm concerned, you're ideas are eminently welcome - and no, this sure ain't ready for prime-time yet. :) Franamax (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, y'all carry on ... I don't want to interfere with the good flow going here with my nitpicky, technical ideas. But before you start launching drafts and mock-ups, then I'll weigh in with some of the issues that I see from my experience as FAC delegate, which is a job similar to what we'd be asking the crats to do under the proposed new format. I just didn't want y'all to launch things until you've had a lot of feedback and input-- if people start Supporting, then others who have nitpicks will start Opposing. Carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree - we're in workshop mode at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's just about the first time I've ever seen anything productive on this page; you've made a good start. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Remember that we'd be asking the 'crats to judge actionable opposes and throughly reviewed supports to show consensus that criteria is met. Review old RFAs, WP:ADMIN, FAC instructions, anything else helpful that will firm up the "actionable" part and move RFA away from a popularity vote. Using the example of FAC, if valid actionable opposes show that criteria isn't met, the delegate can close. Is that how we want the 'crats to operate? (It's how I'd like to see it, but what about the broader community? I'd like to see RFA focus on criteria being met instead of ILIKEHIM.) Glad to see so many fine minds working collaboratively on perhaps our first-ever chance at RFA reform ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My current thinking is that it would be a little different to FAC. The FA criteria are much more measurable: if you've used dodgy sources or have rubbish prose, it's identifiable without too much grey area. The RFA criteria would need to be a bit more fuzzy, and therefore subject to consensus on matters such as "does the editor demonstrate a commitment to content improvement". So I conceive of the criteria as guiding the consensus process rather than being bright-line standards against which the 'crat determines the outcome. Crats would, however, now have a greater responsibility to "weigh" votes because the community has set clear standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with Mk on where the outcome could lie, I think the initial effort should just be to get an essay up and running that could be referenced in RFA discussions, as in "Oppose. Fails criterion #3 because of [this]" and "Support. Why not? / Have you considered the weaknesses in points #4 & 2?". As an organic thing it could grow and become part of the culture of RFA. As a top-down "let's vote on this today and it will become the rule", I'm less optimistic. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should unwatch, since it's too hard for me to sit on my fingers, which I really should do! No, Franamax, moving too fast on a major reform will tank it. Keep the good flow going, keep brainstorming and refining the concept, review everything, consider everything, and don't let Supports and Opposes take hold yet to stall the good discussion here. No premature launch :) What we've seen over and over at WT:FAC is that it's better to get everything out on the table first, with free-flowing discussion, before you start formalizing things heading towards an RFC-- that helps people feel more invested, and helps avoid pitfalls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, your input is more important than you think. However, your comments generally echo sentiments that I and others have echoed in long since archived parts of this page. if anything, however, out of the last few weeks, there seems to have crystalised a vague consensus that a major part of the mischief is the multiple pile-on, trick, and irrelevant so called 'optional' questions. The irony is, that those who discuss making RfA a less distasteful experience, appear to be sometimes the very ones who relish composing questions that are designed to faze even the most mop-deserving candidate into submission. Kudpung (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed the userpage you linked above, but I disagree on the question issue. I almost always find the questions helpful, and think (as you mention on your subpage) that the quality of !voting here is the biggest problem, which is why I'd like to see a move towards criteria-based Supports and Opposes. We are promoting admins based on votes from users who might not be a good representative sample of voters who know what qualities a good admin should have. (At FAC, if an article gets a lot of drive-by, marginal supports, from reviewers who have never before shown up at FAC, I can let the FAC run longer until reviewers knowledgeable about the criteria take a look-- and then they usually find problems. On the issue of "too many questions", the equivalent from my FAC experience is, never stifle a discussion, because we don't know where it might lead, and the best interest of the article is a process that gets everything out on the table-- the delegate, or the 'crats in this case, can decide what's useful, that is "actionable". That's their job :) I also enjoyed reviewing your RFA record. You're a !voter with clue-- evidence Ling.Nut. I never expected him to pass RFA, because he had recently engaged (too) passionately in a kerfuffle, but he would have been a good admin, and wouldn't have let his passion for the Project interfere with his use of the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More :) As FAC delegate, I can exercise some discretion that the 'crats don't have. I'd like to see them have more ability in that direction-- beyond the marginal percentage range. The FAC examples don't necessarily apply at RFA, but for example, some of the options I have: if a discussion is rambling and taking over the page, I can move it to talk, to allow the discussion to continue but "space" for other items to be reviewed. If a discussion becomes so jumbled, or new issues have come to light, or the article has been substantially changed while at FAC, so that whether the article meets criteria becomes obscured, I can restart the FAC, effectively "erasing" all previous declarations for a fresh look. I can let a FAC run as long as necessary to be sure an article meets criteria before it's promoted. I can ping topic experts to make sure those knowledgeable in the area have reviewed, and I can also ping non-topic reviewers to make sure the article is digestible for laypersons or those not familiar with the topic. If something is unaddressed, I can let the FAC run longer until it is. We have nothing equivalent to any of this at RFA, and yet, FAs can be demoted if I "goof", while admins are rarely desysopped-- we have a straight-up vote from editors who may know nothing about desirable qualities in admins. More importantly, at RFA, we're making decisions about Wiki's most valuable asset-- real people. They all deserve a fair hearing-- more important than an article at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your last two sentences sum it up perfectly. Kudpung (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And not only that, but I suspect that at FAC who says what does matter. If a person with a proven tract record, firm understanding of the English language, history of making positive improvements at FAC makes a comment, that single persons comments could make or break and FAC---even if that comment came at the tail end of the FAC. Whereas at RFA, you generally have a good idea if the RfA is going to pass within a few hours of its opening. If it gets 20 supports and no opposes, there is almost no reason to dig into the character's history because the odds are that it will pass. Even if there is a legit reason to oppose, once the ball starts down the hill it is hard to change course.

At the same time, FAC's have an advantage that RFA candidates don't. An FAC can undergo a significant makeover in a short period of time. If somebody comes and says, "This clearly doesn't meet our expectations on how articles should be referenced." Somebody else could completely redo the references overnight and get that issue addressed. If somebody says, "John doesn't have any significant experience in content creation," that could take a few months to change.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really true. RFAs often change substantially if a real, serious issue is raised. People don't just vote and never come back (at least, most don't). You should always oppose if there is good reason to; just because it is going one way or the other, frequent supporters like myself are extremely willing to be persuaded otherwise with evidence. If you never say it, we'll never know.

Your first point goes back to my idea I suggested here, which has certainly been suggested before: elect an RFA committee - a group of experience, knowledgable and fair RFA voters who will be the only ones to approve or deny adminship. Sandy says that she generally takes experienced reviewers supports/opposes more seriously than a newbie to FAC, only because of the track record they have. It was pointed out in a recent RFA that many supporters were very new to the process, and may have just been piling on. We need to stop this from happening, and RFA needs to not be a popularity contest. Thus, a group of people with a good track record of voting for and nominating candidates would be a good idea, and they can of course hear from everyone else, but only they would get the final decision. AD 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think our ideas are basically the same: we already have such a group (the crats). We just need to empower them with more criteria-based discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bureaucrat group would be fine but there are many more knowledgable voters/nominators about who aren't bureaucrats (or even admins), so I'd prefer to elect a new committee, which we'd change every 6 months or year - also I'm not sure all the bureaucrats are up to scratch with RFA processes. I'm suggesting we remove all the voting, and allow only comments which the elected group can take into account. The committee would also do research themselves, and listen to what everyone else says. It would be a bit like arbcom, but for deciding adminship. AD 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be very much in favour of it, especially if it means doing away with all the trick and stupid questions that have no other purpose but to faze and humiliate even the most mop deserving candidates. The result would be an increase in the number of mature, experienced candidates applying for office. Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. We've already elected 'crats, we trust them to do this job, we don't need more bureaucracy (which always makes things worse and leads to paralysis), we don't need more elections (which will have the same pile-on problems that we now have at RFA), changing every six months leads to all kinds of problems, and if we attempt too much here, the reform attempt will tank. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to partially agree with Sandy here. Moving the selection process to another group will merely shift the problem to the selection of that group. I also disagree in that I feel there must be non-admins on any such panel in order for it to be a legitimate representation of the community (most of whom are not administrators). While it is completely within policy for a non-admin to become a crat, none are at this time. Shifting the debate from the selection of admins to the selection of the admin selection committee isn't the answer. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we elected them. Some in 2004. Some haven't even used the bcrat tools since then. I agree the proposal will tank if we add too much, but it's going to tank anyway because no one will agree on what is suitable criteria. I don't think yearly elections are too much hassle, and while we'd have to vote to elect them, it would remove the popularity contest aspect of being an admin.

You're suggesting we don't elect a committee because it would move the problems there; yet, at the same time, we'd be continuing the problems at RFA on a much more regular basis. The criteria would be vague enough for people to interpret their own way, and most people generally vote thoughtfully already. It's the minority who pile on to support their friends, or without examining hard enough, that are the problem. Creating criteria, which no one will agree on (how are we going to get these criteria, by a vote?), won't solve the problem. Rather, if we demand people vote with lengthy rationales to some criteria, we'll end up with people not bothering to vote at all, and that's a bad thing. AD 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aiken drum, reading through these discussions, it strike me that you're being quite negative, which doesn't advance discussion in productive ways. In the brainstorming phase, negativity doesn't help: positive discussion does. And having uninformed people refrain from uninformed voting is not a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it comes across that way; I'm only speaking from experience :) And yeah, I totally agree with you about uninformed voters - hence the need for a committee. AD 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't tackle major reform by doing too much at once. I suggest it would help if you stay focused on the matter at hand, which is criteria, and defer your other suggestions. Otherwise, this attempt is doomed to failure. Until/unless criteria are adopted and a problem is shown with the 'crats implementation of a new scheme, the idea of replacing the 'crats is dead in the water and a distraction here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but imo criteria isn't the way to go. I'll disengage for now. AD 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If criteria isn't the way to go, it will be defeated in an eventual RFC. I'm just asking that you let the proposal advance so it can be put forward to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Range of experience

Sandy makes a good point about specialized admins who would not necessarily pass the criteria as written, and the developed essay needs to reflect that. I can think of two examples at least: I rarely get involved in RFAs but one where I !supported was an admin from de:wiki whose sole interest was in working on the global spam blacklist. In that case I had sufficient trust that I would overlook almost everything else, as it seemed a clear benefit to the project. And yet there were lots of !opposes for lack of content creation; and I won't use their name, just their initials of Newyorkbrad, whose articlespace edits stay remarkably low to this day, but (with the inevitable dissenters) I don't think anyone would wish to see excluded by these criteria. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the "broad range of tools"/specialised admin debate is unresolvable (and there are many degrees on the spectrum of that debate), so we should be wary of framing the criteria in a way that could be read to lean either way. On another point -- there's currently a really productive discussion going on in my userspace. I don't want to assert, or appear to assert, any kind of ownership over it, and it's an obscure forum for the discussion, so perhaps we should think about moving it to a suitable project page?--Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm uncomfortable about "Experience relevant to the range of administrative tools" as I fear some will interpret that as requiring experience relevant to the full range of admin tools. You also risk having people try and game the system by doing a bit of AIV work, a bit of UAA, some protection requests, some CSD noms etc. I'd prefer something more along the lines of "diverse editing, but a record of sticking with some areas beyond just doing the minimum for RFA". Based on my experience of RFAs over recent years I'd suggest you also might want to cover:

1. Tenure. I'm happy with 6 months, I think that consensus at RFA now expects 12, and some want more. I could live with either a criteria that said that you can't run with less than 6 months editing experience, or an "admin criteria" that said admins were expected to have twelve months experience. But would the minority who want to see rather more than twelve months be happy if their !votes were given little weight discarded unless they made a rationale as to why a specific candidate needed longer than the usual twelve months?
2. Edits. Arguably you could dispense with edit count if you had a bunch of other criteria, but in practice there is a threshold below which people simply won't consider a candidate (and for some that threshold is manual edits - automated don't count or can even count against you). There's also a trend to oppose based on percentage of automated edits. Oppose over X% automated may sometimes be code for "after discounting the 50% automated edits I don't see enough manual ones", but I've never understood the argument that a candidate is a lesser editor because as well as their 15,000 manual edits they have 45,000 Huggle ones. I think it is time that percentage automated was added to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions
3. Former accounts. There is an expectation at RFA that contradicts cleanstart. I recommend to my nominees that they make a statement such as Lear's Fool did. With candidates who have former accounts that they aren't prepared to publicly disclose things get more complex, but I would hope we would still be willing to support someone whose former account was given a clean bill of health by an Arb.
4. Age. This doesn't greatly bother me, though it does bother some and it is probably the true reason for some opposes. I can't see us agreeing how to handle requests from teenagers and adolescents, but I do think we need to be more open about this, if only so that editors who are female or over 18 realise that adminship is not as out of reach as they might think. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there are always exceptions to the rules, especially regarding edit counts and tenure. This is why it is important that the criteria are kept vague so there is some room for interpretation. AD 12:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps changing from "the broad range" to "a broad range" would clarify that while some variety of experience is expected, no candidate is truly expected to have experience in every facet of the project. To me, even specialist admin candidates should have some experience in other areas. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSC, we seem to agree on most things so let's see how this pans out taking your points one-by-one:

1. The time frame is less important, I think the amount of editing is a more reliable criterion - although 4 edits per day over the last six years would be a bit hard to swallow!
2. Automated edits are not contributory chunks of prose or high level decision making. I would say that at least the ratio of auto-to-manual edits should be considered. However, if an editor has made, say, at least 10,000 serious manual edits, another 50,000 Twinkles or Huggles on top of that doesn't matter.
3. I'm always suspicious of former accounts. I have a nasty suspicious mind and tend to smell socks and skeletons in the closet. Yes we have some reformed vandals, socks, and plagiarists, but some have also taken a nose dive from the highest echelons of Wiki responsibility.
4. Age does matter. I've been subject to incivility and PA because of my age, and it was generally by defrocked, teenage admins.

That said, if anyone is interested, I have an accumulation of personal notes and analysis about RfA criteria and outcomes here. Warning: there's a lot of it, but FWIW you're all welcome to it. --Kudpung (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As predicted, we are already disagreeing about the criteria. Which is why we need to elect people whose opinions are usually well-respected at RFA to do the job for us, and stop RFA from being a popularity contest. AD 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought about RFA in general: [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Dilbert. Very difficult to beat. Unless you're Gary Larson. Useight (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point: at last check, the "broad range" language has been replaced by language that I think is less problematic.

More importantly, I think WSC's suggestions shine a light on something interesting about RfAs. I strongly prefer Mkativerata's approach, because it gets to the idea of trust based on capabilities. Although there's something attractively efficient about an almost algorithmic system of checking off a series of numbers, such a checklist is likely doomed to never have broad consensus: my "enough experience" may differ quantitatively from yours, even if we broadly agree qualitatively. And that may point to why some nominations fail, when the nominator feels the candidate passes a personal checklist, only to find other editors (rightly or wrongly) disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WSC, I think some of your points can be covered by individual !voters, with reference to the compact list of criteria Mk has set out. For instance Tenure and Edits: "Oppose. You haven't spent enough time here for me to evaluate your suitability under criteria #4 (stressful situations).", "Oppose. Insufficient number of edits in project space to evaluate against criteria #1 (where and how tools should be applied)". Age would (aside from legal concerns some express) involve the stressful situations criteria, as this is often where younger editors have problems (and don't assume I'm only talking about under-20's ;). Former accounts - well, that's a difficult one to pin to any of these criteria, and maybe so it should be. The point of this is to get the !voters taking a more structured approach to both supports and opposes, as in "I don't have a good feeling here, but how exactly can I quantify it?". That may get people digging around more into edit histories to support their feelings, or perhaps even changing their mind when they find their discomfort isn't supported by the record. Everyone will still be entitled to their own subjective assessments, it just gives a framework to work within. And of course someone can always declare IAC (ignore all criteria) and just say what they think, though at some point in the future they may find that such !votes carry less weight. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection if you can persuade the community to look at the candidate and their edits rather than set arbitrary thresholds on edit count and tenure. I'm just being clear as to what my perception is of some of the current expectations of the RFA community. That's why currently I have two sets of criteria that I operate by; a support criteria that involves assessing the candidate, avoiding certain red flags and deciding whether they'd make a good admin, And a nomination criteria that looks at people who I'd be willing to support and whether they have the edits tenure and so forth needed to get through RFA. As for some of the other issues: Maturity matters to all of us and age matters to some, of course bad history matters, the question is how old does the bad history need to be before you are willing to overlook it, and what are the unforgivable things? ϢereSpielChequers 04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's where the 'newbie' (ca. 2,000 - 6,000 edits and user for 6 months) candidates score well, they haven't been around long enough to have anything much worth a good scandal. The good gnomes and plodders with tens of thousands of good edits, good allround participation, clue, perhaps a PhD stashed secretly under their belt, and and a few decent creations, all get torn to shreds for an occasional snarky remark or a wrongly tagged CSD. There's hardly an experienced active admin around now who still doesn't make the odd mistake, and many of them who fuel a bit of drama didn't even have to jump through today's hoops. Kudpung (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no current admins having started editing in 2010 I think I can confidently say that it is a long time since someone with 6 months tenure made admin, And I'm pretty sure that candidates with 2,000 - 3,500 edits score badly as well with perhaps one candidate in the last two years succeeding with fewer than 3,000 edits. But on the positive side, I don't think that the RFA crowd expect a perfect edit history, if as an opposer you point out errors that the candidate has made they need to be recent and either substantial or repeated errors for your oppose to sway the RFA. Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd, though they are less tolerant of mistakes in the question section. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, disagree: we recently had an admin promoted (your nomination) who barely had eight months editing, about whom we know next to nothing because he had hardly engaged the encyclopedia, and that trend is escalating. I can't think of a better time than now for socks to get through RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd' Sorry WSC, but with all due respect I beg to differ. These isolated, and often very old, incidents appear to me to be exactly the chinks in a candidate's armour that the vultures, especially the regular posers of multiple, and controversial questions, look for. It's probably been noticed that I don't mention individual RfA debates (out of respect for the candidates) but there have indeed been instances where relatively inexperienced candidates have been given the bit because they hadn't been around long enough to have made any mistakes, or get involved in any polemic that the drama mongers could get their teeth into. One the other hand, those experienced old hands whose defeat has in some cases forced them to retire from the project, the mountains were made out of mole hills that represented probably less than 0.5% of the candidate's respectable number of perfectly sound edits, actions, and general behaviour. Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On proxies

My impression of this discussion is that, as so often at RFA, it confuses discussion about proxies for things we want to measure with discussion about what we actually want to measure. Now what we actually want to measure (predict) is future behaviour, in relation to a broad range of Admin Stuff. Naturally, we use past experience as a proxy for that prediction, but some of these proxies are weaker than others.

What do we actually want to measure? Basically, we want people who (a) won't do ridiculous stuff like delete the Main Page (i.e. it's not some kind of super-determined vandal account) (b) will act reasonably and civilly in Doing Admin Stuff they are competent in (c) know what stuff they are not competent in, and act with appropriate caution in those areas (d) be receptive to community feedback on all fronts (e) have enough psychological stability not to have a meltdown of some kind under the pressure admins active qua admins almost always come under occasionally. Now I'm not saying that this particular a-e list should be definitive, but it seems to me a much better starting point than percentages of edit types for example, which is a very poor proxy for what we actually want to know. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems rather muddled to me. You can't have a proxy for a prediction and you can't measure something that hasn't yet happened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course you can't measure what hasn't happened, that's why I said "(predict)". And whether you can technically have a proxy for a prediction or not, do you really think debating that is the most constructive possible response to my comments? Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells. Rd232 ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, as this kind of muddled thinking appears to be endemic on this page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no muddle at all (my comments throw the key issue into focus), only needless (and probably inaccurate but please let's not waste more time on this non-issue) terminological nitpicking on your part. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "waste of time" is the interminable jerrymandering that happens every time a perfectly reasonable proposal is put forwards on this God-forsaken talk page. Objective criteria have been suggested for how to assess potential administrators, yet you try to steer the discussion into muddy waters in which it will undoubtedly sink. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RD232, yes, neatly put. I broadly agree with you, and would suggest percentage automated as probably the lest useful proxy currently in use. However the way in which we judge candidates and the standards we apply to them do vary sharply amongst the community, if only because there are few direct ways to measure some of those things. An active editor who has diplomatically dealt with trolls and personal attacks will usually do better than one with recent blocks; But the community will disagree as to what is an isolated incident and for how long a block log needs to be clean. I think that if we could get the RFA crowd to focus less on the question section and more on reviewing the candidate's edits then we would improve RFA. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could get people to improve the proxies they use? ϢereSpielChequers 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your last question: in the first instance, by trying to get people to be conscious that the things they're talking about are proxies, and therefore the need to think about how those relate to what is proxied both in general and in any given case. Of course people are aware in principle that they're proxies, but it seems too easily forgotten that it matters to stay conscious of it. A good start would be to encourage people write "Proxy X for this candidate is bla bla. This matters because..." If we had a person spec focussing on desired behaviour, something like my outline a-e above, that would be easier to do. To continue my rambling thought to its close: what's needed is a person spec, not a job spec, because adminship isn't a job with defined duties all of which need to be exercised well; it needs a person with the right qualities. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It needs a person who has demonstrated that they have the right qualities, whatever they may be considered to be. "Having" and "demonstrating" are not synonymous. More muddled thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on your part. The "proxied" is the having the quality, the proxy is whatever we can come up with that appears to demonstrate that quality. Do keep up. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'm getting dangerously close to my stall speed, so probably best if you try to do without me here. I'm quite certain that you'll manage to talk this idea into the oblivion that houses all other suggestions for change whether I'm here or not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes, my secret's out. "If you have nothing to say, don't say anything" is often sound advice. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising how often those offering advice are the last to take their own advice. Or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I have something to say, and I said it, and you won't stop bad-faith carping. An independent observer might start to wonder, from your participation in this subthread whether you have some undisclosed beef with me, or else an agenda to prevent RFA reform. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unprejudiced observer might come to the conclusion that I would very likely be the last person to oppose RfA reform, but that would of course exclude you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if they were only looking at this subthread, as I specified. Incidentally, whatever I did to you to get this attitude from you, I'm sorry. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rd, I must confess that I too am a little confused by your post. Your a-e list is basically the same as Mk's list (current version is here), just in a little more colloquial language. Or put another way, what do you disagree with on Mk's list? Eventually what we are measuring is trust, which ultimately is unquantifiable, i.e. not amenable to any good system of formal measurement. The point of the "checklist" is a) to let prospective admins know in advance what they will be evaluated against, in vague enough terms that they will find it very difficult to game; and b) to let !voters evaluate a complete stranger against a formal set of criteria, so they can satisfy themselves the candidate is worthy of support. Franamax (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my list was meant to be supplementary to explaining my core point about the difference between what we want to know, and what we can look at, and the problematic relationship between the two. However one difference I see between my list and Mks (besides point 6 of course) is expecting administrators to have sufficient self-knowledge and critical reflection to distinguish effectively between things they're competent in and things they're not, and to act appropriately. This is not incidental to my core point, since RFA voters believing a candidate has this (respons)ability helps bridge the gap between visible past non-admin behaviour and predicted future admin behaviour. That's kind of subsumed into Mk's point 1, in a way which loses the important message that admins are not expected to be (probably can't be) absolute masters of all things admin, but rather to exercise good judgement, including on their own relative lack of expertise. On the language point: formal language can more easily hide ambiguities, so particularly at the brainstorming stage, a dose of informality can be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For number 1, how about something like: "Understanding of the range of administrative tools, sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied, and recognition of the need to become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area." This might help balance the mention of "range" to offset some of the concerns about that word. It would also be measurable: an editor with will or won't have a record of jumping into new areas prematurely. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I actually have no problem with (non-admin) editors jumping into areas prematurely, that pretty much describes my entire first 3 months of editing. :) It's actually the ability to learn from those leaps that matters. And the italicized bit seems easy to game with a simple statement that "I would not get into that without knowing what I am doing" - so I'm not convinced the addition of the words moves the criterion any further ahead. Franamax (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Franamax; there is far too much of a learning curve to say something like "become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area". It's about exercising appropriate caution, which often means, besides distinguishing easy cases in an area from hard ones, getting advice from more experienced editors/admins in relation to hard cases. Basically, the key thing is the ability and willingness to learn, and to identify learning requirements, and to exercise appropriate caution/humility at all times (even highly experienced admins are not infallible). Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(put into temporal order, why was that not an e/c?) Hence my addition of the preamble about "not expected to know it all by heart". I take your point about humility as a valuable quality, and knowing one's own limitations to me is a key indicator of suitability for the role. I think though that #1 does cover your concern in a way that can be adequately addressed through the questioning process. So taking as an example a question I saw once "when is it appropriate to add to the spam blacklist?", the "wrong" answer would be "I have no fucking clue and I don't care, I said in Q1 I wanted to do CSD's" and the answer that would satisfy #1 would be "I have no experience with this, but from reading up on it here are the general criteria. If I came across a specific concern I would proceed by posting to WT:SPAM and making my decision based on the feedback there" - or "When this happened before, I posted to WT:SPAM and this was the outcome". That to me satisfies the criterion and I think satisfies yours too as it gives an indication the newly-minted admin won't go nuts and start pressing buttons madly. Franamax (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One idea I have -- which may or may not help address Rd232's point -- is to have two versions of the capability statement. The first version would be "what is expected of administrators". It could belong on WP:ADMIN. The second version would be "what is expected of prospective administrators". It could belong on WP:RFA. The two would mirror each other as closely as possible: the purpose of the latter would be to best ensure that we promote admins who comply with the former. WP:ADMIN at the moment is about "what not to do", which seems insufficient. Just drafting and talking about these capabilities has helped focus my own mind on how I can be a better editor and admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could be helpful, to emphasise that RFA candidates are not expected to be experienced admins. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would any rational person be expecting that admin candidates should be experienced admins? More and more muddled. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More and more useless carping. My remarks on the usefulness of clarifying this arise from observing behaviour at RFAs. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Malleus. Nobody has even seen the tools before they get them - every admin here has had to learn the practical side on the the job. All the pile-on and trick questions remain purely hypothetical, and as WSC says, focus should be drawn away from them, and in my opinion, they should be severely limited in scope and number. This entire thread on 'proxies' is certainly beyond my comprehension and is something I wouldn't need to know about for suggesting some basic improvements to RfA, such as first and foremost insisting on a set of guidelines/minimum maturity for the !voters. Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry you don't understand proxies (unfortunately the Proxy (statistics) article won't really help you... if the only thing to come out of this subthread is someone addressing that article, it would be something!), but User:Kudpung/RfA criteria, whilst it includes some good points, also contains flaws which it probably wouldn't if you did. Rd232 ^talk 07:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• We had a good thing going; Merrily We Roll Along.

  Malleus and Rd, could you two just ignore each other? Personally, I understand the proxy issue-- we want measurable (to the extent possible) criteria that are attempting to measure the right thing. In my (FAC) terminology, that means we want to end up with *actionable* opposes. More importantly, we want unstifled discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Sandy. In 15 words, two brackets, and a full stop, you have explained to me what the entire, issue-clouding banter above is all about :) Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one to think it's weird that over half of the last 10 or so RfAs have been for editors whose usernames start with a G? 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer says no.... Rd232 ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then a couple other ones start with C, which looks similar. Useight (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all part of the global masonic conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.--Korruski^Talk 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they're all socks! (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man, you have no idea how much work that was. And all for a joke that wasn't particularly funny.--Danger (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Template:RFApremature when looking for instructions on how to close an RfA, and noticed that it's a bit out of date: "Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months."

I was going to change the "3 months" to something more realistic, but after doing a search, it appears that the template is no longer being used. The last two substitutions appear to have occurred February 2008 and February 2009. Since it's gone unused for 2 years and has been superseded by Template:Notnow, is there any reason to keep it? 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not; mark it historial and a link to t:notnow ? Pedro :  Chat  19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll do that if no one raises any objections here. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In case you're still looking, see WP:SNOW/HOW. –xeno^talk 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xeno. I had found what I was looking for at WP:BUREAUCRAT#Instructions and other closers' contribution history. I think I did all the steps correctly, but double-checks for anything I may have missed are always welcome. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I'm looking for a longstanding administrator who could offer some time in thoroughly reviewing my account for a third nomination. I have self-nominated twice before, both failing due to "lack of experience in all admin areas". My last RFA was more than six months back, and since then, I have considerably changed my editing areas are patterns, I have also been nominated (and passed, on my first nom) as an admin on Wikimedia Commons, where I do a lot of maintenance work.

At en.wiki, I do a lot of speedy deletions relating to files and maintenance too (deleted contribs), and I really could use a few tools to speed things up; save my time asking, and save other admins time of responding. IMHO, I don't think there is any issue with trust, just the issue of "experience", which I think is now sufficient.

Please see my past requests (may be slightly outdated) for detailed information of where I would like to work . I am also quite an active global editor, can respond to requests fairly quickly. I've decided to not go for another self-nom, after failing twice... Rehman 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rehman, I know it's a tough issue self-nominating. I'll go through your contributions in a couple of days to check out whether you can stand a a good chance of clearing an RfA. I do realize you've had some earlier dialogue on this issue. I'll take that too into consideration. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wifione! Rehman 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a debate as long as the River Nile, based purely on a userbox dictating the candidate is an atheist. There are people attacking the fact he has a lot of userboxes on his userpage. OMG, even his sexuality has been brought into the childish and highly unnecessary handbag-war! Too many times, people seem to forget that RfA is about can this candidate be an admin. No wonder the amount of RfAs has been steadily decreasing. Because why does anyone want to submit themselves to an atmosphere as Jurassic as this? The system stinks. Orphan Wiki 19:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some of the debate seems to have reached a new low for RfA.--Korruski^Talk 19:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one should have to be subjected to that. It's bordering on inhumane. Orphan Wiki 19:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm saying this as someone who supports the candidate, and commented there against the kinds of things you criticize here. But I have to point out that those who oppose believe that their arguments are valid and significant. The point of the process is that one has to have community trust, and the community is what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The community is sadly very corrupt. Orphan Wiki 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is, of course, still early in the process, but it will be interesting at the end to see how the bureaucrats decide to weigh the various comments when they close it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It will be very interesting... :S Orphan Wiki 19:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essential reading for anyone who thinks the community is corrupt. 28bytes (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Submitting oneself for an RfA is an offer to help. Where else but RfA would people, instead of politely saying "no, thanks" or "not yet", effectively turn around and tell the person making a genuine offer to fuck off and never darken the door again? RfA would be a much better place if candidates, regardless of their suitability to be an administrator, were treated with respect. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't oppose or point out a candidate's flaws, just that they should do it in a way that doesn't leave a dedicated editor feeling useless. We treat vandals better—at least they're quietly blocked rather than insulted, belittled and made to feel worthless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a little history is being missed here. Keepscases is a long-time RfA participant who is well-known for opposing candidates based on their userboxes. As a candidate, if you have a provocative userbox, you have three choices on how to deal with this:

1. Remove the userbox prior to the RfA to avoid the issue altogether.
2. Leave the userbox up, and if Keepscases opposes, say something to the effect of "I understand you feel that userbox is inappropriate, but I respectfully disagree. You have the right to your oppose, and I ask any of my supporters to please not argue the point here." After all, it's just one person's oppose; it's not likely to tip the balance of the RfA.
3. Argue with him about the userbox, pulling in dozens of people to argue about it, generating hurt feelings and kilobytes of angry text that is eventually collapsed or moved to the talk page, sucking all the energy out of any attempts to analyze the candidate's qualifications themselves.

Now, if I were a Machiavellian type, and I had serious problems with my candidacy that I wanted to gloss over (like, say, copyright concerns or poor AfD closures), I might choose option #3, so as to lure the community into arguing over userboxes (on which, overwhelmingly, people oppose Keepscases' position) in order to distract !voters from the serious problems. Now I don't think Ctjf83 is a Machiavellian type at all – he seems quite sincere and principled – but it is interesting to note that some of the support !votes to come along are essentially opposes of Keepscases' oppose, and seem to miss entirely the quite serious issues brought up by, for example, Courcelles. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, just paid very serious attention to what Courcelles brought up. But, if you don't think the candidate is being Machiavellian, then don't bring it up as a hypothetical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, no, I don't think Ctjf83 is being Machiavellian, at all. The point was more aimed at people who were tempted to focus on the issue that was generating the most heat, at the expense of more serious concerns. The Machiavelli thought actually occurred to me yesterday as I had Ctjf83's RfA open in one browser window, and this article he lists as a GA in another. If you read that article, perhaps you'll understand why that thought came to mind. Regardless, feel free to ignore anything from "Now, if I were a Machiavellian type..." on; I think the point about how to (or how not to) respond to a Keepscases oppose stands on its own. 28bytes (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see how the usual smiley-face drive-by supports will be weighed, including those that came before the revelation that the candidate has no idea how to do the one thing he most wants to do with the tools (close AfDs). But that's already been answered by many previous RfAs. They get full value. And HJ you yourself could make RfA a better place by not insulting people you've worked closely with by saying you agree that their beliefs are superstitions.[2] --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, HJ has not even come close to suggesting that people's religious beliefs are superstitions. :S Orphan Wiki 22:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well if that's not what he meant with this statement, he should explain himself. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake and he was unaware of the offence it caused. Otherwise I have nothing more to say to him. I will give him the opportunity now.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He stated that he didn't think there was anything wrong with the userbox. The fact that he agreed while holding that belief doesn't mean he was insulting other people's beliefs. I think he said "I agree with the userbox's sentiment" because he believed that there was nothing wrong with the userbox. However, this is just my take, and HJ might have a different response in mind. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also feel that there was no malice or hurt intended in HJ's comment. The point I think he was making was similar to the essence of the broader discussion. That to oppose on the basis of an unoffensive userbox is somewhat daft. But, like what Utahraptor has said, this is my take only. Orphan Wiki 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. He said he agreed with the sentiment of the userbox, that sentiment being that belief in God is a superstition. It offends me on two levels: (a) it insults my intelligence to call my beliefs superstitions; (b) in my religion, superstition is a serious sin (see my diff above to explain more). Let HJ speak for himself. OrphanWiki, while your at it, you can retract "childishness" as well. Seeing stuff from HJ Mitchell and others hit me hard yesterday (look at the recent history of my talk page), much more so than seeing the juvenile userbox itself. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This whole business of stoning RfA candidates to death is childish! It appalls me! Why can't RfA be assessing their work, rather than their beliefs or anything to do with them as a person? Why, if you're allowed to have a Christian userbox, a Muslim one, a Catholic one, a Buddhist one or a userbox depicting any religion, can you not have an atheist one? I fail to see ANY offense caused by any of those boxes? Orphan Wiki 22:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting redundant, We are judging RFA candidate on their content work, not thier sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or other beliefs that you may not agree with, but are completely irrelevant to the encyclopedia. If your going to oppose an RFA for a silly userbox, why don't you do the community a favor, and don't vote at all. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 22:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OrphanWiki and Mkativerata: I agree, OrphanWiki. I'm sorry you're offended, Mkativerata, and I understand why you're offended, being a devout Christian myself. But isn't RfA about judging a candidate's potential ability (or lack thereof) to use the administrator tools? People have become so nitpicky at RfA nowadays, they'll try to find even the simplest reasons to oppose. I'm not saying that you're being nitpicky, or that all oppose !votes are nitpicky, I'm just saying that nitpicky !votes are becoming more common. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. Thankyou for putting the discussion back on track. Orphan Wiki 22:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bureaucrat here. Because I may potentially be involved in closing or discussion the closure of this RfA, I will not comment on my position on this discussion. Nor may my position on this topic necessarily influence where I come out on the closure. But I will speak for all bureaucrats in this regard: we try our best to be fair and prudent in our decisions. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yesterday I was confronted with my actions, and came to reassess my role in this mess. While my intentions were good, trying to support a good editor who was being hammered for a petty and irrelevant issue (for clarity; not the content of the userbox, but the weak assertion that this userbox somehow had anything to do with adminship.) However, while I was trying to do good, I was in fact also escalating the problem. While I was not alone in this, I still regret how it turned out, even though I know that I am likely to do it again in future RfAs for the same reasons. The point I'm trying to make is that we are all looking for this in our own perspectives, after the fact. I doubt that anyone here wanted to turn this into a firestorm, it happened because everyone wanted to express their opinions. Perhaps it's time that this component was displaced; that editors cast their votes on the main page, and people have to challenge said votes on the talk page. That would, at the very least, allow for the heat to be someplace where it can do less spinning out of control. Plus, I tend to trust the 'crats to be competant enough in judging votes. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sven - just two points. The first -- a cynical strategic one for your own future RfA -- is that going into bat so hard for a candidate who is so obviously unqualified can reflect badly on you. When the inevitable examples of poor judgment and policy knowledge come out, like the NACs here, you can be left with your pants around your ankles. The second -- being involved in off-wiki communications is a dangerous minefield. It can give the impression that one is trying to procure on-wiki outcomes away from the public eye. I'm not saying that's what you were doing here, but it is something to be very careful about. (See the statement on my userpage for my own approach to off-wiki communications).--Mkativerata (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]