Archive 225

←

Archive 228

Archive 229

Archive 230

Archive 231

Archive 232

→

Archive 235

Dariusz Jemielniak devotes over 6% of the content of his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia to RfA, mostly turning on its dysfunctional nature, and citing for example Kudpung's analysis of 2010 RfA questions (43% "irrelevant or prying into personal opinion"), and Jimbo's comment "good candidates who don't bother standing because it is a nightmare".

One might have thought this would deter women more than men - and maybe it does. Interestingly though the percentage of women admins compared with the percentage of active women editors seems to be slightly higher, most recently illustrated here.

Nonetheless Cla68's suggestion does have merit, as does TwoKindsofProk's revision. Cla78 seems to be wrong about the 65% threshold, as a recent RfA failed with 69.4% in favour.

Jemielniak opines, not without good cause, that part of the reason for "The Gauntlet" is that the post is virtually "admin for life". Of course a significant number of admins are open to recall, and presumably do not pose this sociological issue, and hierarchical risk.

It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

My suggestion had merit? Sarcasm perhaps? How about AAA for Afirmtive Action Admin?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the percentage of total active editors that regularly contribute to RfA? Are there any figures for that? Is there any gender breakdown on active eds contributing? Irondome (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If "thanks" response stats were factored into the RfA process in terms of a required competency, I think we would see a great increase in successful female RfA outcomes. That would develop increased female editor participation, both as nominees and contributors. Is "thanks" being measured? Jemielniak reports a reinforcing of the community by use of the thank feature. I bet female eds thank more than males. A hunch. The thanks feature is a potentially useful tool in guaging the intellectual and behavioural "generousity" of a potential admin, which is a critical asset. Are the "Thanks" stats being looked at or is any group discussing them on WP? Irondome (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Measured, I don't know. Logged, yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for the link HJ. Lots of great eds on there, interestingly. Irondome (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'd beware of the stereotype. I was glad to have that feature, but I don't often use it. The person who thanks me far and away the most is male. And there's a phenomenon of minor harassment by excess thanks that's been mentioned in some quarters (I know, it's possible to spoil anything.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good criticism, however I still think "thanks" should be more thoroughly investigated in gender usage, just to be sure there is no statistical diffentials. "Thanks" could still be a useful measuring tool in a behavioural sense, to apply to all RfA's if we could brainstorm its measurable positive attributes to the project. Irondome (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, but when you sign up for an account, is there an option to query gender?Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in the preferences, the option called "How do you prefer to be described?"; I don't think the account creation process goes into the preferences (I made an alt account a couple months ago, but maybe I just didn't notice). Ansh666 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been intrigued (and rather skeptical) about the suggestion or implication here that women have a harder time than men passing RFA. So I did an analysis of the 16 most recent successful RfAs and the 16 most recent unsuccessful RfAs. I counted a person as "female" or "male" if they so identify themselves at their userpage, either explicitly or by their first name.

• SUCCESSFUL
  • Female: 2 (12%)
  • Male: 7 (44%)
  • Unspecified: 7 (44%)
• UNSUCCESSFUL
  • Female: 2 (12%)
  • Male: 4 (25%)
  • Unspecified: 10 (63%)
    

Obviously this is a small sample and not statistically significant, but it suggests that self-identified femaleness does not influence success or failure. Also that the ratio of females in both successful and unsuccessful candidacies is similar to the ratio of female editors Wiki-wide. This also tends to confirm my impression that many editors, perhaps a majority, do not identify their gender one way or another. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The sample size is unfortunately too small to really say anything useful but if we look at the conditional probability. Probability of passing given the candidate is female = 50%; probability of passing given the candidate is male = 63%, (7/(7+4)); probability of passing given the candidate is unspecified = 41%. Compare this to the probability of passing irrespective of gender = 50%, we see slightly more men that average pass, but this does not count as a statistically significant result. --Salix alba (talk): 06:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More useful statistically would probably be to look at the last x male/female/unspecified RfA candidates, and see how many pass. Not that the data would likely yield any shocking conclusions anyways. Ansh666 07:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there is systemic bias against apparently female candidates at RFA, certainly no stats that I've seen indicating such. Anyone thinking that "thumb on the scales" vote-counting where none is apparently warranted would be anything but inflammatory is not paying attention. Of course, generating bigger flames to better harness popular passions is what it's all about for some people. Those agenda-driven sorts at WP are disruptionists of the worst kind, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I find the proposal really offensive. The mere suggestion that women need special treatment and that it would come in the form of lower standards is appalling and archaic. Perhaps women are discriminated against. Lowering the community consensus requirement is not even remotely the right way to go about resolving the issue. If, and I mean IF, women are being discriminated against at RFA, the problem is not with the women candidates or the requirements for RFA. The problem lies with the editors who are discriminating against them -- and therein the solution must be found and directed. Victim blaming needs to stop and it starts by not telling them to be different, to take a different and less difficult route, or that they need to be subject to different rules. Mkdw^talk 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not lowering standards when there aren't any standards. The RfA process is, and has been for a long time, nothing more than a shark tank, highly susceptible to bias, canvassing, cherry-picking, and other unfair practices. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Bias, canvassing, cherry-picking, and other unfair practices I'll grant you. But are any of those gender-related, and do you have evidence of it? If they aren't, then introducing gender-related procedures to RFA will cause more harm than good. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Cla68 You have never participated in an RFA and it's showing. Had it not been for the anonymity of the Internet, I doubt very much that you would still be clinging to your proposal. Meanwhile, you continue to argue against those who have said it is a bad idea (nearly everyone), or whom you've managed to offend, only to worsen your position. Participating in the process, following an RFA from start to finish, or undergoing one yourself as a candidate will likely be a very illuminating experience for you. It's easy to judge from afar and at a leisurely commitment. You also have yet to really substantiate any of your personal opinions about RFA. Ignoring the sheer fact that a candidate must receive a certain percentile of community support to "pass" is by academic definition a standard, you also should know (but seemingly don't) that editors who routinely participate, have various metrics for candidates often set as standards. These standards are discussed at WP:RFAADVICE and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship among many other pages. Editors also routinely publish their RFA standard. I list mine at User:Mkdw/RfA Standards. Lastly, you're missing the entire point. I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm frankly beginning to think that this proposal is not one being with honest intentions. It's so far from the thinking of most advocates of feminism, women's rights, gender balance and equality. In fact it seemingly falls in line with victim blaming and resentment of the process and of the ability of women. Mkdw^talk 04:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting. That explains why he/she* was mistaken about the percentage of votes generally needed to pass RFA. (*I say "he/she" because Cla68 does not identify any gender at his/her user page.) Cla68, you cannot possibly have any idea what it is like to edit Wikipedia as a female, since you do not publicly identify your gender. It was presumptuous (to say the least) for you to attempt to speak for those of us who do identify as female, and I believe that no further attention should be given to anything you say on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Just a little note: It's every editor's own business whether they self-identify; it's perfectly possible to experience editing as a female without stating the fact on one's user page or elsewhere on-wiki. We have no way to know what experiences Cla68 has had in this regard, so let's not assume we do. Anonymity is still theoretically available here, and that is important. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Actually we CAN know what experiences they have had in this regard, because it turns out that Cla68 did run for adminship, back in 2007; see ‪Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68‬. And the nominator and discussants in that request referred to Clal68 as "he"! So when Cla68 says, as they did at the Gender Gap Task Force talk page, I have been through the RfA process, and I thus have personal experience with how corrupted and rigged it is.[1] and As I know by personal experience, WP's administrative processes are riddled with behind-the-scenes corruption, canvassing, and inconsistency. [2] - they are talking about their own experience, during which they were referred to as male! So they literally have NO idea what it is like to run for adminship as a female (or any idea at all what RfA is like nowadays, seven years after their unsuccessful run). --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
            • So does RfA still suck? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 17:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To correct an assumption made, Cla68 did go through the RfA process himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68 Bill Huffman (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed

I am unclosing Rich because that is a very different idea and possibly a viable one. A lower threshold for a standard recall seems a fair trade. Andrevan@ 07:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about this suggestion above, right? --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jemielniak opines, not without good cause, that part of the reason for "The Gauntlet" is that the post is virtually "admin for life". Of course a significant number of admins are open to recall, and presumably do not pose this sociological issue, and hierarchical risk.

It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus.

I am puzzled that Jemielniak is being brought up in the context of women and RfA. Someone recently cited Jemielniak as support for the notion that Wikipedia has a glass ceiling. He says no such thing. While he does talk about RfA issues, he spends very little time on gender issues in general and has almost nothing to say about women in the context of RfA.

The proposal by Cla68 is appallingly bad. It is difficult to come up with the right words to describe how condescending patronizing it is. The proposal is not rooted in anything said by Jemielniak, which is worth reading.

The are problems with RfA. Making recall easier is one important step. This is an appropriate place to discuss RfA reform, but let's not conflate the RfA problem, with the Wikipedia gender gap issues, at least not without some evidence. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is no longer about the proposal by Cla68, it's about the proposal by Rich, which is different. Ansh666 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that? Or how should I know that? Rich has five sentences and a close. One about Jemielniak generally. The next about women, and women admins. The next about CLA68. The next about admin for life. The next about a recall provision with a lower acceptance threshold. Why is is obvious that the discussion of the first four sentences is closed, and only the last is still open?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this is the entirety of the proposal: It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus. Nothing about women. In fact, the two paragraphs about Jemielniak also have nothing to do with women. The second paragraph refutes Cla68's point; the third states that the proposal's idea - not reasoning or implementation - is sound. As such, Rich is in fact refuting Cla68's point, and repurposing his proposal for a different cause - that of recall and general RfA reform. Ansh666 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When someone says "therefore" it is usually a sign that what they are saying follows from the preceding. It does not make sense to assume that Rich threw out four random unrelated points and then made an unrelated proposal. Furthermore, note that the section heading refers to women. Your conclusion that this has nothing to do with women makes no sense. The proposal itself is flawed but if someone wishes to discuss it, I suggest that someone starts a new section including this proposal alone not the irrelevant material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Go back and read everything I wrote, please. (Oh, and, I contend that "therefore" only refers back to the previous paragraph; the top three are separate and unrelated to the bottom two. More clear?) Ansh666 01:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ansh although I see why SPhilbrick did not understand. I think if we made RFA less of an angry and critical place maybe women would apply for it. Thus the lower threshold, standard recall being relevant if somewhat orthogonal to the issue. Andrevan@ 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I and several others fought tooth and nail a couple of years ago to find ways of getting RfA cleaned up - either that, or replaced with some other kind of system altogether. The problem with an issue like this is that whatever it might be / have been replaced with will still leave a certain faction of the community dissatisfied. That said, anyone who has been as closely monitoring the (rare) RfAs since that time as I have will not have let it escape their attention that although still not perfect, the process is considerably less vitriolic and visited by trolls and other disruptive elements than it used to be. I don't see gender as part of the equation - or orthogonal at best; AFAICS the ladies who run for adminship seem to pass with exceptionally flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan Sorry. what didn't I understand? I agree that reform of Rfa is needed. Many things need to be done; making it less angry is one of many needs. I don't know that such a reform would make it more appealing to women. Wikipedia as a whole has a gender gap which deserves serious action. I think that reform ought to address all issues, not just gender specific ones.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to several recent comments, in particular to those by Rich Farmbrough, Irondome Sphilbrick, and others, I haven't read the book (yet) but if Jemielniak devotes over 6% of the content of his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia to RfA, I'm hardly surprised. Until someone can come up with an entirely new concept for managing Wikipedia, the admin structure is the feature that keeps not only the crap out of the encyclopedia but also keeps those away who are determined to abuse it and/or other editors.

Daniel Iosub et al (which I have read) summarise in their paper that …emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another). This paper is essential reading for anyone who is interested in its analysis pertaining to admins, although I hesitate to assume that anyone who self-identifies with those who complain fervently about admins and their implied power structure will bother to read it; if they were to, they may well change their attitude towards admins or at least express themselves in more serious and more compelling language when discussing it rather than aggressive/emotional statements such as "What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course."

I would venture to presume that not only a significant number of admins do not pose a sociological issue, or hierarchical risk, but that the vast majority of them do not pose any threat to the workings of Wikipedia; any suggestions that they do is pure sensationalism from those who either perceive to have been unjustly served, have exceptionally long block logs, or who have never even actually been the object of admin action at all.

Unbundling of the admin tools, according to some, would be a great idea, especially if the block button were to be released for use by a wider section of the community - how about very major, prolific content providers, for example, maybe some of them would even block themselves occasionally (or at least each other) for cases of civility and PA transgressions. Just a thought…

Stats can often be cited to the advantage of the one citing them. There is a lot of re-inventinig the wheel going on here; perhaps a reminder of the enormous research that was carried out at WP:RFA2011 showing 100s of voter profiles and just how transient the pool of so-called 'active' RfA voters is. In that respect nothing has changed much at all. Scottywong did the requested data mining for WP:RFA2011 and I'm sure that if, and only if, there were a serious need to update those stats, he would either do it again at least provide the scripts or regular expressions he used.

Gender related issues IMO should ideally be the subject of a separate discussion even if globally addressed by books or independent research. I will not pronounce on gender topics with the exception that there are probably more male editors and more male admins than females. I would not be surprised if the % of female admins is higher than the % of female editors in general. I would also not be surprised if the pass rate for females is higher than that for males, and also by higher turnout and higher 'support' percentages. However, I do not believe that this is a Wikipedia specific topic, whose answer would be found in other areas of research into human gender roles.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that gender should be addressed separately. The data is clear that there is a Wikipedia wide gender gap. However, addressing gender soley in the context of RfA makes little sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was absolutely my idea to make a gender-neutral proposal. While I am not convinced (partly for the reasons I gave, and also because research shows female editors work on more contentious issues than male editors) that RFA is more traumatic for female editors, I am aware that this position is held by some people. Reducing the trauma of RFA therefore also addresses this hypothetical gender barrier to some extent. I am happy to build this proposal on the wreckage of previous proposals, or even sarcastic comments. I certainly agree that the vast majority of admins do not pose a risk, but the ghost of irremovable "Rouge admins" might well be one reason for RFA problems. Jemielniak does cite the 2011 research, by the way and mentions Kudpung at the very least (I don't have the volume to hand). Ansh666 is correct that the single sentence covers the proposal, the rest is thinking out loud, if you like. I did try to make it clear for the section header that the linkage between the subjects was relatively weak. Sorry for not being clearer! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

Rich, I didn't misunderstand you for a moment and I'm with you all the way. The traditional arguments that a predominantly hostile male envoronment at RfA is preventing women from participating in RfA is probably less acurate today than it was in , say, 2011. We have women police officers and even women soldiers and fighter pilots and they all had to go through boot camp - and survived it. Recent female results: 116/0/0, 97/17/2, 217/0/2, 152/0/0, 173/9/4, 120/3/4, 94/1/0, 120/0/4, 87/36/8, and none failed.

What probably puts anyone off wanting to be an admin these days, nearly 4 years down the line from WP:RFA2011, is not so much the election process itself, but the consequences of being a sysop once you get the bit. Comments such as:

"What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course."

don't exactly make the job sound attractive, whatever gender you are. It's a common fallacy put about by a certain group that all admins are badmins, but like in any army or police force, there are always one or two rotten apples in the barrel, but the group who persistently tar all admins with the same brush at every opportunity with drama mongering out-of-context diatribes, are doing far more damage to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia than an admin who blocks an editor for being grossly uncivil or making PA, and one who unblocks because that editor is a prolific content contributor.

What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against such groups that are determined to undermine the the already fragile fabric of what holds this project together. And if the community were prepared to look at their strategy and the pattern of tactics rather than just seeing and ignoring isolated issues, picking them off one-by-one wouldn't be all that difficult but it would need the support of the likes of admins such as, for example, Gorilla Warfare, Slim Virgin, and Bishonen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In Kudpung's own words, "criticising the admin system... directly criticises the admins themselves, because they are the system". Kudpung, that most august of Wikipedia's grandee admins, sees all constructive criticism of the admin system as personal attacks on the individual administrators and on himself in particular. He has been campaigning lately for the extermination of these vile pests. He tars all critics, constructive and unconstructive, with the same brush, and quotes from the most unconstructive critics to try and mobilise attacks on the most constructive critics. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is why OWN of policy is one of the biggest dangers we face. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, everyone. Just popping in to reiterate that I was serious about introducing affirmative action to the RfA process and continue to support the idea. I'm glad to see that this discussion is ongoing and look forward to us having another vote on it in the future. Cla68 (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use the term "affirmative action" when talking about lowering pass ratios. I support affirmative action in the sense of casting a wider net, searching for people who might be good candidates, encouraging more women to edit, reaching out to organizations that are predominantly women to identify new editors, all of which will eventually result in more female admins, but to simply modify the ratio for acceptance isn't addressing the problems, it is pretending to do something rather than meaningful actions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A while ago, reading that there was a shortage of admins, I decided to nominate another editor for adminship. If I'd known what I was getting into, I might not have done it at all. The advice at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#General advice for nominators and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates have dire warnings about how badly errors in the nomination process will be viewed. In my own RfA the process was done by my nominators, so I had to figure it out from scratch. I started going through the steps to create the nomination page; step three said "When you are taken to the next page edit that page and follow the instructions listed there.". However, there were no instructions. Not wanting to appear ignorant, I tried to do it anyway, and after quite some time I gave up and asked for help here. (The instructions have been fixed now). All went well until it was time to transclude the RfA. The problem here is that there's no preview, and if it's not done right the first time a mess appears on the WP:RFA page, and that's what happened to me. The clock didn't work and instead there was a large red error message. It was actually a typo, but of course it's hard to see your own typos, and I spent a very stressful hour, thinking that I had misunderstood the instructions, and realizing that my ineptitude was making the candidate look bad. At this point I was actually in tears. I finally solved the problem by creating a phony RfA and experimenting with the transclusion process until it worked, and then deleting the evidence.

My points:

1. It's not fair that the technical difficulties experienced by the nominator should reflect on the candidate, who has enough to worry about already in responding to questions and comments during the RfA itself.
2. It shouldn't be necessary to be technically adept to nominate someone else for adminship. In spite of the guide for adminship saying that admins should be able to easily transclude things, the articles and talk pages that most editors work on don't give one experience with transcluding timers. I had trouble, and I am an experienced C++ programmer. I haven't needed this skill since I became an admin either.
3. There's a list of editors willing to nominate a candidate; how about a list of editors willing to help with the technical parts of the nomination? Or how about a test area where the transclusion can be tried out to see if it's being done correctly, so that the actual transclusion will then go smoothly? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's always been a problem. I tied myself up in knots a while back trying to fix someone else's malformed RfA, and I'm from a programming background as well. I'm sure it shouldn't be difficult for a competent coder to write a script to actually do this (the only problem being that I'm not competent enough to do it). Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
• I third this issue. I actually had to help Kobnach, who also has a technical background, figure out the transclusion while simultaneously answering the RfA questions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD votes, NAC of AfD's, Log actions. Anyone know if it's because the URLs are wrong or the tools are just dead? ansh666 20:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You should ask JackPotte. It may just need to be restarted. Mojoworker (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Singh shweta6 (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done blank request. BethNaught (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

At this stage, would it be realistic to pursue another initiative to create a process to remove adminship? A process like that would surely transform and loosen up RfA, and it's perhaps the only practical way to revitalize the moribund RfA process, if we could just get some agreement on how to do it. Everyking (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometime in the now seemingly distant past, I was involved in WP:CDARFC. I know from past experience that, for every argument that a community desysopping process would make RfA more relaxed, there's an opposing argument that it would make fewer editors want to try for RfA. In the time that has since passed, it seems to me (others of course may disagree) that the community has evolved a lot, in that administrator misconduct that was tolerated several years ago, is not tolerated today. And the Arbitration Committee has evolved along with the community. As a result, in my opinion we now have the process that we need, which is to contact ArbCom, who are quite prepared to deal with clear-cut cases by motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

We already have multiple means to remove sysop privileges, what specifically did you want to add? Chillum 15:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's true. But if adminship can now be removed more easily, and abuse is not as tolerated, then why do you suppose people are still so reluctant to vote in new admins? For some reason or another, the process is moribund. Everyking (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that a community-led desysopping process is absolutely vital, and it's a shame that nothing exists yet. However, the standards have to be sufficiently high that a small group that an admin has pissed off cannot band together and recall him or her for something trivial. A balance needs to be found, where it is not a trivial manner, but certainly doable. The hardest part, IMO, is finding this balance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The last efforts including WP:RAS, authored by me with the help of Coren and covered sanction as well as desysopping, and WP:RRA, which was authored by Jc37 and focused only on desysopping. Both fell under the Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept, which was led by Worm That Turned. These followed many other proposals that also failed, and are worth a read. The links to the previous failures are available on the RfC link. I still support the idea, but it is a perennial failure so far. Dennis 2¢ 14:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the recently lower level of RfA activity really means that the RfA process is moribund, or at any rate that it is unable to provide what the community wants. Perhaps some RfA candidates fail because editors are uncomfortable about being unable to recall them if confirmed, but perhaps this is just a case of high community standards. Perhaps, because abuse is less tolerated, editors see no point in supporting candidates who are likely to have to be recalled. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I opened a thread at Administrators open to recall proposing to have it closed and marked as historical. There hasn't been any discussion made yet so I'm asking if anyone is willing to join the discussion and decide whether or not to close it. The discussion can be found here. GamerPro64 21:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The RFA / RFB process has quite clearly fallen into disuse. Only by permanently closing this failed process will a better process be invented. Townlake (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disuse"? I do not think others will take this post seriously. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA is certainly far from dead. However, while we have been expending endless amounts of cyber hot air on the subject of RfA, I think a plausible argument could be made that RfB has in fact become a dead letter. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's just what the cabal wants! Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA is not dead nor dying. Standards are higher, yes, but there's no clear need for new admins in the first place. Cloudchased (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's always a need for new admins, just because of regular attrition. For example, when the last successful RfA passed on 21 August 2014, there were 613 active administrators [3]. Now, two months later, there are 593 [4], a drop of 20 admins. Compared to last year this time, we're down 39 admins. That's net, mind. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

TOWNLAKE!!! You've got to be kidding right?? RfA is not dead - it remains fantastic voyeuristic entertainment for those who take sadistic pleasure in watching character assassination!

Granted, most veteran editors are getting wise to this and refusing to run. But that's a GOOD thing! We can't have the admin corps replenishing its ranks! Wikipedia is loosing about 100 active admins per year. An unchanged RfA could soon result in only a few dozen active admins. Those who stay will be rewarded with a massive concentration of power.

It's a great thing standards have got so high. It's like New York city insisting no one is hired to its police force unless they're good enough to be an inspector Morse or Colombo. Granted, even a Columbo can take weeks to solve a difficult case. Don't worry, a dozen Colombos could still keep order if instead of wasting time investigating, they just lock down whole blocks every time there's a crime. Im so glad the RfA community has had the good sense to unanimously reject your proposal! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Joking aside, thanks Townlake for a bold and timely proposal. Perhaps there is no need to MfD this page, but if no serious objections are raised we should mark this process as historical and retire to the village pump to decide on its replacement. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Poll on admin. staffing levels

OK, let's have a referendum:

Considering currently active administrators in relation to those tasks that require administrative tools, based on your experience are there at present:

1. Too many admins?
2. The right number of admins?
3. Not enough admins?

: Noyster (talk), 19:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

4. The wrong sort of admins? (cf. wrong sort of snow) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

5. Who cares? ansh666 20:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

6. Admins appointed years ago who show consistently problematic behaviour can't be removed, except by processes that will be shot down by admins appointed nearly as long ago? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This is irrelevant. New admins should always be appointed. First, to replace those who retire and second, to ensure fresh views are present in discussions that require an admin presence. Also, the number of active admins has no bearing on whether or not an editor can pass RFA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm reminded of a few years earlier of a user who used to oppose every RFA he saw because there were "Too Many Administrators Currently". I don't care if there are 10 active administrators or 10,000. If we (The Community) trust their judgement and experience I don't see the harm in giving them the tools. --Church ^Talk 20:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a better question would be, which specific admin areas are consistently backlogged, and are there experienced non-admins who work in those areas whom we could nominate as administrators? Go Phightins! 20:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Of the people I've sought out, using this same logic (which I agree with), most simply didn't want to be admin even if the bit was handed to them. These were very experienced editors who said it wasn't about RFA, it was about the hassles admin get after RFA. Being an admin is not nearly as much "fun" as most people think, and 2.5 years into it, trust me, it gets less fun each day. Dennis 2¢ 20:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis- there are some who see it like that, but the reason most refuse to run is because the process is too hostile and random. See this recent request for candidates from TParis, where several veteran editors give this reason. Folk love to be moderators even if its just on small facebook groups - being an admin on one of the worlds foremost web site is even more rewarding, see the prestige thread below. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not for all of us. Some of us are old, have owned businesses, ran departments, have families, and view Wikipedia as rewarding in a different way, but "prestige" isn't really on the list. Most admin don't even use their real names, so if it is prestige, it stops at the gates of the front page. "Making a difference" ranks up there, but bragging rights doesn't. As for why admin tend to leave less often than regular editors, that isn't a shocker: they are already vetted for being regular contributors with a level head, and by virtue of seeking adminship, they are emotionally invested in the idea of a free encyclopedia. Of course they leave less often than a regular editor. And to correct one thing: I've had my ass chewed on by other 100x more since being an admin than before, where I did a fair amount of mediation and AFD work (hense why I ran for admin). I agree some newer people are more submissive to admin, but some older people are flat out more hostile when they see the bit. It is a mixed bag at best. Dennis 2¢ 22:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree Dennis, for some adminship is both a burden and a duty. And like many regular editors Im grateful to the entire admin corps for the work they do, regardless of whether they enjoy the status or are purely selfless servants. But my point stands. Most humans desire status. And while admin status may be a red rag to a bull for some, Kudpung's study shows in the general case admins receive more positive interactions and less negative ones than regular users. Regular users are finding the editing environment is getting more hostile too. Perhaps it's even worse for them, as the study might imply. And perhaps the declining number of admins to moderate trouble is part of the reason for this? FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't analysed the data or the methods, although I know Kudpung quite well and trust his math. Keeping in mind that you can often draw different conclusions from the same data. It may be due to less mediating from admin and non-admin (and I'm constantly saying we need more non-admin mediating, the bit doesn't make you a better mediator). Honestly, I used to do a lot of it but have lost my taste for it here. While people are freaking out around here because someone says a swear word, the real damage is from POV trolls who will grind and grind and grind until they wear everyone out with wikilawyering and they get their way, with nary an offensive word, but that is called "civil". We used to just duke it out a bit and move on once a consensus was found, but no more as we worry more about being politically correct and less about being factually correct. Perhaps that is part of the change from "creating" to "maintaining", I have no idea. Dennis 2¢ 22:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess we have more questions than answers. What's not in doubt is that recently we've been losing active admins at a rate close to 10 per month, and promoting at a rate of 0 per month. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As well as need for the tools, other considerations include: How would it help community health if veteran editors had a feasible progression path? If there were more admins, would this mean more attention could be given to tricky situations and newbies who need help to adapt to our ways? If the admin corps keeps shrinking, would the resulting concentration of power be good or bad? FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

A draft

Crazy idea #85,253: A draft. Trusted editors get the tools whether requested or not, but they don't have to use them if they don't want to. Such an editor could put themselves in a category Reluctant administrators. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about how this would work if there was not a request of some sort. I kind of understand the "reluctant" part, but it doesn't make sense to somehow start sysoping random look-goods through an undescribed process. Dustin (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I like the idea of the category, I should probably add myself to it :-) But then people who wanted to ask me for help might feel I was saying I didn't want to help. And those who voted me in might be a bit hurt. There's the rub, you see - it's a responsibility. We do need to vet admins carefully - for one thing, the WMF doesn't permit us to peel off many of the admin permissions without requiring a comparable vetting process, and now that I have them, I see why; they are connected, and sometimes I wind up approaching something one way, sometimes another. We can't predict accurately what our needs are in terms of administrative personpower because admins are volunteers like anyone else - I don't pull my weight in helping clear backlogs, but occasionally I do a stint (and often feel miserable afterwards), and I quite often see things that need doing and am glad I have the tools to do them. And I sometimes get a request to help someone. Whereas other admins do a tremendous amount of admin work - but they too have off-wiki commitments, get burnt out, decide to give other kinds of work here a higher priority for a while. As an essay somewhere says, having more admins, even if some (like me) don't often help with the backlogs, frees up other admins to do other things (including article writing). Yngvadottir (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be better alternatives to the current process, but this sounds better than the status quo! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Define "trusted" and who would determine who is "trusted"? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jimbo hinted at this a few years ago, if "the wheels start falling off" he (/active crats?) would/should just make a loads of seemingly-reasonable editors admins. Seems OK to me, NBD and all. benmoore 08:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

I'm grateful to see the spirited discussion here. I wanted to quickly clarify one thing from my original post up top: I'm not suggesting that the project should stop creating new admins. I don't agree with that argument. I'm suggesting the current process for creating new admins isn't succeeding; viable candidates are no longer using the process. The stats don't lie. But the current RFA process won't be replaced until the community closes it. Nailing the doors shut on the existing process would force the creation of something different, and likely better. Thanks and carry on. Townlake (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you go back to WP:RFA2011, you'll see what the issue is: apart from a general consensus that people wish NOTNOW closes were prevented from being opened in the first place, people mostly want an RfA where the questions/votes are more aligned with their personal vision of what an admin should be. But because the visions of what an admin should be are all over the place, there's no way to do that.

If you want RfA to be more active, the only thing to do is do new page patrol, teahouse, etc. Find new users and help them over the initial difficulties. Teach them the ropes. And let (some of) them progress up the experience ladder to become admins. As long as the number of new editors continues to drop, them number of RfAs will continue to drop in kind. Is the process more rigourous? Yes, but we can never go back to the pre-Seigenthaler era. WilyD 09:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we have this discussion all over the place. Recently saw a request for a grant to study why WikiProjects are failing, but it's the same reason again. Editor numbers and activity are dropping. It's affecting all areas. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The causation works both ways. One of the reasons for declining activity is a less collegial environment, caused partly by insufficient moderation. Also, regular editors leave when they can't see a progression path, as Sue Gardner and others have noted. Gaining adminship makes it less likely for an editor to leave, but the current RfA process makes this form of editor retention almost impossible. Once we close down this process, we can break this viscous circle. No one's saying restoring the editor > admin promotion path will solve the wider retention problem on its own, but it's a start. The RfA process can be replaced with something radically different, avoiding all the current problems. For example, elections based on the arbitration model where votes are not public, and a fixed number of candidates are promoted each quarter. Or a form of promotion that doesnt need voting at all. As Townlake suggests, no point discussing the alternatives in detail until we mark this obviously disused process as historical. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins don't do that moderation because (essentially) we don't have a community mandate to enforce a collegial environment. More admins wouldn't help. But the real issue is that the editor > admin path is about as open as it's been for almost a decade; it's the lack of new editors that results in a lack of new admins. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine how having an admin creation procedure that lacks community support wouldn't be far more catastrophic. Again, read WP:RFA2011 - if we had to design a process to create admins today, it'd be this, more or less. And for the obvious reason - it's the way everying on Wikipedia is decided; by discussion and consensus. WilyD 15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The last part of your comment is demonstrably false. Arbcom is not a consensus process. RFA arguably is not; it's a 70% vote with very rare exceptions. RFB is similar, isn't 90% or so the standard? That's all I have time to think of right now, but the current RFA process pretends to be a consensus process when any rational outsider would observe it isn't. Townlake (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

One possibly feasible unbundling could be to create discussion closer. They would only have the ability to delete, no other admin abilities, and the only admin task they could take on would be closing deletion discussions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussed to death, and the conclusion is always the same. Anyone who's trusted to delete is also trusted to protect and to block. And the same is true in all permutations. Unbundling the real admin tools isn't helpful, because anyone who asked for the delete button would be held to the same standard as someone asking for all the admin buttons. WilyD 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. And the power to delete pretty much must come with the power to undelete, which includes the power to view previously deleted material. The Foundation has been brutally clear that a user must pass an RFA style gauntlet to view deleted material, no exceptions. As it stands, non-admin can already close many AFDS, RFCs, etc. Honestly, we have enough closers for AFDs, what we really need is more people participating in the discussions. No bit required. Dennis 2¢ 15:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Redirects and Miscellany frequently are backlogged by more than a month. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are quite a few entries at WP:AFD, especially the older ones, that could use some input right now. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds great! Let's have a separate right for each admin tool! Deleting, blocking, protected page editing, protecting, and right granting! *sarcasm* --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-admin closures are already welcome most places (even though the link is an essay). Anyone interested, Wikipedia:Requested moves needs you: WP:RMNAC. Dekimasuよ! 19:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let me clarify one point, about closures and backlogs. There are a couple of reasons why some things get backlogged. 1. Some types of closures are drama filled and closing will always result in a review, 100 explanations, being called a nazi, etc. Admin that get a bad taste in one area tend to avoid that area in the future. 2. In some areas, there are few admin who feel comfortable closing, so they back up. I don't close many Requests to Move or Category stuff, it is just outside of my comfort level. 3. Some closings just take a long time. I can close 20 AFDs in less time than it takes to close one moderately busy RFC. Big RFCs are particularly hard, as you just about have to close with "more to come", do a couple hours of homework, then close with the answer. Sometimes, the drama that follows takes up more time than the close. Closing isn't fun, it's something we do out of duty, not joy. If you close enough discussions over a long enough period of time, you get worn down from the occasional drama from those that disagree, and it eventually makes you less willing to close, so you do other things instead. You can't always predict which discussions will cause drama either, its like flipping a coin. Dennis 2¢ 20:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As we enter what are hopefully the last moments of RfA as we know it, it might be useful to dispel a harmful myth about wikipedia adminship. It's often claimed that admins don't have any special status or prestige. This is not true. To quote from the study Kudpung cites above:

“

...may indicate submissiveness towards the admins. Therefore, the fact that admins also receive more positive emotion and overall less negative emotion, could be interpreted as part of an ingratiation strategy, i.e., regular editors may wish to come across as attractive or likeable to higher status Wikipedians.

”

This is typical of how outside observers perceive the status gap between regular editors and admins. Despite claims to the contrary, adminship can be psychologically rewarding, and it's little wonder admins are less likely to leave Wikipedia than regular editors.

There's two takeaways. While this would not apply to all or even most admins, the admins corps would not be human if some of them don't at least subconsciously have a CoI which makes them want to resist reforms that would dilute power by making it easier for new promotions to occur. So it makes sense for RfA reform discussions to be exceptions to the general unwritten rule where an admins voice counts for more in a project space discussion.

Secondly, awarding adminship to constructive long term editors is the most tangible form of recognition we have it in our gift to bestow. With the number of active editors in sharp decline, it makes sense not to cut off what many see as the only meaningful progression path. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

My subconscious might be insulted, but I'm not quite sure what it thinks. Dekimasuよ! 22:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dream tonight and tell the help desk about it, perhaps they can interpret? FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Do administrators dream of electric encyclopedias? Dekimasuよ! 23:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Im not sure, but last night I had a nightmare about power crazed shepherds and prancing felines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What the hell are you people talking about? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The possibility that all editors are equal, but some are more equal than others? Dekimasuよ! 00:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

All these years and I never took advantage of my psychological reward. :( That would make me quite sad if not for the fact that I'm an admin. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The suggestion that admins would not want more admins because it would dilute their power is nonsense. In fact, I'll be even more strident, bollocks. A) Admins are servants of the community B) the abuse that admins get, the shit we have to put up with, and the time consumed by sockpuppets, trolls, spammers, and vandals vastly outweighs any power trip and any of the more enjoyable parts of the job, C) for every extra admin who actually uses their tools and pitches in at AIV/UAA/RfPP/SPI, that's slightly less work for the tiny number of us who regularly clear backlogs there, and D) I wanted to finish off an article I've been working on today, but I got bogged down in admin shit and I haven't made a substantial edit to the mainspace all day. More admins means I get to spend more time in the mainspace, sooo.... more admins please! And if any dormant admins are watching this, I for one would really appreciate it if you'd get your mop out of the cupboard and put it to use. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if any of this seems critical of admins, that's not the intention at all. I think all active admins deserve gratitude for the work they do.

I've a copy of the Smith book you're working on in front of me. Some of the thoughts on p 292 - 301 about overcommited services echo what you're saying, and would seem a good reason to expand the admin corps. Despite the stridency, I think we agree on quite a bit. Thing is, admins seem to have been among the loudest voices in resisting reforms that would allow more promotions, such as the sensible suggestion to lower the threshold to 50%. I've wrote an article on a book with something in common with yours: The Iliad or the Poem of Force. A central point is that even as far back as Homer, it was recognized that possessing power is psychologically rewarding, and that it's natural for it to arouse jealousy. The article puts it even more stridently, saying wielding force "intoxicates". This point had been made again and again by thousands of others down the centuries. To my knowledge no one we'd count as a reliable source disputes that humans compete for power, or denies this competition doesn't also happen online. Nothing is more forceful on Wikipedia than the ability to block or delete. No ones saying all admins are jealous of their power. Many have put in a great deal of effort to expand the admin corps. It's only a small minority who seem to like to block reform efforts. And some, perhaps all, of the admins who object to lowering the bar may do so solely as they care about the encyclopedia and belief quality is preferable to quantity. I think though the point remains that opposing admins are a key part of the reason why every single RfA reform effort for the last 6 or more years has failed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You say "the sensible suggestion to lower the threshold to 50%"? That was not sensible at all (least of all the way in which it started), and this coming from someone who may one day want to go through the process. ansh666 06:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From a new admin's point of view: Tedious, draws me away from the mainspace, zero prestige, zero power (admins have equal and no greater say in how the place is run), psychologically unrewarding, and please, please dilute my imaginary power and double the amount of admins.

You talk of respect, status, and prestige, I felt a smidgen of that when I was churning out articles, but not now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Anna, you deserve just as much respect for your admin work as you do for your legendary contributions to our coverage of food. Maybe there's a lesson here for us regular editors, that we should show more appreciation for admins and the work they do. Though it's probably the case that many regular editors feel unappreciated too, as I think your fellow anna seems to be suggesting. Back to the matter at hand, replenishing the ranks of the admin corps is exactly what were trying to achieve. Townlake and myself are suggesting we've reached the point where the essential first step is to close the current RfA process, and then replace it with something new. Again, check out this recent thread asking for new admin candidates , and see the caliber of some of the folk who are declining solely due to how they perceive the current RfA process. It will likely be easy to achieve the doubling you request, once we've replaced this broken process. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, FeydHuxtable. I think none of us are in it for colleague appreciation anyhow. And if there is appreciation felt, it should be for those who build. Besides, the entire world thinks Wikipedia is great and appreciates it so much, and we get to feel that we helped put it together. For me, that is huge. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I get about as much prestige as my high school janitor. Nice guy, thankless job. Chillum 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And he never seems to mutter! FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• As a relatively new Wikipedian (less than two years), who is also an admin, I must say that I have not noticed any editors deferring to me in any way. In fact, in most interactions it's not likely that other editors are even aware of who is an admin; it's not as though our signatures have little mops attached. If anything, there is a little push-back from some long term, non-admin editors, who may feel that their years of experience on the project and record of productive encyclopedia-building is more worthy of prestige than adminship - and I agree with them. We do have many ways of recognizing the contributions of editors - Wikipedia:Service awards, for example, but are they given enough prominence? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Have to respect the fact that many admins don't feel they are treated as though they have any special status. However, this is the opposite of what multiple external studies are saying. More use of service awards and similar might also help improve community morale, see this essay for more on the value of recognition. I think though a point remains that granting adminship is a much more tangible form of recognition than awards or barnstars. FeydHuxtable (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone may have written it, but I would not believe it. Chillum 03:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide data that it is admins who make new promotions hard. I counted sysop versus non-sysop votes in the last RfA we had, and at least until the last day, the percentage of supporters among sysops was higher than among non-sysops. I guess a systematic study would show that admins are not making adminship hard to achieve; that is done by non-admins who think adminship is something special. —Kusma (t·c) 07:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No one's suggesting admins are more likely to oppose RfAs. I agree with Kudpung that admins behave better in actual RfAs, and in fact I can only recall a single time when an admin engaged in character assassination - usually it's only regular editors who attack candidates in this way. What is being said is that admins have played a leading role in shooting down suggestions for reform. This would be trivially easy to demonstrate. More useful data might be some figures for admin attrition, you can see a break down of much of this info over at User:WereSpielChequers/Admin attrition:

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Active admins	943	870	766	744	674	633
Admin promotions	201	121	78	52	28	34
Admin attrition (actual, not net)	263	194	182	74	98	75

You could quibble that such figures don't include non standard events like the occasional former admin who resigned under a clear sky getting their tools back without an RfA. But the broad message from the figures is undeniable. The numbers of active admins is plummeting. The rate at which promotions have been taking place has declined by several thousand % over the last few years. Huh, looking back at just the last two months, the decline has been infinetly sharp. The case for change from the stats is so clear there's no burden for those favoring reform to provide more data. Rather, if any wish to prevent this obviously disused process being marked as historical, they need to provide convincing answers to these questions.

1) Why do we need to retain a process that consistently sees good editors subject to character assassination, sometimes leading to permanent retirement immediately after the RfA? Character assassination has been a known problem since at least 2008, but nothing substantive is done about it. In the most recent RfA, the excellent editor GamerPro64 was caused timid just for showing some hesitancy about the fiendishly complex FA process, something even a first class professor would be cautious about. 'Timidity' is a synonym for the deadly sin of cowardice. Not one admin intervened when the candidate was called a chicken for no good reason. No ones blaming admin as there obviously isn't enough of you. But why do we need to keep a process that allows this sort of nonsense?

2) How is it a good thing not to do anything about the shrinkage of the admin corps? Wikipedia suffers from an increasingly uncollegial editing environment. Insufficient moderation is a sure fire recipe for allowing a website to degenerate into a troll fest. Whats the justification for preventing a reform that would allow the admin ranks to be replenished?

3) As WSC suggests above, it would be good for community health if all clueful long term editors could be promoted to adminship. Sue Gardner and many others have said much the same thing. How do you justify retaining a process that leaves no progression path for veteran editors. (aside from the tiny minority of saints who never do anything controversial and so don't get opposed.). FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It maybe, as the project matures (gets set in its ways) it is easier to have a self-regulating climate - the standards for self-regulation being clearer - thus, less need for arbcom and admin to do what the users already do, and already communicate to the new. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is likely that the unbundling of some admin tools has led to fewer applications for adminship. If there were no rollbackers, template editors, or pending changes reviewers, for example, then editors working in areas for which these tools are useful would be more likely to want to become admins so that they could work more efficiently. Even though these tools are given to admins, they can be granted in other ways, so this leads to an emphasis on the tools relating to deletion and access to deleted revisions, blocking and unblocking, etc. at RfA. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: "The rate at which promotions have been taking place has declined by several thousand % over the last few years," I think a rate can't go down by more than 100%, i.e., from what it was to zero. Am I missing something, or was that hyperbole? Dekimasuよ! 19:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Consider it hyperbole until actual numbers or calculations are given. (Consider, though: if a rate doubling is stated as "100% increase", then what is the opposite, i.e. "100% decrease"? Does that mean halved, or zero? I don't actually know.) ansh666 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

When figuring percent increases and decreases, the percentage is calculated based on the starting figure. Thus, a 100% increase is a doubling, a 50% decrease is a halving, and a 100% decrease means there is nothing left. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that makes sense (though I don't see why we can't just go off plain ol' "100%" being no change and go from there...I blame my computer brain.) ansh666 20:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• About the quote from the study which is at the beginning of this thread: If it's true that editors are more civil and positive when conversing with admins, this may not be a matter of prestige (ie, thinking that admins are great and their ideas must be good and that whichever side of a discussion they are on must be the right one), but more that (1) they are aware that admins know how editors are expected to act, (2) they fear being censored if they behave badly (3) they AGF more readily, since admins aren't likely to be vandals, (4) they know that admins are familiar with WP policies, and so are more likely to respond to policy-based arguments than to bullying and name-calling. Also, it would be interesting to gauge the tone of postings which were responses to non-admins, in discussions where an admin was also actively taking part. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• This has been something I've thought about for quite a long time, and I gave my personal opinions on this matter in an earlier thread. (The thread is still here, I believe. Keep in mind that I made that comment before my username change.) Perhaps I write my own essay on this in my userspace, so I'll be able to access it easily instead of looking through old, forgotten archives. Anyway, to get back to the point, I see adminship (and any advanced userrights in general) something like this:
  • With any position of power, there is responsibility. In fact, the higher you rise on the "power scale", the more responsibility you have. For example, our stewards are essentially super-bureaucrats, because they have complete access to all the MediaWiki tools. However, stewards also have more responsibility than any other people on these projects, because a single mistake on their part can be severely damaging and very difficult (if not impossible) to reverse. For example, the stewards have the ability to delete global accounts. This action is irreversible, and if this tool were ever to be misused, it would have very serious consequences. (This is also why it's very important that stewards have remarkably strong account security.) While a mistake on the part of an admin would not be as "fatal" as that of a steward, a rouge admin certainly does have the ability to cause some rather major "inconveniences".
  • To give a balanced view, however, I do think we look a little contradictory when we say that "adminship is not a big deal". (Note to any admins reading this: please do not pile on me for saying this. I'm not done yet.) While adminship should not be a big deal, I fear that we sometimes make it appear to be a big deal. This is mainly because of the notorious difficultly of RfA. If adminship is really not a big deal, we need to stop making it appear to be one by making RfA so difficult. Like I've said before, any and every past mistake is used against you in the current system, even if you've sincerely apologized for them. You really have to be near-perfect to pass an RfA.

Now, I have what some may consider to be "advanced" userrights. I have rollback and reviewer here, and a couple of rights on another wiki that I contribute to. I can certainly assure people who don't have these rights that there is nothing glamorous about buttons and checkboxes. They do not make you feel "special" or "powerful". In fact, the jobs are very routine. For example, over at wikiHow (the other wiki I contribute to), one of my userrights allows me to vote in what we call the NFD (nominations for deletion) Guardian. Big deal. Really, it's just looking through an article, clicking either the "Keep" or "Delete" button, and moving on to the next one. There's nothing glamorous about it at all. However, I can certainly understand people who think that adminship here is a big deal, because as I said earlier, our actions sometimes make it appear to be one.
Just my two cents. Thanks, --Biblioworm 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The reality is that RfA is a popularity contest. Make friends, you pass RfA. If not, you won't. It is a voting system, which means it is based on popularity. It IS a vote - any system based on percentages is a vote. The only time it isn't is in the very small margin for error slice. Otherwise, it's a straight vote. Until such time as it is not a vote (which means RfA as we know it goes away), it will always be a popularity contest. Therefore, people who do not make friends (like me) will find it impossible to pass RfA. At User:Hammersoft/log I've logged close to 300 actions that I took to get admins to do something. Only twice was I wrong (and maybe three, depending on your view). This is an error rate of about 1%. I don't vandalize the project, I don't go around messing things up, I've been working on the project for years. Yet, I have no chance of passing RfA because I don't make friends. Base RfA on qualifications rather than popularity and get rid of the ridiculous voting system and you will have an RfA that actually passes people. Until then, there's no 'reform' to RfA that will work. Any other attempts are just spitting into Niagara Falls and claiming you can fix it with a wrench. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Reading some of the comments above made me remember that when I was still a new editor and found out that there was such a thing as administrators, I formed the opinion that administrators were somehow a big deal and were people to be careful around. One of my first edits was speedily deleted, and I figured that the deleting admin was someone who knew a lot more than I did. Early on, another admin got angry at me over a content dispute, and I was genuinely scared that something bad was going to happen to me. As I've gotten years of experience, I no longer see it that way at all, and I smile at my earlier misconceptions (although I have respect for people who have passed RfA relatively recently, in that they have established that they can come through close scrutiny). I guess my point is that new editors may see things very differently than experienced editors do. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In my daily dose of getting my soul sucked out (i.e. reading WP:AN/I), I came across this perfect example: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User J Greb harassment. To quote, for those of you who don't want to go there, the OP stated I doubt I'll be successful in this since he's an administrator. (I don't know who's right or wrong, for the record.) Like it or not, many editors do see admins differently, even if they're usually too polite to say so. ansh666 07:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The statistics cited above have completely focused on sysops, but it's worth remembering that we unbundled some of the rights some time ago. We have over 5k rollbackers, for instance, and I'm not sure we've ever compiled stats on how many of those are being created, month by month. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, Samsara. I was just writing something similar two threads up. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Anne Delong, that is a favourite quote of mine. ^^ Samsara (FA • FP) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there are stats compiled anywhere, but there is a record of formal requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Archive. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I have reviewer and rollback rights, and there are several more tools I could get to make edding easier. Non admins actually have a high degree of editing autonomy if they are trusted by the community, and this is indicated by the issueage of tools. Reviewer carries with it a high level of community confidence, for example. Irondome (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

What do folks think about the idea of splitting up the tools that admins get and using a "lighter" vetting process for handing some of the tools to editors who can properly motivate a need for them?

Take for example my recent RFA, it failed basically due to my inexperience with article deletion - but deletion is far from the be all and end all of adminship. Some tools surely do not need the full "Inquisition" as the potential for doing serious damage with them is less than with other tools or permissions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Historical background for this subject: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures —Anne Delong (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read about this, it seems like the main feature that people regard as being especially serious is the ability to view deleted material. Of course, this is understandable, as some deleted pages/revisions contain defamation, copyright violations, personal information, etc., and the ability to view this sort of material has legal implications. Now, there might be a few features that could be unbundled, but then again, doing this might be somewhat challenging. If this did actually happen (I very much doubt that it will, however), we'd have to create new WP:RPE pages for each administrative feature. Just as a reminder, the admin toolset contains the ability to block, delete, protect, edit fully protected pages, use RevDel, rollback, etc. (For anyone interested in the full list of tools, click here.) Admins would have to keep up with all the various rights requests (not to mention that a healthy portion of these requests are from newbies who don't have any idea what the right in question is even for), and I just think it would be too confusing and overwhelming. In my opinion, the simple fact of the matter is that the current RfA process just needs some serious reform. --Biblioworm 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Biblioworm, It's understandable that very new users are probably not up to speed on adminship issues. Users who add one of these to their user pages within a couple of weeks of joining Wikipedia will almost certainly be waiting a very long time - perhaps years - by which time any reform may have already taken place. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a time when you'd never see this page without at least 3 RfAs running at once, sometimes more than ten. And we used to achieve on average over 30 promotions a month. Now we can go months without a single promotion. To say this reflects a wider decline of Wikipedia is perhaps somewhat defeatist. By some measures, the number of active regular editors has been growing in 2014. The world is only weeks away from having over 3 Billion internet users, and English Wikipedia is their no 1 choice for information. They need us more than ever.

So many reform efforts have failed over the years that achieving consensus for a new process seems almost unthinkable. Editor Townlake and Townlake alone has proposed the solution to this problem - to permanently close RfA as we know it, as only then is a suitable replacement process likely to be designed.

Seven days ago, it was suggested that unless there are serious objections, this process should be marked as historical. By my reading, only one admin directly objected, and ceased to do so after Townlake demonstrated that parts of their argument were false. On the other hand, only one other editor clearly came out in direct support of Townlake's proposal. So some might see it as overly bold to mark this page as historical. Accordingly, an editor has opened a thread on the village pump, to seek concensus from the wider community. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wlink edited to point right at discussion, Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I was considering perhaps throwing my hat into RFA seeing as how there really haven't been that much lately. However, I feel the number one thing holding me back isn't so much my edits but my sporadic activity over the past several years. I was Fairly active for a few months last year before I Joined the United States Army and was deployed overseas where the only device I really had to edit from was a mobile phone and I couldn't do a lot with it. I guess my main question is, how much does would inactivity influence a chance at a successful RFA? Thank you for your input. Regards, --Church ^Talk 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Church, most want to see some confirmation that you are active again, and a couple hundred edits spread over a month or two would do that. You have about 40 edits in the past 11 months with a couple days activity. In my estimate any application right now would fail for that reason allone. You will need to establish that you are active again. Hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Side note, how could you tell my edit count? It always lags out for me when I try to check.--Church ^Talk 17:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

This can tell you, though it seems quite slow at the moment. Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I used special:contributions to check your recent edits and CentralAuth for the total. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though this doesn't have much to do with adminship, it might also be a good idea to globally unify your account. This can be done by going to Special:MergeAccount. --Biblioworm 19:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I've been meaning to do that but keep forgetting. Thanks for the reminder.--Church ^Talk 19:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Two pages that many will look at, taken from the actual RFA pages are [5] (which is arguably problematic) and [6] which has the ratios (ok) and you can click for other info like monthly stats. The monthly stats is probably enough to put most people off. Having at least 6 months of regular contribs (100+ a month) is minimal in my eyes, 12 months of 200+ is better. None of it is a guarantee, particularly if you can't show a better history with deletion policy. Dennis - 2¢ 19:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in the AfD stats. Having an opinion on whether an article should be kept or deleted is not at all the same thing as determining consensus. Having an opinion is encouraged for participants, whereas admins have to leave their opinions at the door. Besides, a chimp could make a few obvious votes to skew the stats without adding anything useful to the discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Determining consensus isn't the same as demonstrating you know the deletion policy, however. Having AFDs or at least CSD logging gives people a clear sign of how you view deletions, which is core to why we are here, and arguably, one of the most important traits that many people look for in an admin, not just me. It doesn't take tons of AFDs or CSDs, just enough that competency can be determined. How someone reads consensus is difficult to judge before they have the bit. Closing AFDs as NAC doesn't show it. Mediating disputes shows it a bit, but mainly, we have to vote blind on knowing how they read consensus unless they take up closing RFCs or RMs as a non-admin. Dennis - 2¢ 22:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, from what you just said, it sounds like if a hypothetical RfA candidate who was not making deletion decisions a major part of their intended areas of work did not have such logs, you would consider that a compelling reason to oppose. (I can understand opposing a candidate who expresses a desire to close AfDs or process CSDs if they haven't provided information on their track record.) Would you actually go that far for all RfA candidates? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying they need at least a little experience in deletion policy, CSD or AFD or both. Not hundreds, but more than one dozen. Realistically, 100 is pretty solid and easy to look and insure their ideas on deletion policy are within community norms. 300 give me a warm fuzzy feeling if they look good. The ratio by itself isn't that helpful, although it can show some red flags. What matters is the logic in their statement, which is why AFD is more useful to judge by than CSD. I would consider someone with no experience at AFD, but they would have to bring something to the table to offset it, simply because deleting articles is a core responsibility of admin, and the time to learn the basics on deletion policy is before you get the bit, not after. My bar is pretty low, but yes, there is a bar. I ran with 18k edits, 1400 AFDs and over 90% CSD success ratio and many editors opposed because that wasn't good enough. I think that was a ridiculous standard and would never hold anyone to that, but I do think it is reasonable to require "some experience" with deletion policy. And the last three real RFAs, deletion policy experience played a major role in the discussion. That is why I'm giving him the advice now, to better his odds. Dennis - 2¢ 01:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a very helpful answer to my question, and I basically agree with you. I know that in the past, there has been discussion about candidates having logs posted in their user space, and it sounded (to me) like you were requiring that candidates post such logs, as opposed to having developed experience in the way that you describe now, which I think is very reasonable and good advice. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been big on participating in AFD, and I've more specialized in CSD and Image Policy then I have there. I know RFA is a slippery slope when it comes to things like that though. I understand why candidates are subject to that, even if they say they won't participate in that area once they have the button they're fair game. (Also i haven't seen half of these AFD's in years and I can't help but cringe at my childhood mistakes.)--Church ^Talk 19:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If an editor has a job which causes him or her to be away from the Internet, so that there are periods of activity and then inactivity, it seems unfair to judge by recent edits, and more fair to judge by the previous active period. Otherwise, by the time the editor is active long enough to pass RfA, it will be time for another inactive period. An admin who helps out for a few months each year seems perfectly acceptable to me. About old AfD work: If comments made years ago showed lack of familiarity with policies, that's all the more reason to take part again now and show that you've "grown" in your understanding. Past inexperience is a good excuse, as long as it leads to present experience. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll definitely take the advice and start participating more. I should be stationed in the states for a significant amount of time so hopefully there won't be another decline for awhile. --Church ^Talk 20:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Am not sure, but isn't it the first time on Wikipedia that two months would pass without a successful RfA? Wifione ^Message 09:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes. It is yet another depressing milestone in RfA's history. Every time I check this page for nominations, I half expect a ball of tumbleweed to roll across the screen. Kurtis ^(talk) 09:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I've approached a number of highly qualified editors about adminship in the last couple of months, but none wanted the job. The RFA process was mentioned, but wasn't the overwhelming reason. The hassles after you pass RFA have been the primary reason they didn't want to become an admin. Of course, this is anecdotal but it is consistent with the previous editors I've approached about the job. Dennis - 2¢ 13:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
    • It's not being an admin in itself that causes the hassles - it's getting involved in controversial areas afterwards. There are background admin tasks to be done which don't cause drama. If experienced editors became admins, they could start out with these, and as time went on they might occasionally choose to take on one of the more in-your=face actions, and then back off for a while. Or not. But it would be good to have the tools available. (I almost blocked a vandal the other day, but someone beat me to it...) —Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
      • I've found staying away from the controversial areas entirely as a sysop to be rewarding. It affords me time to do substantial content work (which I thoroughly enjoy) while keeping things running smoothly in the background. It's a matter of finding one's niche, I suppose, and I've found that the things I do are much more of a stress-reliever than a stress-generator. There's something therapeutic about undertaking a mundanely repetitive task, or learning about something of interest by writing about it to inform others. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I also devote myself to non-controversial matters these days and avoid the chaos. It's not worth the aggravation or distraction. I have only so much energy to devote to Wikipedia, that energy is less than it was, say, five years ago, and I choose to reserve it for productive things.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you all, although that leaves no one to deal with the controversial areas. I've unwatched most of the drama areas from burn out from trying to help. Keep in mind, most potential admin don't see the admin working quietly, they see the ones that are getting screamed at on their talk page because that stands out more than calm admin/gnoming. Dennis - 2¢ 15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I told the community in my RFA that my being an administrator would be ancillary to my being a content contributor. I don't know if we have too few admins, too many, or just right. But we survive.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't say how many we need either, things generally seem to get done, and the backlogs aren't a matter of available hands, but of willing hands. The people I've been approaching for admin tend to be folks with well over half of their contribs in articles, the kind that would be admins as a secondary part of what they do. Content creators with tools. Dennis - 2¢ 16:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I've considered running, but despite appearing qualified from the various guidelines and any user's individual requirements that I've seen, I just don't have any confidence in passing due to the various comparably nitpicky decline reasons I see. I'd assume that's a factor for other editors also. Sam Walton (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as you understand that not being successful does not mean you've failed, then running will mean that you tried – not that you've clocked a four minute mile to get yourself out of harms way. Either way, my advice to you is to run. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

John, you would be a strong candidate too, I think. Go Phightins! 17:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing confidence in my administrative potential.—John Cline (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever it is worth, I found admin work at WP:RFPP rewarding. It requires some clue and a bit of experience and occasionally people may become unhappy (though I never had anybody stalking me for protections / refusing to protect), but mostly this is where one gets a lot of thanks via the echo, and there is always plenty of work available over there. If anyone feels worn out, consider trying out there.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A few days ago I asked Jackmcbarn (a great candidate, IMO) if he would like to run, and he accepted. The only thing left is for Mr. Stradivarius to write up a nom. So maybe we'll have the first successful RfA we've had in a while. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Despite being a sysop who enjoys the gnomish maintenance work, I still find the most rewarding thing to be—by far—writing content. There are a number of subjects that I would know remarkably little about (if anything at all) had it not been for the fact that I added some missing content related to them as a result of a sparked interest. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I find it very rewarding to take on the controversial issues, I've never once felt stressed handling AE threads or similar. In a lot of cases, the real-world controversies are quite interesting on their own. Sometimes I only pursue it outside of Wikipedia—I've done extensive reading about Armenia-Azerbaijan and Israel-Palestine issues but keep to the administrative side here—but I wouldn't necessarily do that in all cases. And finally, being an admin doesn't make it difficult to contribute to most articles; over the last year and 10 months, my being an administrator has never had a negative impact on my article work. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There has been no new RfA since mine closed - is this cause for concern or is it normal to have such longish breaks of activity here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Much as I'm tempted to tell you that you're the last candidate we'll ever consider... ;) ) During or shortly after the Northern hemisphere's summer break period, it's normal. We've been having similar discussions in other places. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed it is a bit quiet. Perhaps people are nervous given the 6:1 failure rate over the last month. Chillum 07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've broken out my sixth form (high school) statistics, so forgive me if I make a mistake. So far we've had 36 weeks this year with 50 RfAs. That makes 2.78 RfAs per 2 week period on average. Modelling as a Poisson distribution (and so assuming RfAs are random and independent) the probability of any given two week period with no RfAs is approximately 6.5%. So unusual, but by no means out of the ordinary. (Numbers now fixed I think).

Please correct me if I've messed this up. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, that's, as you say, assuming that RfAs are random and independent, which they may or may not be. Most university students in the States have had anywhere from one day (lucky bastards! at least they get out later than the rest of us) to three weeks of school, parents with school-age children presumably will have less time for the same reasons, and so on. It'd be interesting to go back through the years and see if there is a drop-off of activity (not just in RfAs) from late August through maybe October; a rough eyeballing of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month doesn't suggest a pattern in successful RfAs, though. (Also, slightly off-topic, is there a list of all RfAs ever in chronological order, not split up by year/success/whatever?) Ansh666 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

6:1 failure rate is not indicative of anything at all other than some (not all) of the failed candidates should have been clueful enough to read all the advice pages first and then realised that they didn't stand the remotest chance. Nothing for any genuine candidates to get nervous about.

Why always assume that the rate of RfA (or any other editing for that matter) depends on the academic cycle? Especially where the number of annual RfAs is now so low that it's impossible to draw any conclusions. Not all editors are schoolies - plenty of us are right at the other end of our careers, even some adminship candidates. KudpungMobile (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are American students in fact overrepresented among RfA candidates, or the total editor population? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be difficult to analyse given the relative anonymity of editors in general. However, the academic cycle is relevant even if students are not overrepresented because school vacations coincide with the periods that are the most popular times for vacations in general. For example, in the UK pretty much every adult, with or without children, will take one or two weeks of vacation between late June and early September. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: - not just students; parents who may need to tend to children going to school, teachers, etc. The school cycle affects more than just children. Ansh666 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I remembered a similar conversation a while back. It was 2 years ago. An RFA was withdrawn on 21 Aug 12, the next RFA closed as successful on 1 Sep 12, then the next one closed as no consensus on 9 Oct 12. It was 31 days between the close on 1 Sep and the open on 2 Oct 12. What is happening now is not usual, but it is not unheard of. GB fan 11:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, after reading some of the recent ones, prospective candidates have asked themselves why they would want to go through such a broken (not just IMO) process. Note that this is the only comment I've made since. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

From your keyboard to God's inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a college class on Wikipedia where students are graded by the level of responsibility they achieve on the site. Those who become an Administrator will get an "A" for "Administrator". Those who becomes Bureaucrats, of course, will get a "B", Checkusers will get a "C", and you know what happens to those who become Developers, or go to work for the Foundation. bd2412 T 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Ansh666 19:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As a student, I can say that I certainly would not run for RfA at any point during the year, due to the time commitment. Especially now that I'm in college, there's simply no time for me to even edit much, let alone go through an RfA. Since much of WP's editor base is high school and college students, it would be a perfectly plausible explanation for the decrease in RfA candidates. I suspect that once students settle in and get into routines, we'll start seeing more in October. Also, I get an "A", yay! StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what I get...U for user? and what about people who only edit from IPs?! Ansh666 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who only edit from an IP get put down as an "incomplete" until they earn some other grade. bd2412 T 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Regular editors get an "E" for effort. ;) Kurtis ^(talk) 23:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Why a college class? I still think that there are so many who are ready and would run for RfA if only they could know what their chances are were in advance. I tried this, but was out of town during the discussion. I didn't get a chance to speak further on it as I was out of town. Bottom line: Totally optional, so not another hoop to jump through. Simple feedback, short and sweet. Caveat emptor. Maybe it could just have been in this format:

• Easy pass - Your AfD work and clean record will do the trick. ~~~~
• Likely - Sure. ~~~~
• Almost certain - ~~~~
• Outcome probably 100 S / 3 O - I can't see others objecting. ~~~~
• Certain - ~~~~
• Easy pass - ~~~~
• Probably 80/0 - Do it! ~~~~

I wish this proposal could be revised in a way that everyone likes. I now regret the Village pump post. I wish I had boldly created the page in Wikipedia space just to see. What's the harm in this page existing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna, doesn't seem like you got the joke. Read BD's suggestion again, carefully!

Also, yeah, that non-proposal...shot down because an inexperienced user doesn't know what "idea lab" means and took to mass-messaging admins about it, right? Maybe if the proposal was refined and formalized it would be more useful to consider. Or, just making it would work too, though I wonder what people would do... Ansh666 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

An inexperienced user, yes. Considering the opposes, would you think that simply "just making it" would be in terribly bad form? It could go to MfD if it didn't work out. More potential benefits than hazards? What do we have to lose? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that some of the people who were opposing had the wrong idea about it. And, I suspect that even with a reasonably supported proposal it'd go to MfD anyways. That said, "just making it" does not seem like a particularly good idea. A more complete, formal proposal would be better, IMO. Ansh666 07:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't pursue this any further. I still think this sort of informal straw poll idea would result in new admins that otherwise wouldn't be and that the downside would be tiny. If others want to make a proposal out of this, fine. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is valid Anna. I would support anytime. Irondome (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, don't give up. I think it's a great idea, just needs to be formalized so that people actually see what it really is compared to their preconceived notions. Ansh666 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys. :) How could it be a bad idea? A little shallow water before a big plunge. Any guidance on how to get a formal proposal to look good? A model formal proposal somewhere? I guess I could ask some of the Idea Lab supports to help with the draft. Maybe I could start something in a sandbox and others might help knock it into shape. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Say, is there any way to actually find out if there are qualified prospectives who are too unsure to go through RfA? Some sort of poll? I mean, why propose something if there is no demand. Should I post at village pump? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are concerned about a lack of Admins, or editors willing to take the job, then I have a suggestion. Instead of conducting a poll, why don't you nominate someone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a poll, maybe at the pump, along the lines of "Are there any eds who are considering RfA in the next 2 years?" Just yes or no. At least it gives us an idea from a poll if interest is there, and if it is low, that may be an indicator of a long term systemic problem of a maybe complex interaction between RfA and the community. I think the existing admin "issue" is a straw man. It goes deeper than that. If there is an issue with RfA it least getting community feedback is a promising new road to fix issues down the line. I would support. Irondome (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem: Because my nominating someone could result in one new admin while conducting a poll could help to figure out what the problem is and do much, much more.

Irondome: Indeed the very open "yes" or "no" would have great value. But I would still love to know the reasons behind the "no"s. Maybe that reasons is "because as an admin I would feel XXXXX" or it could be "because I'm scared of the RfA process". Maybe "If no, why not?" in the question? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you already have a good model in mind :). My thoughts would be along those lines. The right questions. A poll approach may be a useful tool if they are asked.Irondome (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about the totally open question. See User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox and feel free to tweak it. Do the brackets help diminish the "why not" part? Maybe totally open is best. Should it have a lead sentence like "I am trying to understand why there are so few new RfAs these days"? Maybe that would stop others from asking why I'm asking and then pointing me to some project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 47#Editors considering RfA. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Anna, just so you know, I had an informal straw pole on my talk page the week before I ran for admin [7] and left it up during RFA for full disclosure. I don't remember others doing much of the same, although it may have some merit as that is a better place to have someone say "you need more AFD experience" than at RFA. No one held the prior poll against me at RFA, and I would hope no one would know, 2.5 years later, if another potential candidate did similar. Dennis 2¢ 00:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dennis. Yes, I think you are right about the talk page straw poll being best. After I posted at village pump asking, the responses did not say that reluctance was due to fear of what might happen during the RfA. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Oiyarbepsy has been WP:BOLD and completely changed the RFA page format. Discussion on the format should take place below. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 03:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What I did was reverted to the very first revision of the page. Someone linked to that revision in the Village Pump discussion and I thought, hey, why the hell not? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have nothing against that. I just added this section as it will be controversial decision and I'd say there are a lot of different views on your revert. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

If I had known a nomination was in progress, I probably wouldn't have done that (shoulda hit the reload button first). My idea was to drop everything from RfA, including the canned questions. But, hey, we'll see what happens. I can't believe that I haven't been reverted yet. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: That would be because it is practically midnight in much of the US. (proof) - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice! I hope you continue to not get reverted. You just removed a lot of pointless bureaucracy at once. rspεεr (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reverting via the WP:BRD process - there is already a reform discussion in process at WP:VPP for this page, and changes certainly can be discussed here and implemented. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: You have been reverted by Rspeer - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 04:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I attempted to start the Bold, Revert, Discuss process---apparently others are opposed to that...I'm not going to start an edit war on a project page--though additional discussion is warranted, such as the one already in process at WP:VPP — xaosflux ^Talk 05:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• So Rspeer since you are editing on this now--why do you think we should no longer have a WP:RFB process that you just removed? — xaosflux ^Talk 05:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC) apologies, I was looking at the wrong diffs. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Well, now I'm the one in the hotseat, but I find "WP:BRD" to be a very weak reason to reintroduce years and years of unnecessary rule creep. WP:BRD is justified by the goal of improving Wikipedia. Reverting a good idea with BRD as the sole reason is... not that. Feel free to do something with RFB if that's your only complaint; I didn't touch it intentionally (and yes, I see your strikethrough now). rspεεr (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

(Think we were slightly edit conflicted) I'm all for continuous improvement, my BRD claim is only against the change being a BOLD claim. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have reverted again. To reiterate, from my edit summary: development over time is not necessarily creep; the page years ago does not reflect community consensus better than the page today; and the earlier version will not change attitudes toward RfA. For that matter, the discussion at WP:VPP does not show, at this time, that the current setup lacks consensus. Dekimasuよ! 06:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually it does. The maintain voters are basically saying that they aren't ready to abolish without something new. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that's the case, but this doesn't address my main points. This was not something new; it was something we changed over time from a less than ideal system to a slightly better system, just as so many articles have improved in the intervening years by a similar process. I have, however, made a few changes to the edit notice that makes it less scary than before; not having had cause to edit the page in several years, I was surprised by its tone, although I understand that the intention is to avoid WP:NOTNOW cases when possible. Dekimasuよ! 06:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I got confused trying to follow those links to the Village Pump, so I'll just point out that the discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), not policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here, about possibly unbundling tools other than blocking and deletion. Any input would be appreciated. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

See User:Application Drafter/Sysop applications draft.

I will cross-post this at the Village Pump. Application Drafter (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, their is probably a lot of editors out there who wish to be an admin. They just aren't confident enough to ask another user or self-nom. Another thing is newer editors seem to be to shy to ask a more experienced user if they want adminship. Just another part of broken RFA. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 03:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Are that so? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the idea of lack of confidence is probably right. On the other hand, newer editors shouldn't be asking about being admins anyway. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it. If an editor is "too shy" to ask for an RfA then chances are they don't have the dispute resolution, Q&A, or AfD chops to pass an RfA in it's current condition anyway. GraniteSand (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be cautious with "if an editor is capable of Xing, then they must be fine with doing Z other things"-type statements here. Lots of people - and this is especially true of female editors, I suspect - who know they can do a job are too shy, too cautious, or too socialized-not-to directly ask for the job. It's viewed as often as not as power-hunger or being dissatisfied with what you've already "been given" to step up and ask for more. Is it true that there are some people who, if they can't take the notion of jumping up in front of the whole community on their own initiative, probably aren't ready to be looked at by the whole community? Sure. But it's probably true of as many or more that, if someone guided them up there, or even just told them "hey, I think you should try getting up there", they'd be ready and able. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You're going to chastise me for over generalization while characterizing women as being more "shy", "cautious", and more conditioned against forthrightness than men? Seriously? GraniteSand (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Women being socialized to not ask for career advancement when men take their right to request the same thing as a given is a pretty well known phenomenon. It's part of why the gender pay gap exists in many places. The same for women-asking-for-things being responded to with disapproval compared to men-asking-for-things. As a cultural tendency in much of the west, these things exist, whether it's something we're comfortable with confronting or not. So yes, I'm going advise caution in assuming that all qualified editors are equally comfortable stepping forward and saying "you should give me +admin" on their own initiative, and given what we know about workplace sociology, I'm going to say that the group who is not comfortable with that is likely to be disproportionately, though by no means solely, female. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Except the "pay gap" is a myth. Additionally, we exist in a optionally genderless environment in terms of social presentation. Regardless, and to prevent any further deviation from the basic topic at hand, we don't cater to subjective perceptions of gender here. We establish universal processes and then enforce them with contiguous community consensus and our discourse should remain focused on that reality. GraniteSand (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Not going to speculate on gender issues, but generally I agree with Fluffernutter. I agreed to run a RfA when two users suggested they could nominate me. If this didn't happen, I could consider self-nomination, but I would probably not go to someone I do not know at all and ask to nominate me. On the other hand, we had many users who volunteered to nominate for RfA, this might help if this info is sufficiently visible.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I actively hunt for editors to run for RFA (to honest, women in particular because they are underrepresented in the admin corps) but most say they aren't interested for a variety of reasons. There really isn't a single reason that pops out, although many see having the admin bit as a hassle and they don't want the responsibility. They would rather write articles, and they think the bit would interfere with it, which is a reasonable conclusion. The RFA process isn't the primary reason, although it is sometimes mentioned. I'm not sure how visibility of willing nominators fits into this, it might, but I just haven't seen that as a major factor. Having a couple of known editors willing to nominate does bolster confidence, but most people would be qualified to run know plenty of other editors. As for the gender pay gap "not existing".... Facepalm. Dennis - 2¢ 14:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Instead of trying to recruit article writers, it's better to recruit Wikignomes. The work they do is much more mop-like, and using the admin bit wouldn't majorly change the work they do. Changing an article writer to an admin means they have to give up a bunch of article writing to do gnomish stuff instead, so recruit the gnomes to do gnomish stuff. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I was pretty gnomish, turned mediator, but it is hard to find qualified gnomes, as they tend to stay in the background. Many also avoid deletion policy, dispute resolution, etc. by the nature of what it is they want to do. So they don't get the experience, or they simply don't want the job, as they are gnomes BECAUSE they don't want to be out front. The whole reason we founded the Editor of the Week program was to locate and acknowledge gnomes, but they are elusive creatures by their very nature. Dennis - 2¢ 15:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I note that four of the editors who have received an Eddy subsequently had an RfA, and all of them succeeded. Considering that about 55% of all RfAs fail, a 100% success rate is stunning. Granted, it's a small data set. Still, whatever means you are using to assess editors for an Eddy, it appears to be working.

Found while perusing this data; User:Wetman. This editor has been on the project for over 11 years. He's created over 2,000 articles, has over 90,000 edits and has never been blocked. Ok, more than 90% of his edits are to articles and their talk pages, and very little of his editing is done in project space. I get that. So? Is there some reason this guy isn't an administrator? To me, this guy strikes me as the poster child of what's wrong with RfA. If the system is incapable of finding people like this and at least approaching them with the possibility of adminship, we have a problem. If the system wouldn't pass this guy because he would not be a terrifically active administrator (I'm guessing based on % of edits to project space), we have a problem. If he doesn't want to go through an RfA because it's hellish, we have a problem. If he doesn't want to be an administrator because it's too stressful, we have a problem. There is no reason...none...that this guy should not be an administrator. If there is a problem, it's not with him but with the system. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What if editors who mainly deal with content don't feel the need for the tools, because they don't need them at all for what they do here? That's not a problem with the editor or the system. ansh666 17:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• And if the editor has not even been contacted about possibly being an admin? That's a problem with the system. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
• It goes to show how a seemingly unrelated activity (Editor of the Week) can get us more admin, without any change to the process. This is one of the unexpected benefits of that program. There is a mild vetting process in the EotW system, not everyone nominated gets through, although most do. I've approached other recipients of the award as well, some say no, some are mulling it over. One of them, Anna Frodesiak, is someone I had worked with before, mediating some disputes, so I was proud to nominate her for admin. I still think she is an amazing Wikipedian, admin or not. The staff working EotW and the people who help find candidates have a lot to be proud of, as the admins that came from the EotW have very high quality candidates indeed. And there is no fixed, hard rule for Eddys, just common sense. Anyone can nominate. To me, that shows the community has a pretty good idea on what they approve of, and what they want in an admin, without a rule book. Dennis - 2¢ 18:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, a look through his talk archives shows many times that he was asked about applying for adminship, going even all the way back to 05. He's declined each time. It's possible he could be ok with it now, but to say no one's tried it dishonest, and I imagine this is the case with 99% of non-admins that would come to mind. Wizardman 21:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you so much Wizardman for accusing me of lying. There is a difference between inaccurate and dishonest that you apparently need to learn. I looked. I found no record of an RfA for him (red link). I even looked for things linked to what would be his RfA page and found nothing [8]. I also looked for his talk page archives, and did not find them (I see them now). Not seeing his archives, I looked at the talk page history and saw frequent deletions of sections by him (9 of his last 20 edits to his talk page are large deletions [9]) so I (inaccurately) assumed he managed his talk page that way. I expect a retraction from your false accusation of my dishonesty. And you're an administrator, and even a bureaucrat? Good lord! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• I was courteously alerted to this thread concerning me, and I intrude just to say that deletions on my Talkpage concern Bot-alerts of my frequent unclosed parentheses and links to dab pages. Tiresome but welcome. Once fixed, the posts are deleted, to keep User talk:Wetman manageable. Exchanges like the previous one I find an unproductive use of my editing time, so I avoid Adminship. Thank you for thinking of me in such flattering terms.--Wetman (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak and I have been bouncing a few ideas around intermittently for the past couple of months or more on improving RfA takeup rates. I have begun to think that RfA as it currently stands is probably the best that can be hoped for at this time, it is the issue of the admin role itself that is a major inhibitor. The perception is a role which can be fraught with stress, politics and sheer bad vibes, the last being the killer on WP. Obviously this may explain the gender related takeup issue. Working on perception may be the way ahead. Anna may disagree. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole "dismantle RfA" thing is cart before the horse, if you ask me. We need to get to the bottom of why it is broken. Otherwise, we could form a new, broken system.

Nobody can agree on why it is broken. Figuring that out is first. Has anybody posted at village pump with "Becoming an administrator: Please, in a sentence, give the reason why you do or do not want to be an administrator." Everybody is guessing, but nobody is doing a study.

More guessing from me: Many say that it is not fear of the process. Rather, it is the messes and bad vibes the job brings.

We expect admins to be unafraid of messes and bad vibes, right? Well, who isn't afraid of that now? Aren't there non-admins who are active at AN/I? Maybe they comprise all the expected candidates, but they know they would never pass RfA as they have a history of being involved at AN/I and have foes. Most admins accumulate foes once given the tools, right? Maybe that is it. Maybe buttons and getting into messes do not mix.

Why are admins expected to handle messes anyhow? Couldn't they stick to RFPP, AIV, CSD, MfD, UAA, etc. Why do they have to be the ones that go in as arbitrators? Why not small teams of uninvolved regular editors? They zoom in, get to the bottom of it, then recommend to an admin that their findings require a block or something? I know we have DR, but maybe this could be something where they arrive on the scene and work like a small team of judges -- maybe three of them -- then call on admins to use the tools.

Wouldn't this be a way of splitting up the power without splitting up the tools. Is this a stupid idea? Maybe something similar to this? I'm just brainstorming (or braindrizzling).

(Sorry for the long post.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Technically, non-admin can now do most things at ANI. They can vote in a topic ban and list it. Generally, there are plenty of admin to do so, however. The problem is judgement. Most of the non-admin have good intentions but lack the experience to mop up a lot of problems. Some can make things worse with sarcasm. A few are really good and digging out the truth, thankfully. As for being a regular at ANI and passing RFA, I was a regular at ANI and it got me 31 oppose votes, so there is some truth in that. Most of our finest non-admin are currently busy writing articles instead of patrolling admin areas. Arguably, that is a good thing. As for why admin are expected to handle messes, well, that is why we are vetting for judgement, the community expects we will handle most "messages" with our magic mops. That is one reason many don't want to become admin. As you now know, it is more work than most people realize. And very little "glory". Dennis - 2¢ 01:25, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the argument that the admin work is the thing that drives people away from running for RfA. Extremely "picky" people (who IMO just either have an ax to grind, or are impossible to please) try to tear apart and feast on people who are wonderful candidates with nonsense rationales. At File:Lionshuntingzebramasaimara.JPG you can see it in action, a couple of lionesses (aka "picky" or impossible users) are getting ready to feast on a zebra (an innocent editor with 10,000 edits, and record of fighting vandalism, vandalism-fighting, and article creation, who became a victim because he didn't have any GAs, etc.) Need an actual RfA? Here. That's a WP version of the zebra being killed (Just to make sure, I'm not saying that everyone that opposed the RfA is out of their mind). Cyphoid hasn't ran again, though I told him after the RfA that he should in a few months, (on the other hand if people aren't going to make sensible oppose rationales then I guess he shouldn't run). Now I know nobody will pay much attention to this, and if they do, it won't be good attention, but I just wanted to throw my opinion out there. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what to tell you, Over the last 2.5 years, I've nominated 10 people, 6 are now admin, and approached at least 40 more about becoming an admin. Overwhelmingly, the reason they said no was the hassles after the job. These weren't random people casually talking about it, these were highly experienced editors that I was willing to nominate on the spot and they knew it. These were arguably the exact people we want running, so I tend to take their observations pretty serious. Dennis - 2¢ 02:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that there are quite a few desirable/suitable candidates who won't run simply because they aren't interested in the work involved in being an admin, however, I still think that there are those who are desirable/suitable candidates, but don't run because they don't want to run because of illogical criticisms. Looking at AmaryllisGardener's comment gives me an idea. For example, if lack of FAs is an illogical/invalid criticism, we could get it out of the way by having an RFC which decides whether it is an invalid criticism or not. If it is found to be an invalid criticism, it can be discounted from future discussions. If we can identify and discount four/five common illogical criticisms in this manner, that should give prospective candidates more confidence and also demonstrate our desire to make things easier.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to be negative, but if we are honest, someone that can't take harsh criticism for one week is probably not going to able to handle being an admin. Or at the very least, is not going to handle it well. Most editors are pretty nice to admin, but because of the duties we must do, we get called names, dragged to ANI or ARB over groundless things, and heaven forbid when we make a mistake (and we are human, we do make mistakes), you have a dozen admin-haters come out and attack you, demanding you retire. I agree that RFA needs tweaking, and I had a very drama filled RFA myself [10] with 31 opposers and blocks, and stuff much worse than the vast majority of RFAs. And I had a well known nom and an Arb as conom, which is a pretty solid team, plus a lot of rock solid experience (5 years, 18k edits). So I do speak from experience here. I did a lot of mediation and ANI work, which made me "controversial". If I couldn't have handled that, then I would have no business being an admin. For the record, I get along exceptionally well with most of my opposers, even did two GAs, an FA and a TFA with one of them afterwards, and pushed for the unblock of one of them after the RFA. RFA needs work, but it isn't as broken as some claim. Most that are making the claim have never been through it. Dennis - 2¢ 15:50, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree, while I agree that admins should be worldly wise and have an ability to handle argumentative users, I do not think that we should have candidates demonstrate that ability by going through a week long heckling/acid bath "rite of passage" type process. Their diplomatic skills and other related dispute resolution skills should be demonstrated on talk pages etc. while resolving disagreements over article content etc. Looking into your RFA, it appears that the oppose votes all boiled down to CSD issues, i.e. only one issue, and you could probable agree that these concerns were not groundless at the time. Although 31 opposes on that score does seem too much, I don't think your RFA suffered too much due to invalid/illogical/harsh criticisms. Except for KieferW, most of those opposing seemed to have a positive view and were almost supporting your RFA. My above suggestion does not apply to your RFA in the sense that I do not want good-faith/valid criticisms to be stopped. I think it is desirable that weaknesses in certain areas be pointed out if they are relevant. So, my suggestion does not really apply to the example of your RFA. What I had suggested is that we should make an effort to do away with invalid criticisms so that reasonable candidates do not have to go through unnecessary hardships and so that everyone can devote more focus on relevant issues/criticisms/weaknesses/strengths of the candidate in question. Best.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree also. We shouldn't tear down users at RfA just to test them. Do you agree with users attacking admins? If not, we should lead users with an example of how one should be treated. I always try to leave nice messages (and in some cases, barnstars) to admins who do hard work (and those who get attacked for doing their job), let's all try to encourage the janitors, don't make them feel unappreciated, as they often feel. :) --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Regarding your statement "If the system is incapable of finding people like this and at least approaching them with the possibility of adminship, we have a problem.": any system for identifying potential candidates is separate from the process of approving applicants for administrative privileges. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators didn't progress very far, but perhaps any interested parties can revive it to address the problem you have highlighted. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)