Wikipedia talk:Really simple guide to requests for adminship

The big three

So, what are the big three or four things? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to codify my standards for !voting and nominating at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_criteria. I'd say there were more than three or four big things at any one time. Some concerns at RFA are cyclical, others are consistent. Some people fail criteria that are important to me as a !voter, others are people I'd probably support, but wouldn't nominate because I don't think they'd pass. Quick fails on one or other criteria are "no need for the tools", "no content contributions", "not here long enough" and "recently blocked". Longer and more drawn out fails can include "overly extreme on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum", "recent incivility", "poor answers to questions" and "a dodgy history on alt accounts". Some of these things you can easily identify before someone runs - I don't nominate all the people who ask me for a nomination. I don't agree with all of those reasons for RFA's failing, many people who I think would make good admins failed or would probably fail RFA; Several people passed RFA who I opposed, including at least one who has since been desysopped. A completely different discussion would be what I would like to see as admin criteria if we were able to start from scratch, but I'm assuming we have to work with the current system and community. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my recollection, here are some things that make an RfA run smoothly:

Have a proven track record of excellent work in a given area, and a specific goal of expanding your work in this area in a way that requires administrative privileges.
Interact with many people and establish a pattern of collaborating well and demonstrating sound judgment. (Generally voters will look at articles for deletion contributions as an indicator of judgment since statistics can be easily generated for them. Personally I believe demonstrating judgment in mediating disputes and weighing Wikipedia principles in other venues should also be sufficient, but I'm not sure a precedent for this has been established in the RfAs over the last few years.)
Have a history of regular editing for a sustained period of time. People like candidates who have shown themselves willing to invest effort into improving Wikipedia.
Make substantial contributions to articles. (Again voters like indicators that can be easily counted, like having contributed to articles at Good Article or Featured Article status, but having a large number of smaller contributions is also good.)

In the spirit of a "secret sauce" formula, having these characteristics isn't the only route to successfully attain administrative privileges, but it's one with a high probability of success. isaacl (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot. Can't we boil all the above down to a handful of yellow lines? That's the whole point of this. Besides, the sections can have links to stuff. Here are the nuts and bolts when I'm voting:

Not new
Nice
Good deletion judgement (the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc.)
Some content creation?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An individual voter might well boil things down to a three or four things they really care about, I suspect most do just that. The problem is that we have no consensus as to which three or four should matter. So among the voting community there are several more things that matter, some are ones where it is entirely possible to have over 50% support, but enough opposes to derail an RFA. As a moderately active nominator I try to keep tabs on the main ones as I don't want to nominate candidates who will fail, and when I nominate someone who can expect 10% to 25% opposes I want to have been able to warn them of that. I think this comes back to your purpose here. Do you want to update the RFA guide to give potential candidates an idea as to the defacto requirements for adminship, reform RFA by defining an agreed criteria for adminship and then empower crats to appoint candidates who meet the criteria, much as admins appoint rollbackers or reviewers, or just compare personal RFA criteria to see if some of us can synchronize? Ϣere SpielChequers 22:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers, you are absolutely right. I shudder at the term "defacto requirements" -- "common outcomes'" unavoidable cousin. Definitely not that, nor comparing personal RFA criteria. Very good points. Maybe this page should be abandoned.

The content was to be a shortlist of requirements based on common outcomes, but now I see the defacto requirement relationship. Hmmmm. Are there common outcomes? Widr's AfD participation is pretty minimal and he passed (199/17/8). Could the community approve of this page if it was peppered with disclaimers, including in the lead? Could the sections fill in for what is missing in the yellow lead? (And like WP:42, it would always be in the Category:Wikipedia essays about verification.)

The purpose, you ask. Well, it is not intended for viable candidates. It is to prevent unqualified hopefuls from wasting community time. I'm talking about those who see pages like Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, don't read it because it is too long, and run anyway. But maybe this would be closing the barn door... They usually sneak up on us and just run. A post to prevent a second run? Maybe this page would be useless. I just keep thinking we need some way to give three or four big, yellow lines to head them off at the pass. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having refreshed my memory of the contents of the miniguide, I suggest tweaking that page to help achieve your objectives. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see the advantage of making each point one to three words, and making people go somewhere else to understand what is meant. Also I'm confused when you say "the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc."; it sounds like you are in favour of including some additional information.

I do agree that having a short slogan can be helpful; I didn't bother to express my points that way as I figured it was more important to agree upon the more complete point first. I would summarize my points as follows:

Have a specific need.
Collaborate lots and show good judgment.
Show commitment.
Contribute to articles.

Consider each bullet point to be followed by text similar to what I wrote in the earlier bullet list. Note the parentheticals were for further discussion on this page; they would be replaced with whatever specific guidance was agreed upon as appropriate. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi isaacl. To explain "the section could then talk about AfD and speedy tagging etc.", I mean just like WP:42. The points are expanded upon in sections below.

Your points are good, but missing something huge. Admin work is a lot about deleting pages. Good judgement in that area is important. That is why AfD participation is often mentioned at RfAs. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if the prospective candidate plans to delete pages, participation in AfD is important. To me this is part of "Have a specific need": you should show demonstrated competence in an area and how your work could really benefit from administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked the logs, but I think all admins end up deleting pages. What area could a new admin work in that does not involve or lead to that? Maybe WP:RFPP. What else? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reflection, I have to agree with you: non-admins can do many of the maintenance tasks that don't require the ability to delete pages. So I would include AfD work under the "show good judgment" guideline. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. AfD, speedy tagging, PRODding, etc. Anything that shows good judgement about what pages should and shoudn't exist. And you want that because admins delete things before anyone else can see what happened. You want to know they are making good calls. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been over a million blocks handed out since Dec 2004, there are other admin duties such as setting rights for rollbacker and pending changes reviewer where a specialism in deletion is not needed. So there is a role for admins who never go near deletion but are interested in tools such as block or indeed protect. Most RFA candidates have a record in deletion tagging or discussion, and most admin actions are deletions, there are a handful of RFA !voters who think it appropriate to ask deletion questions even of candidates who don't intend to get involved in deletion. I regard that attitude as unhelpful to the RFA process, and I'd like to see us stop asking questions like: "Here is a question on policy re x. Sorry no diffs, you haven't expressed an interest in this aspect of adminship or done anything in the area, so I couldn't get a relevant dif from your edits." I actually care a lot about deletion and many of my opposes have been over people making mistakes in that area. But if a candidate hasn't been involved in deletion and says their interests are elsewhere then I take them at their word and assess them on criteria that don't involve deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that someone who has established credentials as a remover of vandalism and wants to receive administrative privileges to further their work would want to do both page protection and delete vandalism pages. Regarding blocking, personally I would not want someone to only choose blocking as their preferred administrative task, but of course others may feel differently. However, I did list as the first key characteristic that candidates should have a specific need for additional privileges that will help them do more in the roles at which they already excel. Accordingly, any appropriate indicators of sound judgment ought to be suitable. The problem is, of course, many indicators require time-consuming investigation of the candidate's edits, and a degree of subjective evaluation. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, WereSpielChequers. However, regardless of what a candidate says at their RfA, they tend to end up deleting pages. In fact, all of the 2015 successful candidates routinely do so. ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]) This isn't about specializing in page deletion. It is what admins consistently end up doing. Personally, considering page deletes are unilateral and almost never reviewed by non-admins, I want to know their judgement is good in advance. And I think the community at large feels the same way. Bad speedy tagging and poor AfD participation drawing opposes is evidence for that. Furthermore, in reviewing the last 21 RfAs, I see nobody who stated they would restrict themselves to setting rights for rollbacker and pending changes. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzy name

Not 43, obviously. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:101 is available. (As in "Becoming an admin 101"). –xeno^talk 12:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, not bad. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wp:101 should probably redirect to the help pages, another contender would be for a Wikiproject for the TV series. For someone outside the RFA bubble 101 is not intuitive as something RFA related. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. It's been unceremoniously scooped without conceptual attribution anyhow. (and I think you're thinking of "The 100" as a TV series) –xeno^talk 15:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Definitely 101 Ϣere SpielChequers 16:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"RfA secret sauce"? isaacl (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Secret sauce is a bit weird. I do like 101 best so far. I suggest it should be plan A unless a better name bumps it. Then again, ϢereSpielChequers does make a good point. Hmmmm. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it refers to having a special recipe to follow for success (e.g. a special barbecue sauce recipe, tomato sauce recipe, dipping sauce recipe, etc.). It's a relatively common metaphor in some cultures. I think "101" is too generic by itself. "RFA101" might be better, but to me it sounds more like an introduction to RFA, which we already have. And we also have a miniguide, which perhaps is already close enough in spirit to what you are proposing for this page? isaacl (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]