Current time: 23:06:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 · 2014 · 2015 Most recent Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mendezes Cousins. This RFA is almost completely blank, and the editor seems to have only a few hundred edits. Should it be transcluded? Everymorning (talk) 20:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that editor should be informed that they are too recent to have a chance and the RfA deleted.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And multiple recent warning messages on their Talk page, to boot. They should definitely be warned about WP:NOTNOW, and their RfA should be deleted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CSD tagged under WP:CSD#G6.Esquivalience ^t 22:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a gentle personalized note on the user's talk page with a link to WP:NOTNOW. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  23:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So have I (and deleted the RfA). Didn't see your message, Etamni, because it had already been pushed up the page by a new bunch of CSD notices. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it better to delete such RFAs than allow them to run, but and this is just an observation to those who make stats about RFA; it does make RFA stats on failed RFAs very skewed that in recent years we have deleted RFAs that once would have been NotNows. Also it would be less bitey if we had a clear criteria for running for RFA rather than the current unwritten rules. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's your proposal? NE Ent 10:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "clear criteria" stuff sounds like what I proposed here about adding a numerical minimum recommended edit count to the main RFA page. Everymorning (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole stinking procedure needs an overhaul, not just with new nominations. Cassianto^Talk 12:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary change is that it is more difficult to get a consensus and discussion usually will get sidetracked or at the least broadened to everyone's favourite hobbyhorses. We have come close to consensus on several occasions for something along the lines of "editors with fewer than 1500 edits or less than 6 months activity can only run if nominated by an admin" (I doubt the safeguard of admins being able to nominate a brilliant newbie would ever be used, but past discussions have shown that we wont get consensus without that clause). I think we could eventually get consensus for that, and it would reduce the number of times that newbies get bitten. Fixing one smallish thing might at least break the logjam and challenge the meme that RFA is impossible to reform, there are several other reforms that I would give greater priority if I was simply granted three wishes to implement reforms of my choice. But this reform is probably my second or third priority if we were simply looking for improvements that might get consensus. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I support adding minimum qualifications to running for RfA, but would oppose your specific proposal as long as it's worded "...if nominated by an admin" rather than "...if nominated by another long-term editor". Admins should not given any "extra power" over RfA's, even if marginally so as would be the case with your proposal. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:22, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here we hit one of the problems of RFA reform. Of course you are right that we shouldn't give admins any meaningful extra powers at RFA, but the alternatives would be to come up with an elaborate definition of editors in good standing, and generally over complicate a clause that I only put in because some people insist on a way to enable a truly excellent candidate to run before they had the requisite edits and tenure. Defining long-term editor for the purposes of that clause would not be easy, and would lead to some saying that such people should run for admin themselves.... ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, we're not going to approve having minimum standards for RfAs. If an RfA like the one that started this thread never gets transcluded, then deleting it as was done is perfectly fine. If it does get transcluded, then it should not be deleted but allow to run until a NOTNOW close is put on it. This has the side benefit of not causing statistics to be skewed. Rank newbies posting their RfAs, even if they are able to completely follow instructions, has never brought RfA to its knees. It just isn't a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• RfAs have become such a rarity that not deleting attempts by trolls and letting them run until closed per SNOW or NOTNOW would skew the stats worse than simply deleting them. I think we are still the only Wikipedia that doesn't have minimum requirements for candidates, but at the moment our neon caveats seem to work for those who are old enough to read and who are native speakers and we appear to be able to contain the rest. I think we should be more concerned about more urgent reforms - such as trying to quash this ridiculous brand new trend over the last few RfA (certainly since Liz's) to turn the talk page into another Weatherfield, replete with hobnail boots, dust-ups in the back alleys, and a din worse than fifty Mancunian dustbin lids skidding around the cobbled street outside the pub. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my mind. This is likely a bad idea, because drawing a line at x edits and n months will result in a spate of folks filing as soon as they meet those marks, and being looked at suspiciously by the Rfa voting community as hat gatherers. NE Ent 11:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true enough per WP:BEANS as any admin knows who has worked extensively at PERM - many editors hover with their mice over their edit count waiting to meet the magical minium of required edits and then make a bee-line for the millinery. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be trivial to just disallow self-nominations, since realistically if you can't find someone willing to nominate you, you have no chance of passing RfA. Making that official seems to me just an acknowledgement of reality. As previously discussed, it's long been standard practice for admins to nuke RfAs if a candidate obviously has no chance of passing, and no one seems to bat an eye. Might as well just require all prospective candidates to pass a sanity check by getting a nomination. To me, the self-nomination option functions mainly as a trap for misguided newbies. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a few pure gold self-nomination RFA's, but they're rare. I still think it should be OK for a gnome type candidate to come in with a self-nomination, since they could be doing very good work behind the scenes but yet hardly know anyone. THeyd get opposes for low content creation probably, but some candidates seem to be immune to that while others get whole armies of opposes. 3¢soap3¢ 15:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rare? 2 out of the last 3 successful RfAs were self noms. 1/3 of the successful RfAs this year were self noms. The last thing we want to do is shut down self nominations, that will just mean less RfAs, and we hardly have any at the minute. Worm^TT(talk) 08:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need to differentiate between the self noms by experienced editors with thousands of edits and long experience and the self noms by new editors who haven't spotted that they don't yet come close to meeting the unwritten criteria for adminship. An easy solution to that would be a rule such as if you don't have 2,000 edit and six months tenure then you can't run an RFA without a nomination from someone who meets that criteria. That would protect the newbies and not lose us any of the successful RFAs. The tricky thing is agreeing the threshold, and that some editors either don't care about biting newbies or consider that a mantrap in the nursery is a character forming experience or even evolution in action. ϢereSpielChequers 22:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new template for marking discussion moves: use {{subst:RfA discussion moved}} or simply {{subst:Rfadm}} with the first argument being the title of the heading. Esquivalience ^t 00:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't {{Rfadm}} something else entirely? I think you meant {{RfAdm}} which you moved to {{RfA-dm}} due to confusion issues. -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably still too close to {{Rfadm}} for comfort IMHO – I'd suggest {{RfA-dismove}} (or {{RfA-discussmove}}(?), or something) for the name of Esquivalience's new template. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Montanabw's RfA, I could not help but wonder whether the 310kB of discussion (plus 140kB on the talk page) are some kind of record. I could not find anything in the last two years that exceeded 200k. There has to be a better way of doing this... —Kusma (t·c) 10:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an outlier. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dihydrogen Monoxide 3 was 396kb before blanking and the talkpage peaked at 146kb, that was I think the only RFA to have over 400 participants, there may have been others with fewer votes and more discussion. Now that Montanabw is over I think we need to learn a few lessons, in particular there were editors removing rather than striking !votes and arguments despite them being responded to, and that left some hanging responses that now look like they are responses to the preceding !vote. Clerks/neutral volunteers could resolve this sort of thing. I'd also like to see dates on diffs as I think that would make it more obvious when people have to go back many years to get their ammunition. ϢereSpielChequers 10:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^Fully agree with that: Dates on diffs would be a brilliant requirement, make it a whole lot easier to see what's going on; can we add that to the guidelines/requirements, or is that too bold? And removing !votes (instead of striking) is surely a complete no-no which shouldn't be tolerated at all. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble is, few people would read those guidelines, so it would need a guideline allowing/encouraging other editors to refactor these things. Dates of diffs are visible if you use pop-ups, so that ought to be less of a problem. If a !vote is removed, would it be acceptable for another editor to restore, indent and strike it, and place a note at the end of it stating that they have done so? Refactoring other people's posts can be troublesome, especially somewhere as tense as RfA, so I'd want to be able to put "per <name of guideline>" both in the endnote and in the edit summary before doing that. --Stfg (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to the original question, if you include the 'crat chat and its talk as part of Liz's RFA, the total is (280 + 109 + 49 + 286) about 720 kB. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz raised this on Wikipediocracy. Does anyone know the answer? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have raised the issue on Wikipedia as well but it is just an observation as there are too few RfA candidates, much less female RfA candidates, to determine whether this impression is accurate. And knowing how charged the subject of gender is on Wikipedia matters, it's a question likely to bring out those with strong opinions on the matter. If there were a larger number of RfAs being held these days or a study was done that went back, say five years, the evidence would be less anecdotal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping there might have been some research. I think it's something worth knowing. Oliver, do you know if this question has been addressed in any research? If not, is there a mechanism for the community to ask the WMF to find out? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If so (and I am making no specific assertions), might it be related to the perception (right or wrong) that female editors tend to be more personal in comments in general, while some editors (male and female) appear to be in almost "robot mode" avoiding any hints of having "emotions" in their lives? Certainly a great many of the !votes did seem to invoke "personal emotions" at first glance. I had a run-in with Montanabw in the past, if I recall correctly, but manage to totally avoid having it impact my opinion of her fitness for being an admin to the best of my ability, though some (male and female) seem unwilling or unable to divorce incidents stored in their memories in order to view the RfA in a totally dispassionate manner. Collect (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know, there could be a correlation (though I'm not sure how it could be studied) that editors who adopt a more "conversational" tone in their contributions (both in their talk page edits and edit summaries), one which reveals their point of view, opinions, perspectives, are likely to be judged based on what these comments reveal about them as much as the content of their edits. Since granting adminship is an act of community trust, this basis for judgement could work for or against a RfA candidate.

Editors who have a more detached, businesslike approach do not reveal much about their personality or personal outlook which can influence a RfA voter so the focus might be more on their editing work than their character. The downside is that I've seen candidates who are more or less unknown and anonymous be told that the community doesn't know enough about them to trust them with the tools. I have rarely (maybe once?) seen that criticism of a female RfA candidate and that was not a typical RfA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's really an answer, as someone would have to do sufficient research on the topic. Also, because "more heavily scrutinized" is a bit of a qualitative assessment, I don't know how someone could use some mathematical (or, at least, logical) method for determining this. But it would be interesting to know. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typically for social issues you wouldn't find quantitative units of measurement for comparison. Anyone conducting any sort of research on the matter would essentially need to do a public opinion poll on the matter. Mkdw^talk 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if one could quantify the relative usage of "code words" such as "temperamental" or "emotional" in RfAs? Although, just guessing, I suspect that it would not turn out to be as blatant as that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing studies or releasing "findings" of that nature would affect public opinion but to use that to prove any sort of definitive theory, especially from an academic perspective, would be difficult because of barriers and variables involved. The largest problem we have is that the sample size is way too small. Unless there were hundred's of RFAs by female editors to parse, I would attribute the majority of RFA outcomes to the uniqueness of the candidates running (male or female). Mkdw^talk 18:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed this, Tryptofish, in discussions on article talk pages and noticeboards. Take note of who uses terms like "illogical", "unreasonable", "emotional" to describe another editor they believe reacts rather than thinks through their edits carefully. An interesting observation I've made is that sometimes editors who call others unreasonable and emotional are acting out of anger and are hostile even if their language is superficially polite. Retaliation, especially on a volunteer, collaborative project is far from reasonable behavior. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that all of those points, from both of you, make good sense. I rather doubt that one could find unambiguous evidence of gender problems in RfA, although one could very possibly find ambiguous evidence. I agree with Liz that the problems are more noticeable elsewhere on-Wiki, and that it's desirable that the community increase the inclusiveness in the editing culture. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are simply too many variables to perform any valid research on this topic. Like Johanna said, "more heavily scrutinized" is too broad a term. Are we counting scrutinization by byte count? Do we just count oppose !votes? Do we count 'crat chats? Do we count the talk pages? How exact do we weigh scrutiny? If you are asking for a flat mathematical comparison that is not hard to do. I could throw together a simple script that goes through past RfAs and pulls byte data. If you are asking for more of a psychological examination that would be far more difficult to put together. There is the potential to perform a study but there has to be a much more concrete question being asked. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Per Tryptofish, although code words are a good idea, it still doesn't give any sense about the context of the word's usage. It might have nothing to do with the participant's personality but rather some something else. A study done by any one person would most likely represent some sort of bias, especially given the lack of ability to provide some sort of logical proof. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 18:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the level of scrutiny people get over their personalities has far more to do with what type of personality they have than what type of gender. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 15:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with HighInBC (to a point). Montana had extra scrutiny because her personality has rubbed people the wrong way over a long period. The majority of Liz's scrutiny was due to her lack of content work. Neither are related to gender unless you start from a position women are more likely to be abrasive and do less content work. Which would be ridiculous. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MelanieN was pretty low on drama, from what I recall. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well exactly, and that was because Melanie had little/no contentious issues to warrent scrutiny. Those small bits of drama were due to highly specific complaints by single editors, as opposed to the more significant complaints that affected lots of editors that Liz and Montana had to deal with. I had a brief look at other (obviously) female candidates in the archives and any wider/deeper/more discussion was usually due to a significant issue rather than anything remotely gender related. However this was also the case for the male editors, those that had significant opposing arguments tended to attract a deeper look at the candidate - mostly because people feel the need at RFA to defend their candidate and argue oppose votes. If anything, there is a greater argument that scrutiny is related to the strident-ness of 'support' voters in their badgering of opposes than gender. Those candidates with strong support get stronger counter-opposes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. It seems to have more to do with editors who have had major contentions in the past rather than gender. I've certainly thought more about and seen discussion about the personalities of male RfA candidates if they've had an ArbCom case, a shaky block record, etc. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely my personal opinion, but I would probably disqualify MelanieN as a comparison case (if left to me). MelanieN has a very good reputation on this project and has a well above average resume of accomplishments and involvement in several key areas of the project. If someone asked me to provide a list of editors who represent "typical" editors, it would be people like MelanieN, Yunshui, and Doc James that I would intentionally exclude and for very good reason. This is not to say they're without fault, but they're clearly not typical editors. Therefore, I would only include MelanieN in a comparison of other female RFA candidates who share the same level of reputation and involvement in the project rather than with every female RFA candidate. Again, it's the problem with there being so many variables and too few case studies to see a trend that can handle a number of outlying cases without greatly affecting the final result. Mkdw^talk 18:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That approach is basically how gender-warriors get results that support their (foregone) conclusions. By eliminating statistics that provide alternative possible causes, the gender-warrior ends up with 'well it must be because of their sex', as opposed to in (this case) a collaborative environment 'its because they have conflict with people'. Melanie had a low-contentious RFA like every other low-contentious RFA because she is a low-impact editor who collaborates well with others. Taking Opabinia's points below. 1)correct, low controversy cases are the same regardless of gender because the editors are *low controversy*. 2)Not well expressed - as a base number male contentious RFA candidates will outnumber the female. As a % of the RFA gender candidates, due to the significant gender imbalance its likely the % is higher for female RFA candidates, however that is because RFA has become (in the last few years) more combative, and female editors have only significantly increased in the same period. So any % is going to be wildly off just because of the basic imbalance of male-female editors over time. 3)Na. Analysing the text in high-controversy cases will only net you the reasons people object over time and plenty of people have already done that. Its not gender-related, its due to the actions of admins (and arbcom) and what the editing community expect from their admins. Finally the 'people cant help treating men and women differently' is a typical gender-warriors argument - 'It doesnt matter what you think you will treat people differently anyway so there'. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows what they're doing with sentiment analysis should take a look at this. I'd predict that:

• Low-participation/low-controversy cases look pretty much the same for male, female, and unspecified-gender candidates.
• High-controversy cases are more likely to involve candidates of specified gender.
• Analyzing the text posted in high-controversy cases is highly predictive of whether the candidate is male or female.

Even people who think they're being "totally dispassionate" usually can't help it; people do use different descriptors for men and women, and evaluate them based on different criteria, without any intention to do so or awareness that they're doing it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this. Any editor doing a master's thesis in conversation analysis? Networking theory might also play a role, what sociologists call "social ties" but the factor that causes some people to say that the RfA is a popularity contest. I bet there is an WMF grant that would support that research (like an IEG grant). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already several analyses of RFA from a network social analysis perspective; see Google. I'm not sure how much of that is fluff but a few at least probably are not. --Izno (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick overview since Jan 2014

Since Jan 2014 (obvious or self-identified) female RFAs and any discussion points.

Liz - Lack of content editing

Opabinia - non-contentious

Melanie - non-contentious

Sarahj - non-contentious

Anne Delong - non-contentious

Cindamuse - non-contentious for the most part - interestingly only gender based objection was from another female.

Unsuccessful

Montana - Interpersonal skills

Solarra - Questions about judgement on CSD/Delation, with opposers stating needs more experience and would support next time.

So from this we have: of the 8 clearly female RFA's in the last couple of years 75% have passed. 37.5% faced increased scrutiny/discussion, and only 12.5% (one incident!) had any reference to gender which was by another female editor and which was successful anyway! Solarra would be highly likely to pass her next RFA given the comments.

32 Successful male (or not-obvious which gender) RFA's Of which those with increased scrutiny:

Cyphoidbomb - concerns with content

Sarekofvulcan - Interpersonal skills

Northamerica1000 - content

Jackmcbarn - questions about IP editing

String theory - AFD judgement

Deor - no one specific sticking point

Hahc21 - Judgement/interpersonal skills

Roughly 70 unsuccessful male (or not-obvious which gender) RFA's, too many different reasons to list individually, none gender-related that I can see and a significant number of them withdrawn. Of the unsuccessfuls roughly 25 had deeper discussion.

So roughly 30% pass rate for male/not-obvious gender candidates, of all the RFA's roughly 31% had increased scrutiny. No gender concerns.

So from a quick 30 min overview of the RFA's since Jan 2014, there are a couple of easy conclusions.

Firstly, you are more likely to pass RFA if you openly identify as female.

Secondly, there is no real difference in the amount of scrutiny male/female editors receive. If anything it is biased in favour of female editors as male editors have a much higher chance of being opposed, which leads to greater discussion/scrutiny.

Thirdly, the only overtly gender-related argument was to a female candidate from another female editor, confirming what modern men know all along, the only enemy of women is other women.

Its pretty clear that gender has almost zero impact on the reasons why editors face increased scrutiny, but that being female would probably help your chances of a successful RFA overall. There could be any number of reasons for this, pro-female bias from other editors, female interpersonal skills being generally better than mens in a collaborative environment (where men prefer a more aggressive leadership role) etc etc

Interestingly the reasons for objections are fairly static and consistent across both genders. Judgement at noticeboards (policy knowledge), Interpersonal skills (conflicts with other editors), Content work (not enough, or the 'wrong sort').

(The reason I have lumped 'non obvious' genders in with males is because if its not obvious or even hinted at, it has no impact on the discussion, and the gendergap findings would indicate that they are highly likely to be male anyway)

Thank you and goodnight! Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the picture is more complex than that, especially when you look at how qualified people were when they first ran - men are much more likely than women to apply for adminship without having checked the process thoroughly and realised they don't come close to having a chance of passing. In other words being female may or may not increase your chances of passing, but it certainly protects you from the overconfidence of starting an RFA that won't get 50%.

Being female, and especially editing under a female name probably does brings extra voters. Of the dozen RFAs with 200 or more supports, only a third were women, but that's a lot more than the proportion of women in the community. More importantly five of the eight men in the WP:200 did so on their second or third RFA (often a sign of a controversial candidacy), of the seven RFAs with more 200 or more supports on people's first run, four were women. ϢereSpielChequers 10:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was only taking a brief look. It is Saturday morning after all ;). Still, if I wanted to pass RFA the things I would do in order would be 1. Declare femininity, 2. Make sure editing history includes a mixture of work at various noticeboards (AFD being a popular one) and content work in 'good' (non trivial) areas, 3. Dont get into disputes with people - to the extent of backing off even if in the wrong if they other person wont back down. 4.Collect hat. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The questions asked to Liz by Hawkeye7 about Jimmy Wales cannedd..... was not a proper question to ask. I was surprised why most Administrators digested the question as okay. It was purely harassment by gaming the system. By the way montanabw was not highly scrutinized. 112.79.35.136 (talk) 10:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you personally scrutinised her highly, lightly, or not at all, is something only you can know, just as none of really know how much scrutiny others have done of a candidate. There are indicators, including number of participants, number of diffs and kbs of discussion and most of them indicate that it was a heavily scrutinised RFA. OK there were some editors who admitted only looking at stats and not actually checking the candidate's edits, and back in the days when we used to have multiple concurrent RFAs you did sometimes spot people voting in RFAs only a few minutes apart. But in my experience most voters take RFA seriously. Though I do wonder how much scrutiny anyone has done who votes in the first minutes of an RFA. I can think of an RFA a few years ago where nobody had pointed out during the RFA that the candidate was contributing lots of work with overly close paraphrasing, other than that I struggle to think of admins where we looked back later and said if only someone had posted that diff in the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:41, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For simplicity sake I generally went with a definition of scrutiny as 'have significant oppose votes with well-articulated reasons' which were almost all (Liz being the exception amongst the women) unsuccessful. While some non-contentious successful RFA's clearly had extra attention (scrutiny) paid to them, they didnt have to. They would have passed if people had just voted 'Support' with no comment. Personally I find the contentious successful male RFA's (listed above) to be the more interesting, if only because thats where you see the sides being picked, the lines drawn etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of active administrators who doesn't do any administrative work.

If we put too much pressure on content creation, FA/GA during RFAs; then we won't get administrators as NeilN. Every article related to History, Science, Astronomy, Classic movies, Classic Literature and Geography are already created. We have to look at the mainspace edits which are not semi-automated using any Twinkle, Huggle type tools. If mainspace edits are above 10,000 minus twinkle, huggle, Stiki... edits, then no question should be raised about article creation. Article development is more important than stub article creation. Clean block is very necessary.

Those who are successful volunteers in WP:DRN, has a clean block log; those who correctly tag new pages for speedy deletion, catch sockpuppets and report them at WP:SPI, those who vote properly during WP:AFDs and WP:RFDs, has good knowledge of English language, follows WP:NPOV, reports vandals and trolls to WP:AIV/WP:ANI, follows WP:CIVIL, makes correct report at WP:RPP, doesn't do any canvassing, has 10,000+ non-automated main space edits and the account is minimum 3 years old: they should not face oppose votes for lack of FA/GA and article creation. 112.79.35.136 (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the view that all notable articles have been created. I'm also unsure why article creation should be the metric of choice - we have many articles that are in very poor state, some even degrading over time as a result of well-intentioned but poorly informed edits. Also, tagging is one of the worst crimes currently sanctioned by the community in my opinion. Other than {{cn}}, I can't think of any tags that should ever take precedence over actually fixing the problem, and the only reason I'm allowing that exception is because I realise that people don't always have access to the required sources to substantiate a claim. If you have access to sources, you should use them.

The reason, if it needs re-iterating again, why content experience is important in an admin, is that they have to be able to empathise with the passion that editors feel about their subject and how this can boil over into conflict. If we block misbehaving people willy-nilly, we'll soon be out of anybody that knows anything. Obviously, if you think that we're just tending the ashes, then that doesn't matter, but if that's our view, we should fully page-protect every article, and we won't need any new admins. Regards, Samsara 12:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP OP mentions a lot of things, but is right in saying people should look beyond the easily-found created articles, GAs and FAs. While it is absolutely critical for an admin to have the relevant empathy with other editors, GAs and FAs (etc) are not the only indicators. General experience in the relevant admin areas, including interaction with other editors, is probably more important than writing engaging or brilliant (or lots of) prose. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article creation is of course important, but so are all the other steps in making an article good. I often suspect that article creation is the metric of choice because it is easy to measure. When contributions require a bit of work to dig up they are less likely to be considered by those who want to make a quick decision. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 16:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know there is an opposition group to this view, but I would like the edits of a candidate to be looked at as a whole and not a percentage. Providing rationales like user talk is their second most edited space, or only 30% of their edits are article related, really only tells us what they do with their time when not writing articles. If someone has 10,000 article space edits, it's a body of work, and we should look at the quality of their edits. It seems irrational, to me, that some would pass someone with 10,000 article space edits if that represents 50% of their overall edits, yet would want to oppose someone if the same 10,000 article space edits present 30% of their overall edits -- even if they had identical contributions in quality and numbers. Candidates should only be opposed if their work in non-article space areas raise concerns, not whether how much of their personal time is spent there opposed to "writing". Content creation is certainly a good thing to have, but it's not being proven or disproven by looking at the ratios of their edits. Mkdw^talk 20:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find these number/percentage based arguments deeply worrisome. It's easy to miss problematic patterns in editor behaviour if you look only at numbers, or vice versa read implications into a given percentage/number that are wholly imaginary.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out here that Samsara's post above is by far the smartest thing said on this page, and is probably really the only thing here worth reading. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis No disrespect, but have you seen Samsara blocking confirmed socks in SPI, Protecting pages in WP:RPP, Blocking users in WP:AIV, reviewing unblock request, taking part in ANI_______ WehWalt, Samsara,Shyamal and 200+ administrators have zero interest in vandals and trolls. If Materialscientist,Kuru, NeilN, MusicAnimal, Cambridgebayweather, Anna Frodesiak, SmallJim, Mike V becomes administrator as Samsara then there will be open season for vandalism. Of course content creators and FA/GA creators should be administrators, but lack of FA/GAs should not be a reason for oppose in RFAs if the user has 10,000+ non-automated mainspace edits. Few months ago i reported a vandal to a content creating administrator; he ignored my post and went on making other edits. I reported the same user to Materialscientist-who blocked the user. Content creation don't need administrator's tools. We need knowledge for content creation. A three day old Wikipedia editor, who is a teacher or a scientist in real life can be a good content creator. 112.79.37.47 (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Samsara. Thanks for highlighting it Opabinia regalis. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Berean Hunter had a block, I was one of the noms for his RfA. He passed 160-0 if memory serves me right. I think the community is pretty forgiving when it comes to singular mistakes. It is patterns that turn into drama. As for content, I just want to see enough experience to build empathy. I never had a GA until after I got the bit, but I had done a tonne of sourcing, copy editing and cleanup. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bearian's 2 minute block four years before his RfA doesn't count at all. Much to the probable dismay of some of our more recent voters who have taken to systematically harassing 'short-vote' supporters and killing all the progress we made for intelligent participation, , I made one of my briefest supports there. His RfA is a classic example of just how little genuine candidates and their nominators who have both done their homework have to fear, and demonstrates quite clearly that if the the trolls would give it a rest, RfA does exactly what it says on the tin.

BTW: I just want to point out that 112.79.35.136, 112.79.37.47, 112.79.38.89 all edit from static IPs at the same street address and if the comment they left on my talk is anything to go by, they may mean well, but I don't think they are telling us anything new that we didn't already know and/or have already discounted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block logs

Re the "Clean block is necessary" comment above, can I ask where people generally are on that? Obviously I prefer and respect a clean block log, and I'd want a very good explanation of any block in the last twelve months, and for anything in the previous year at least an acknowledgment of why it happened and what the candidate has learned from it, but where do others stand? Would people oblige me by signing whichever of the options below is closest to their views? Appreciate that some people might not like the current cleanstart policy that it is only "strongly recommended that you inform the Arbitration Committee" before running at RFA with an undisclosed former account, but I'd like people's opinions within the policies we now have. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If the blocking admin apologised for accidentally blocking you that's OK. But otherwise you need a clean block log to become an admin.

(2) Any valid block however old is at least somewhat negative, but there are many other things one should take into account at RFA and I'd support a very well qualified candidate even if they'd recently been blocked for something that wouldn't merit a desysop, such as editwarring.

1. Close enough. Any block is somewhat negative but the older it is, the less of a big deal it is. (Age of the user could also be relevant here: I would be much less likely to care about someone doing something stupid 7 years ago if they were aged 12 at the time than if they were in their 50s.) I wouldn't like supporting someone who's been blocked for 3RR or whatever recently, but it wouldn't ipso facto make me oppose. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 21:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I probably fall in between this option and option 3. It's often a relatively minor aspect of the overall evaluation. Applying an arbitrary time frame to improvement is a bit much, but one would assume that a person seeking the mop would know better than to do so soon after a block. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(3) I expect at least 12 months editing since your last block expired, and longer for badfaith stuff such as outing, vandalism or personal attacks. But if the block is so old that you could have sat it out, cleanstarted after it ended and come to RFA with a clean account then kudos for reforming.

1. ϢereSpielChequers 10:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#My criteria (No.18.): A clean block log of at least 12 months, but this could be longer depending on the severity of the issue and the length of the block(s.) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sort of. I would usually expect at least a 12-month clean block log, unless the block appears trivial or invalid. (If it was overturned at ANI, or the blocking admin unblocked and apologized, I would quite probably consider it invalid.) The more serious the block was, the longer I woulds tend to hold it against the candidate. If it is at all serious, I might well expect some explanation of what happened and how the candidate has learned/matured. If the block involved things like multiple apparently intentional copyvios, outing, persistent harassment, or other de-sysop-worthy issues, I would need a good deal of convincing not to oppose, no mater how old it was. DES ^(talk) 22:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't really have a "12 month minimum" requirement, but this option is the closest to my approach. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(4) I expect at least 24 months editing since your last block expired, and longer for badfaith stuff such as outing, vandalism or personal attacks. But if the block is so old that you could have sat it out, cleanstarted after it ended and come to RFA with a clean account then kudos for reforming.

1. 3¢soap3¢. Note that the comment below is not a reply directly to me or to any other votes that might apppear here. 3¢soap3¢ 15:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Blocked for what? Three year old block for edit warring or violating 3 revert rule is not that serious according to me. We all know that Administrators don't support the correct version during edit war. 112.79.36.194 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can't vote, so is this post just another trolling criticism of administrators from 112.79.35.136, 112.79.37.47, 112.79.38.89, a blocked user or what? Or is life in Kolkata just too boring?Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These IP geolocation services don't give any specific location. All IPs from West Bengal are pointed at Kolkata as the main broadband/3G connection comes from there. There are English medium schools in small towns other than Kolkata. Ips from Asansol, Siliguri, Durgapur, Jalpaiguri, Kharagpur, Haldia, Bardhaman will show as Kolkata IP. The Kolkata people get all the credit/blamed for edits from all over Cities and towns in West Bengal. --112.79.38.209 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, 112.79.35.136, 112.79.37.47, 112.79.38.89, 112.79.38.209, in this case these are all the same person ;) If they were vandals we would make a rage block - end of story. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"rage block" -- was that a Freudian slip? <g> --Stfg (talk) 08:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Freudian typo! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do usually check the user talk page and its history instead. Blocks are typically announced there, and one can pick up warnings as well.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. I personally don't give blocks too much negative weight, as they exist to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, not to retaliate for damage to the encyclopedia; and assess candidates with block logs by this one simple question: are they likely to repeat the disruptive behavior that caused the block? This can be proven by a successful unblock with terms and complete fulfillment of those terms for a while or simply sitting the block out and making a few thousand constructive edits. Esquivalience ^t 13:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None for me, too, but somewhere around 3 and 4. I go along with IP112 in that it matters a) what the block was for, b) how long it was and c) how long ago it was. A 24 hour block for edit warring that occurred two years ago? It wouldn't faze me. A block five years ago for outing or continued harassment that lasted a year? That would cause me to oppose. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I personally would like to think a block log shows character, and how a person learns from those blocks. Just because someone has been blocked, doesn't mean a red flag should be waved saying, "oh we have a disruptive person here, oppose". While a clean block log is good, having at least one block allows me to judge character much better. Mine in particular, containing 2 indefinites and both successfully appealed, though the second one wasn't really a notable block, and that happening several years ago shows that I am capable of acknowledging my mistakes, owning up to it, and taking measures to avoid them in the future. My 2011 block for "oversight issues", ie me cluelessly outing people, was appealed at BASC when I learned about outing and oversighting. I have haven't outed or caused problems since.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are often a very good indication of age/maturity. Children can grow up; like leopards however, older editors, particularly those who believe that they are exempt from sanctions because of their prolific editing, don't change their spots (some of those might even be in my age group, or not far off it). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm interested in the idea of opposing for something five years ago. What do you think of the argument that the same person could have cleanstarted and come to RFA with a clean block log? ϢereSpielChequers 15:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, that's a tough one. I've read a lot of archived RfA and discussions about them and I'm aware of editors who came off a clean start and became admins without disclosing their previous account. I think they should disclose prior accounts but that goes against the RTV philosophy, as I understand it. I know that editors can grow from their bans and that is why I'm resisting having a hard and fast rule.

I'm beginning to think what makes RfA toxic is the informal requirement that Opposers need to justify their stance. This requirement causes them to go into detail about why they believe a candidate is unfit and then those who support the candidate argue against them and bickering ensues. I also think that a few editors simply don't believe a candidate should pass and then they look for reasons to validate their Oppose. They should be able to just vote No. I think there should be a question page, a discussion page where conversation can happen and then editors just cast a vote, like in other kinds Wikipedia elections/promotions, without threaded comments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. This looks somewhat similar to the German Wikipedia system and that one does seem to have the same battleground issues if what I read there is anything to go by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, re RTV Cleanstart, there are some leopards out there who I don't believe can change their spots, and I would be pleasantly surprised if not stunned if they turned over a new leaf and edited less contentiously for a couple of years. Given the circumstances "strongly encouraged to inform arbcom" is the least worst scenario available to us, and if we ever had an RFA where the majority of Arbs opposed "per off wiki correspondence with the candidate" I rather feel that the community would take the hint. As to opposers having to supply or endorse a rationale; I can see where you are coming from but I disagree on a couple of fronts. Firstly to me RFA is more an exam than an election, and candidates need feedback so they have a better chance to pass next time. Secondly we have very few RFA !voters who actually take the time to assess candidates properly by looking at the edits they've contributed; but RFA has a role in stopping the wrong candidates getting through, and a well researched and diff supported oppose demonstrating that the candidate has a pattern of recent mistakes that indicate they should not be an admin is still the most important way to avoid appointing the wrong people. I don't want such opposes buried on a discussion page. Thirdly requiring a rationale and having plenty of examples of people saying "I've checked x and Y", or "despite z I think the candidate is not yet experienced at W" is a way of leading by example, and should encourage !voters to take some time to properly assess a candidate. Fourthly and the flip side of people not properly researching candidates, we do get some truly rubbish opposes. We need the rationales so others can say "yes they created that article and it was nominated for deletion in the last two months, but they created it eight years ago and haven't edited it for six years, what is the possible relevance to this RFA?". Fifthly, to me much of the argument about oppose rationales is not about whether the candidate meets the RFA criteria, instead its about what that criteria should be. I see the lack of an agreed RFA criteria as the root of the RFA problem, and turning the whole thing into an explicit vote as a way of concealing the problem rather than trying to fix it. ϢereSpielChequers 09:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's absolutely essential that oppose votes should be backed by objective rationale, and as politely expressed as possible. It is possible to do. To avoid the bickering and objections raised by supporters, a clerk of some kind should certainly disallow any vote that is of a blatantly impolite or humiliating nature or is found to be based on long expired stuff, lies, innuendo, vengeance, or material delberately taken out of context (we had examples of all of those here). A lot of these trollish votes come from a number of editors who do little else on Wikipedi but turn up to oppose on all RfA. If what they are trying to do is express their disenchantment for our system of management by administrators, then they are doing themselves the greatest disfavour and simply admitting to their gross lack of intelligence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking in RFAs is essential, though only needed in a small minority of RFAs. In a recent RFA we had people saying they'd strike stuff and instead removing it completely, thereby leaving other people's comments disconnected from the issues they'd rebutted and looking like bizarre off topic responses to the previous !vote. More importantly we also had editors post unevidenced personal attacks that anywhere else on wiki could have earned them a well justified indef block. At the very least we need a clerk who can go to someone's talkpage and say "I've redacted this vote, feel free to reinstate it with diffs to support your allegation". ϢereSpielChequers 10:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've observed, it is really easy for editors who are pointing out negative aspects of a candidate's editing history to cross over into personal attack territory, especially when what is being discussed are not judgment calls (incorrect editing decisions) but the character issues (whether a candidate is trustworthy). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where this notion that WP:RTV has something to do with clean start -- (I've seen in a few places recently) -- RTV is explicitly not clean start. If an editor wishes to RTV they should be expected to vanish NE Ent 10:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is because in practice, people who RTV often come back and post-invoke clean start. (It doesnt work, their vanished user gets reverted.) The expectation is that RTV editors disappear and do not return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the context Liz probably meant Cleanstart and I've struck and clarified that part of my comment. Yes the two get confused and should not be. The real difference is not that great, but they are different. ϢereSpielChequers 16:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking, if done at all, WSC, needs to be done systematically untill the voters get the message, potty train themselves, or find a new hobby. Xeno and Worm have stepped in occasionally but recent discussions in various places have revealed that the 'crats have generally rejected any notion that RfA should encompass any tasks for them beyond closures and the occasional 'crat chat. A new intake of 'crats may accept a widening of the 'crat mandate but with so little for 'crats to do, the interest in running at RfB appears to be at its lowest ebb ever - Catch 22...

We made an effort at WP:RFA2011 to interest the community in the idea of clerking, but as Swarm recently reminded us, the RfA trolls and anti-admin brigade put paid to that project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, could you check your last couple of posts and see if the way you are describing the electorate is really advancing the discussion? Remember, the key words in Dick Tuck's "The people have spoken, the bastards" is "the people".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the grammar and I can't find any glaring errors. I checked back again over a few RfAs and I found a lot of voters who express themselves nicely even if they are opposin; I found a few trolls, some editors who obviously have an axe to grind at admins in general and don't miss an opportunity to take a swipe at them, and add to that some socks and some unfortunate individuals who just don't appear to know what RfA is all about. I also found a lawyer or two but I didn't find any bastards. Thank you so much for your continued concern over the quality of voting at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, NE Ent, a RTV editor states they are not returning to edit Wikipedia while a clean start is an editor wishing to start over again with a new account. I do think that a few editors invoking RTV do end up returning eventually but that's just an impression from reading noticeboard archives...it's impossible to know how exceptional these cases were. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:18, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pay very little attention to the block log alone, without actually looking at the situation, because there are plenty of blocks where no one apologized while the block was counterproductive (from the point of view of an encyclopedia). There are also a number of detrimental blocks where not only did no one apologize, but no admin unblocked, because they missed the kerfuffle, because they didn't think it was worth it, because they were wary of being accused of wheel warring, ...

It's just another one of those many binary knock-out criteria (compare with number of edits, self-nomination, multi-editor nomination, presence at a certain WP board, hit/miss ratio in AFDs etc.) which make it easier for a participant to process an RFA and come up with a !vote (particularly an opposing one), but it says nothing about the quality of the decision. Some editors who have done or are doing outstanding work qua adminship have been blocked, and some editors with little to show (myself included) have clean block logs. Everyone gets to conduct their evaluation according to their own standards. I just hope none of these individual knock-out criteria ever become general. That would be a shame. (I even once voted for sysoping someone with less than 100 edits on en.wikipedia (and he passed)). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"a clerk of some kind should certainly disallow any vote that is of a blatantly impolite or humiliating nature or is found to be based on long expired stuff, lies, innuendo, vengeance, or material delberately taken out of context." – Kudpung. We already have such clerks: they are called bureaucrats. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Axl, but they are not, and they don't. Please follow the discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I sounded a bit blunt above. It's actually been hotly debated for several months in a multitude of venues. Worm That Turned and Xeno have made some very rare bits of clerking recently but it's nothing systematic. Here's one of the many on the topic:...many bureaucrats are steadfastly opposed to any additional tasks to their now very comfortable mandate; in fact many of them hardy ever log in, let alone edit anything. Understandable really, because the vast majority of them have been around for well over 10 years and it's quite natural that some users will have lost interest in working on Wikipedia over such a long time. What we need is a new influx of keen, enthusiastic nerw 'crats, but how do we encoiurage people to step forward? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Ack, edit conflict] "they are not." Well, they are not called clerks. A rose by any other name.... "they don't." Indeed they don't. However they have the endorsement of the community to do so if they wished. If you want to see them use that power, you should approach them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from your clarification, I suppose that a cleaner solution for you would be to have bureaucrats who are prepared to undertake these activities. If the current cohort are reluctant to do this, perhaps there should be appointments of new 'crats who would. As bureaucrats already have this power, I see no need to create a new class for this purpose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on a moment. You're looking for a group of people to "disallow" votes? As a crat, I already weigh votes at the end of an RfA, but you believe that someone should come in and decide during the RfA, what is or isn't a "good" vote? Fundamentally, I'm against that, without a strong consensus that it's the right way to go. I'm not happy with someone vetoing votes during the RfA, and I'd really like to hear some examples of votes that should be vetoed.
  The only example I can think of is "votes that are unrelated to the candidate" (eg "we have too many admins"). But rude, or impolite votes should not be disallowed, nor should votes on expired stuff, unless we fundamentally redesign RfA. Where do you draw the line between lies and opinion? Vengeance and opposition?
  What I'd like to see is a system to deal with such votes. Perhaps that they get flagged as "contested" and are temporarily blanked (but remain in place) until either the voter addresses the issue, or a crat rules on it? Would need to make up a template. Worm^TT(talk) 12:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And even if it was a good idea, I don't think the community has actually handed bureaucrats a mandate to be moderators of ongoing RFAs. See comments here. Unless there is a clear consensus that bureaucrats have this mandate, any 'crat who steps in to delete or comment on votes is at risk of being seen as Involved. –xeno^talk 13:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've advocated, I think there is a consensus for having one uninvolved, non-voting Crat who isn't closing that particular RfA to clerk the RfA, which would rotate through the Crats like closing. Moving threads, hatting at needed. Not removing votes (unless NPA/sock/obvious troll/indent IP), just clerking without regard to each opinion, based on policy for any public discussion. Then let the closing Crat do the weighing. I've tried to do this a couple years ago as admin, and it backfired. Only the Crats can do this and since RFA is their domain, simple clerking seems to be well within the scope of responsibility. Really, if a Crat would do it, and we didn't let anyone else do it, things would run more smoothly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, lies, blatant vengeance, diffs taken deliberately out of context to discredit the candidate. Lies are easily exposed, for example, but it just needs someone to do it. What we need to take into account Worm, is that such votes cause pile-ons. Even if the original voter can be persuaded to retract, the piler-ons never come back and retract theirs and their votes are counted as legitimate parts of the tally.

Unless we introduce some rules for voters such as they have on all the other Wikipedias, the only solution is systematic checking (even CU if need be) for veracity on all oppose votes by users that arouse doubts about their integrity - taking RfA as a whole, that's actually quite a few. Nearly every RfA has at least one sock in the drawer, for example. Let's not take my comments out of context with someone should come in and decide during the RfA, what is or isn't a "good" vote - what we're talking about is 'reasonable' vs downright obnoxious and disingenuous. Start a systematic clean up of RfA like that for long enough and we'll soon have the place squeaky clean. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, with the exception of some very rare and recent efforts by Worm and Xeno, the 'crats have pretty clearly given us to understand that they are not prepared to extend their mandate beyond closing RfA and the occasional 'crat chat. The consensus you mention was weak and it came from the non-'crat community, but they can't force the crats to do anything they don't want to. One crat said he'd retire before he were pressured into more activity. What we need is a new influx of dynamic 'crats who are not afraid of a tiny bit of extra work and a challenge to do something for RfA that has been all but wrecked over the years by the permissive attitude that it's one place where editors - even admins - can be as downright nasty and silly as they like with total impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's generally unfair Kudpung. The 'crats appear to have been rather engaged on the subject of RfA reform over the past few months, and given a clear community consensus, I am sure they'd step up. Worm^TT(talk) 14:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we've not been looking at all the same discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No admin or crat can be compelled to do anything at all. If they don't want to, fine. If we don't have enough Crats to do the job, more can run. We are talking pretty basic clerking here, one person, some RfAs wouldn't need anything, so I think that most would be fine with that. To me, that is within the boundaries of the job and it doesn't require policy change. They decide RfA, to say they can't clerk it would be crazy. If they can't clerk it now, then the inmates are truly in control of the asylum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Back to what constitutes good vs bad votes, I'd like to get some opinions on this:

(Candidate is Australian and lives and works as an expat in Nepal. Based on a true vote)

Oppose - His situation in Nepal but writing about Australia indicates to me that he'll have a tendency to uphold systemic bias

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of these "house of cards" arguments that are based on unreliable inference and are non-germane to the RfA process anyway since fixing systemic bias is not a sysop's job. I suspect it would be contested in a RfA anyway.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this thread that started as a question of whether year-old blocks should matter, let's discuss a (variation on a) neutral vote from 2011? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the conversations above, could I get some opinions a process like the below

Example RfA

1. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example
2. Oppose contentious reason User:Example2
3. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example3

Example RfA with contested vote

1. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example
2. Oppose User:Example2
   Contested vote, to be amended by voter or reviewed by Bureaucrat

   Original vote by User:Example2
   contentious reason

   ---

   Contested by User:Example4 for:
   This vote doesn't meet X requirement
3. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example3

The template needs a bit of work, but what I'm getting at above is the idea that if a vote should be reviewed, it can be temporarily hidden. This would be especially good for insulting votes, if they exist. The vote is still valid, but should reduce pile on. Just putting it out there to get some thoughts Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First problem - define contentious. Some people think 'not enough content work' is a contentious reason for opposing (it isnt). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion going on in section above on that matter, it would certainly have to be defined criteria for where it could be used. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were defined criteria, would we not simply trust the crats to judge comments against them without the need for other users to point it out? Sam Walton (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I assumed that we trusted crats to judge comments against undefined criteria too. But it seems that the issue raised above is that it can cause "pile-on" opposes. Now, there's an argument that perhaps "pile-on" opposes shouldn't be dismissed, but since we have a limited number of 'crats and only so many look at RfAs before the end, I thought this might be a halfway house. Worm^TT(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to the discussion that defines that. If you can manage that, I have a bunch of cats that need herding ;) More seriously, crats currently are trusted to flip the switch and exercise their judgement on consensus when it is contentious (in the wider 'this is an argument' sense. If we start defining what is contentious, it actually limits the crats because at some point someone will say 'thats not WP:contentious so you cant give it less weight'. Even if its obviously a rubbish rationale for a vote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I somewhat doubt that system which encourages people to contest votes would have any positive impact on RfA process and climate. People contesting GregjackP's very strict RfA criteria only resulted long and angry arguments, which as far as I know didn't result anything productive.--Staberinde (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the moment the system does encourage people to contest votes. I suspect given the suggestion above by Worm - it will encourage people to contest if the vote is contestable - given the way the average wikipedia thinks. The simplest solution would be to limit people to voting Support/Oppose but only if they provide a rationale for their vote and with a ban on badering voters. Crats are perfectly capable of disregarding 'Support - why not' 'Oppose - too many admins' votes when judging consensus. Remember they are considered to be amongst the most able to make that sort of decision. Perhaps we should give them some of the trust they have already earned. Personally I dont see why we cant do a test run for 3-6 months with a 'no response to votes' rule in place to see if it makes the process easier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will envelop RfA in side disputes that will only make matters worse, since there are likely to be concerted campaigns to get comments "hidden". Nor do I see any possibility of consensus on the overall concept.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wehwalt. This adds a layer of complexity that would only exacerbate the problem. If you want a solution, ban all comments threaded under any votes, and require those who dispute a vote to open a talk page thread to discuss. The badgering of votes is a big part of what makes this process so unseemly. RO^(talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Challenges to !votes can be effective and useful. RFA suffers from some very low quality research by voters and if someone doesn't realise that changing magpies from black and white to blue is vandalism then the RFA benefits if that is pointed out. Of course we've recently had some disruptive challengers who tried to change longstanding consensus that a simple support is an agreement with the nominator but an unexplained oppose is an unexplained disagreement with the nomination. But apart from that a high proportion of comments on votes are useful, though I'd agree with moving them to talk when the veer off the topic of the RFA ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion might be to use something like ArbCom rules, where there is an absolute character limit on comments that go with !votes, (a smaller limit than arbcom, maybe 1000 characters or ±100 words) and then additional discussion can be placed at talk. Without something to put the focus on the reasons rather than the length, someone who posts a wall of text (pro or con) gets undue weight. This also avoids the problems with conversations erupting at the !vote page and puts too much discretion on the 'crats to move or not move. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It comes back to how consensus isn't being evaluated appropriately: the focus should be on contesting the relative weights placed on different characteristics of the candidate, not on contesting votes. A consensus view should be determined on the tradeoffs between the positives and negatives of the candidate. To assist this, the Request for Adminship process should be structured to solicit opinions on the relative importance of the candidate's pros and cons. With this approach, there is no need to respond to each individual's opinion; instead, a consolidated discussion can be held to discuss a specific characteristic and how strongly it should be weighed. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But when an editor posts an opinion or an allegation which potentially has large weight, especially large negative weight, and a different editor believes that the post was inaccurate, or misleading because it lacks proper context, or that it attempts to give greater weight to a circumstance than is deserved, then the second editor will often wish to post a rebuttal or response. Whether this is done in a "votes" section or a "discussion" section, or even on the talk page of the RfA may not matter much, a back-and-forth debate may develop, and often has done so. Such debates are potentially useful, as they may expose facts that will be important to others who wish to opine at the RfA. But they can develop into nasty drama-fests. But when something seems over the line may depend on what side of an argument one favors. Such is human nature, and I don't see a good way to avoid it, although actually enforcing WP:CIVIL during RfAs might help a bit. DES ^(talk) 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussions organized by issue/characteristic/topic is beneficial for a number of reasons. It depersonalizes the discussion, which reduces acrimony. It eliminates redundancy, which has multiple benefits: it makes it easier for people to follow the discussion and for new people to join in, since only one thread needs to be read to become up-to-date. It also reduces the confrontational nature of the process, since the candidate doesn't have to read the same arguments over and over in multiple threads. In short, if we really want the process to be a discussion to reach consensus, let's structure it that way, and follow the same weighing process that all organizations follow when trying to reach a true consensus, rather than structuring it like a vote. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last RfA had total 30 questions for candidate, am I only one thinking that this is getting excessive? I think that limit of 3 questions per user would be reasonable, although admittedly I am extremely pessimistic about likelihood of any such proposal actually gaining community consensus.--Staberinde (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and think three is too many. I'd limit myself to one per RfA apart from in exceptional circumstances. But I would definitely support a proposal to limit people to three questions each. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers sometimes have question limits, and can be inventive. My concern would be the likelihood of lengthy and acrimonious disputes over side issues, with no final authority readily available to rule. And, after all, not getting a question answered can be a ground to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example an oppose that goes something like "Oppose. I didn't want to be here. I appreciate the candidate's fine contributions. But their activity in the area of XyZ is very concerning. I sought the information in my question 2A because I needed that information to consider supporting the candidate, and without it must oppose." then when the info is provided say it's not enough to be convincing and the candidate and his supporters stalling on the information goes to character ... you get the idea. It really changes nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 questions is definitely excessive, and I would support any proposal to bring this trend under control. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 30 questions over 7 days is excessive. In fact, the last candidate complained that oppose voters hadn't asked enough questions, which would have given them more opportunities to explain themselves. As long as admin is ostensibly a "for life" position, we shouldn't limit the amount of information that can be gleaned from RfAs. I can understand a 3 or 4 question per editor limit, but not a total limit. That makes no sense. Imagine editors coming in late to the discussion who have valid questions they'd like to ask, only to be prevented from doing so because the pre-set limit had already been reached. This is also very gamable, because supporters could add easy questions until the limit is reached, preventing opposers from participating. RO^(talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really depends on how repetitive the questions are. If they're thirty different valid questions, I think it's okay. But oftentimes, certain questions are repetitive of other ones. Three questions per user is a bit excessive though, so perhaps two might be better. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a partial solution to the dozens of questions and chasing: if the question is personal and/or is not sufficiently relevant to the RfA or general voting, move the question to the candidate or candidacies' talk page. Some RfA questions are just not relevant enough to be worth putting on the main page. Esquivalience ^t 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But relevancy is subjective, so it cannot be used as an objective guide to exclude questions. Candidates always have the option to not answer, and that's all we need. RO^(talk) 18:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think 3 questions per editor is reasonable. Of course, editors can find a way to work around a limit by getting another user to pose an additional question but at least a stated limit would send a message. I think if a limit is set, it has to include follow-up questions. Sometimes, an editor poses a question, the candidate answers and then the editor just indents and poses follow-up questions. They should be counted as well. Although I do know a user who traditionally poses four questions of every candidate, they are standard questions and they are not intended to badger a candidate.

I'll add that it is very interesting to look at old RfAs and see some of the crazy questions that have been asked of candidates (and answered, usually). One I won't forget is the RfA where the candidate was asked, "Do you think it's possible for two editors on Wikipedia to fall in love?" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limiting questions is difficult, though I could go for one question per !voter unless they contain a diff of the candidate's edits from the last three months. I'm not bothered by the occasional surreal question. Admins often have to deal with the unexpected and at least with the If blue was no longer available, what colour would you like the sky to be? sort of question no one is likely to care if the candidate ignores it or answers flippantly, but at least they aren't giving some preprepared answer because they've studied RFA long enough to know the right sort of answer to some of the common questions. ϢereSpielChequers 22:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having been the recipient of said 30 questions, my own perspective was that it wasn't the 23 or so questions and followups from different users (and yes, I invited questions, as I felt I should not respond to discussion in the !vote section and minimally at talk), it was the seven questions from a single user, with followups to each, plus discussion at the RFA talk page and further not dropping the stick at their own talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to think this is all an artifact of how few RfAs happen these days. In the "old days" when 10-15 candidates were running at once, nobody had time for 30 questions per candidate or 300k of squabbling (or at least all the squabbling would be more equitably distributed). Only rare and highly controversial cases would attract the kind of dynamic that now seems to be happening frequently. You'd certainly get people pursuing personal disputes in the questions section, but with a more fragmented audience it didn't seem to turn into quite so much of a spectacle. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it's a bit of a catch-22. Maybe there would be more RFAs if the potential applicants didn't expect the Inquisition. Andrevan@ 04:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the candidates (and perhaps their nominators) did more homework before running, and listened to the advice of their peers, they would be more aware of their chances of passing or failing. We would then probably see a higher pass rate, less trolling and disingenuous opposing, and in the long run, more canditates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I think the larger problem is qualified candidates who don't want to go through a rigorous and unforgiving critique simply to gain a few extra buttons. Andrevan@ 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I noted that SilkTork has been reaching out and contacting editors who expressed interest in becoming an admin and most of them are replying, Thanks, but not now or Not interested right now. So, even most of the editors who self-identify as having an interest in being an admin are reluctant to go through the RfA process. For some, maybe they aren't ready yet and need more experience. Or maybe they are waiting until they see that RfAs aren't so adversarial before they decide to become a candidate. SilkTork probably has a better idea on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For several years I have been actively attempting to recruit candidates. I am careful to recruit those who like for example, MelanieN and Ritchie333, are practically certain to pass and not attract the wrong kind of votes. Wven so, they still have to be dragged kickig and screaming to RfA. Of the dozens of others I have contacted over the years, some are just not interested in admin work, while the vast majority of them are not prepared to risk being humiliated for 7 days in order to obtain the tools. It's a shame, because as I stated above, their histories are so clean that even the most unpleasant of editors woud have no rason to come along and oppose.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I became an admin, there were 3 standard questions that everyone was asked, and candidates were supported or opposed with a comment and some discussion. Maybe the time has come for us to return to having a small set of standard, meaningful questions and prevent random hypothetical scenarios from being asked with the weight of the process. Today, candidates can be asked a long series of complicated and inane scenarios, and they will be opposed for ignoring, deigning not to answer, or even not answering quickly enough. Andrevan@ 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

30 questions over the course of an RfA is ridiculous. Even 15-20 questions is ridiculous. Also 7 questions from the same editor in an RfA (which, IIRC, I've seen more than once this year) is also ridiculous. Forcing editors to jump through 30 flaming hoops in order to get a bunch of extra (non-article editing) work, with a large side of extra grief, is a recipe for no applicants. You want editors to run in an RfA – what's in it for them?! I predict that there will be no RfA's in October, after the 4 flaming car wrecks we had in September. There are multiple solutions to this conundrum, but I still see no evidence that there's any momentum to tackle any of them. It looks like the Admin backlogs are going to have to get a lot worse before there's any movement on solutions here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it only took me a few hours to be wrong! Ah, well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: Can this question be added to the perennial/cyclical list of topics that WT:RFA likes to spout on? When I started editing 7-some-odd-years ago on WP, this was being asked on WT:RFA... Editors as above, if they feel the number of questions is inappropriate, should either propose something concrete to reduce them (WP:SNOW), or they should grassroots-it-up and request editors to delete certain questions. And as always, the candidate may elect not to answer them as they are not-so-entirely-optional. --Izno (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make clerking of RfAs easier, I have created a series of templates to mark struck and noted votes:

• {{RfA discussion moved}} - to mark discussion moves to a RfA talk page.
• {{RfA no vote}} - to note struck votes of editors who are not allowed to vote.
• {{RfA sockpuppet}} - to mark sockpuppets.
• {{RfA spa}} - single purpose accounts
• {{RfA canvassed}} - to mark canvassing
• {{RfA inappropriate vote}} - bureaucrats only: to mark struck votes by bureaucrats.

Documentation is too hard to create on mobile devices, but anyone who should be touching these templates would understand their syntax. Esquivalience ^t 18:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it wise to label an editor a sock before an SPI? RO^(talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that being a single purpose account invalidates a vote or comment. I've seen my share of newly created accounts participate in RfAs and it is up to the Bureaucrats as to how much weight to give their votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is IMO not only unwise but a violation of WP:NPA to label a person as a sock puppet without providing evidence, usually at an SPI. I would not hesitate to remove on sight any use of {{RfA sockpuppet}} that omitted a link to an SPI with decent evidence or a checkuser confirmation, and trout whoever placed it. DES ^(talk) 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template does say "blocked or banned", so a positive check or SPI is needed. Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I have seen "sock" blocks imposed on basically no evidence, and in some cases later overturned. But such a template should not be used unless a block or ban has actually been imposed, and the template should probably include a link to the block log, or the SPI or both. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing this, but in most cases I think I prefer this sort of thing to be done manually. Maybe if we had neutral RFA clerks some of these templates could be used, but in their absence, and with few or no crats doing any intervention during the RFA, the risk is that they would add a spurious appearance of legitimacy to sometimes partisan discussion. They also blinker the direction of discussion, for example the canvassing template presumes that canvassing is something done by the candidate. But the biggest recent canvassing issues have involved person or persons unknown canvasing against the candidate by posting links on off wiki sites likely to of interest to people who would oppose the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 23:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would perhaps recommend that the canvass template not specify who performed the canvassing. Mkdw^talk 01:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this notion that we strike, template, hat or fold / spindle / mutilate comments from blocked socks come about? You simply remove them per WP:BANREVERT. NE Ent 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, striking the sock is the better option (WP:SOCKSTRIKE), and it still is helpful to mark canceled sockpuppet votes for verification and logging. Esquivalience ^t 02:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)

The question of clerking needs to be clarified before the actual methodologies for them are suggested. Keep the templates warm for possible future use but wait for a formal community consensus for clerking. A draft for a clerking proposal was launched on January 18, 2013‎ by Scottywong to invite comment on the clerking system we elaborated together. Consensus was not reached but the RfC was poorly published and IMO the low participation does not represent sufficient quorum for a firm, representative community consensus.

I still read recent discussions about Bureaucrat activity as leaning towards general opinion that most 'crats do not wish to entertain additional tasks, the stock phrase used many times was 'That's not what they ran at RfB for.' However, that does not preclude the possibility of a proper consensus being formed from a formal RfC. Like admins however, we cannot force volunteers to do anything they don't want to do, but we do need to ensure that we have enough active 'crata and admins available to carry out essential tasks.

And instead of reinventing the wheel each time, our collective memory should want us to examine what has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1 and the valuable but more general discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2 which were, I believe, initiatives launched by Dank.

RfA Questions and voting were discussed at Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Question profiles which can be food for thought again without reinventing wheels. There is also a catalogue here, that dates from January 2011 of some 100 or so questions which are examples of being arguably inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this needs a good read too - the same issues that have been perennial discussion and recycled here at least every time the page gets archived. It dates from 2006 and absolutely nothing has changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add the edit stats for Ian on his RfA talk page but it hasn't happened yet. Did I do something wrong or is this normal?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that xtools is having an outage right now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It works, but since someone decided it needed an unnecessary rewrite it no longer displays in the familiar way we have been quite happy with for years, and it needs a moth of Sundays to load. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just recently, I wrote an op-ed for the Signpost about how Wikipedia needs more admins. I now want to see if the community generally agrees with me. There is rational backup for this position, but since the details are a bit too long for this page, I strongly recommend that you read this (and the "Stats" subsection) before voting here. I have intentionally removed any personal opinions about causes and solutions from there; it is pure statistics. A large portion of my op-ed is simply my opinion as to why the problem exists and how it can be fixed, but if you haven't already you may wish to read it anyway. However, realize that the purpose of this RfC is not voice opinions about how to fix the problem, but rather to determine the level of support for the position. Therefore, please do not interpret this RfC as aiming to determine support for my opinions concerning the reasons for, and solutions to, the problem, but rather to simply determine if the problem exists. It is essential to determine if the community agrees with the basic idea before making further proposals which assume that the problem exists. --Biblioworm 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Support, per this. --Biblioworm 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Obviously. Sam Walton (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes Supdiop (T🔹C) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Less admins are doing the same job as before. This manifests itself as less diversity in the judgement used by admins. More admins means more oversight, and a greater likelihood of an uninvolved admin being available. I can think of at least 3 issues on Wikipedia where we are rapidly running out of uninvolved admins. HighInBC 17:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   @HighInBC: Could you give those three examples? They might be useful for the future. --Biblioworm 18:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I said "issues" but I was thinking of people. I would rather not name them, these people respond negatively to criticism. Suffice it to say that they are people who have been here long enough to encounter pretty much every admin, yet the community has failed to deal with them. HighInBC 18:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Agreed, in general. DES ^(talk) 17:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes--Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 17:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes. This thing is usually too big and if you pick an admin area at random (e.g. RFPP), most of the requests/issues/whatever will be dealt with by just a few specific admins. Fortunately, these admins usually happen to be very competent and skilled, but as many different admins as possible should be dealing with an admin area to avoid any chance of bias, so issues can be dealt with efficiently at all times of day etc. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support the wider notion that there aren't enough editors, admins/functionaries/bureaucrats included, to maintain content and to organize Wikipedia. Although many still oppose unbundling the admin toolkit, the community has set a pretty high standard for adminship so why not unbundle the toolkit for editors specializing in other areas? That way, the lack of candidacies at RfA would become less of a problem and editors specializing in specific areas actually will be able to maintain their areas without as much admin intervention. Esquivalience ^t 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. If we want admins to be members of the community who spend a minority of their wiki time doing admin chores then we can't afford to see their numbers keep falling. I think it would be unhealthy for the community if admins became a separate caste who had to spend all their wiki time doing admin stuff. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. RfA produces the right number of admins and I maintain the process is not broken. See my comment below. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In between

1. I agree with the statement that administrative backlogs are longer than optimum, and that's a good reason to support. And I found the Signpost piece to be very good reading. But I see a problem with some of the evidence presented in the background reading, in that the fact that many more candidates used to pass RfA in the past than do today is not really evidence that the RfA standards have become too high. It may very well be the case that our problem is that there simply are not enough non-admin editors who could really be trusted with the tools (and who are interested in using those tools) to fill the need that is seen in the backlog. I'd hate to see a significant lowering of the passing percentage, but I welcome a discussion amongst editors, in which some editors may perhaps be persuaded to change their RfA expectations. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

But to say we are passing fewer admins per day than before is not the same thing as saying we don't have enough, so what metric indicates that we currently do not have enough active admins to take care of the workload? RO^(talk) 16:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at how many inactive admins are being desysoped every month shows our ranks are dropping. I think if you look at who is making all the difficult decisions these days you will see the group is less diverse than it used to be. As the number of active admins drop we will see that the work still gets done, but by less people. Less people doing the same amount of work means less people using their judgement. The community will always benefit from more admins than less because a larger group is more capable of recognizing the mistakes of others. HighInBC 17:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links I recommended above. There, I discuss exactly what you're asking: I talk about why our number of active admins (not our pure statistical number) is insufficient relative to the size of this website. --Biblioworm 17:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm trying to get up to speed on this, but how can we say we don't have enough admins without providing an estimate of how many admins we need? How many do we need? RO^(talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite difficult to give an estimate of how many admins we would need, but we could always use more no matter how many we have. Right now, though, the situation is especially obvious because of the pitifully low amount of promotions via RfA. However, we could get an idea of when we have "enough" when the number of active admins reaches a point where individual users do not have to be online for hours at a time and perform hundreds or thousands of actions within a relatively short period. --Biblioworm 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A good standard is: aside from the occasional outlier, we have enough admins when the administrative backlog category remains consistently empty. We currently have nine backlogs at the moment. Esquivalience ^t 19:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsure On one side, there are indeeed less admins around, art an average promotion of 1 and desysopping for inactivity of 5 to 10, per month. But, since decisions are supposed to be made evaluating the merits of a case, I doubt that there is much discretion/variance in admin actions. I suppose more than 90% of all admin actions would be the same if done by a different admin. We really do have a lack of admins who can combine good judgment with technical expertise, as seen in the terrible backlog at TfD where most of the work is now done by non-admins. RfCs are nowadays very rarely closed by admins. At AfD there are not many admins voting, they appear mostly just to push the delete button after all the votes are in. CSD doesn't seem to be backlogged too much, anything I tag is deleted within a day. Non-admins are carrying most of the workload now in many places, vandal-fighters, and page patrollers make the reports, and admins just spend time pushing the buttons after making a quick check, maintaining an encyclopedia is not really rocket-science. Still pondering... Kraxler (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, 90% of admin actions are simple tedious bullshit, 9% are difficult tedious bullshit, and 1% are genuinely challenging situations. The rarity of the last case is in my view an argument in favor of having more admins, so that a broad range of views will be available when the need arises. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might sound simple (just press a button, right?), but even simple tasks can become tiring and difficult if there are many of them to do. For instance, when I edited another wiki, I seemed to be virtually the only person who bothered to deal with the long backlog of reference errors. Oftentimes, it was just as simple as adding "==Sources and Citations==<br/>{{reflist}}". It sounds easy. However, there was a few dozen articles on which to do this, and after a while the work became very tedious. Therefore, even for simple button-pressing tasks, we should have more admins so that the work will not be so long and tedious for any one person. --Biblioworm 19:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• RfA produces the right number of admins and I maintain the process is not broken. The real problem is that too many editors can't win over enough support from !voters and too many of those promoted to admin return to content creation rather than work a backlog. Un-bundling the "block" button from the "delete" button is probably the way to solve the backlog issue although even that won't pass muster. It's a political problem. I as an editor have to be able to trust anyone I empower to potentially block me or delete content I create. That's going to be a high bar and I'm happy with the vetting that occurs at RfA. It's silly to suggest that we all need to collectively lower our expectations when we all have (in Biblioworm's words) an "irrational fear" of being railroaded by today's well-meaning candidate. Why aren't we actively harassing our current admins to pick up the mop they were handed? I will, however, agree that the 75% number for RfA is far higher than the standard for ARBCOM election and perhaps ought to be lowered to something between 60-66% to recognize we can't all be comfortable with every admin that gets promoted. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "too many of those promoted to admin return to content creation"? Can you blame them when most unsuccessful RfAs include a comment that the candidate is not active enough in content creation? The successful candidates want to avoid such criticism being piled on them as well after they become admins. As I noted in a recent successful RfA, the admin bit does not grant anybody more hours in the day. To do meta work - even if only a small amount - means that time has to be found for that by not doing something else. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have emphasized here, the tiny number of admins we're promoting now relative to past years (see the line graph), coupled with the continual existence of the backlogs despite the constant efforts of dedicated admins, should cast serious doubt on the idea that RfA is promoting a sufficient number of admins. And, actually, many of the admins promoted this year would be considered active, so we really don't need to "harass" them "to pick up the mop". Of course, I do agree with you that we need to trust the admins we elect. But the issue is that we have a very high bar for "trust". As I mentioned in the op-ed, almost no legislative processes or other real-life procedures (and even other bars for consensus on-wiki) have a bar so high as RfA's. I see that you agree with me on that issue, though. --Biblioworm 20:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  We both agree the number of active admins is insufficient to our backlog issue. While you want to change the process in order to have more active admins, I say the process is how it is out of necessity. Why not address the issue of inactive admins? I supported three different proposals (here, here, and here) to strengthen the community's ability to hold admins accountable. Why not question why many Wikipedians that could be trusted choose not to become admins? What's the problem with swinging the mop at our dirty areas? If manning the noticeboards is such a chore then what you'd really want to change with RfA is selecting people who will work those backlogs without raising the ire of content creators. I think lowering the passing percentage and un-bundling with a sunset clause is the way to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)RFA does not produce the right number of admins if it can't produce as many admins as leave. It doesn't produce the right number of admins if we only have 24 admins who started editing since January 2010. As for the comparison with Arbcom elections, its a different electoral system and the two are not comparable. ϢereSpielChequers 22:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC):*(edit conflict) It may be worth considering/reframing the problem in a way that pares it back a step: instead of "not enough admins", it's "not enough people performing the duties currently assigned only to the admin usergroup" or somesuch. I.e. we need admins to do admin stuff, not to be admins. Indeed, Biblioworm gets at the issue of admins who don't use the tools in the op-ed. If the point is RfA, reframing this way could be distracting, but if the point is to be as inclusive as possible at this stage (inclusive of approaches to the problem), it may be helpful. As Un-bundling the "block" button from the "delete" button would be one of the possible ways to address the problem, would it then ring truer, Chris troutman? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]