Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 245

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 240

←

Archive 243

→

Planning for a post-admin era

I wanted to bring up the topic of planning for the post administrator era. This was raised in a thread at WT:ORCP, and I think the discussion merits its own thread here.

I note that based on this, 2016 will go down as a new record for the greatest drop in total admins in any year since we began with just one caveat; July, 2011 when desysopping inactive admins came into effect. We've also seen the lowest number of restorations of admin rights in 10 years, and the lowest number of new administrators in the history of the project. See also User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month.

Ok, the sky isn't falling, and we've had these discussions before. I know. Nevertheless, the decline in active admins, overall admins, nominations to RfAs, successful RfAs, and re-sysoppings shows no sign of slowing down. In fact, all factors are arguably getting worse. We may see some dead cat bounces, but given declines showing consistency over these last many years, it seems unlikely to change. Given that our community has been incapable of replacing RfA, the status quo for how admins are made will remain, along with standards continually rising. Nothing significant will change.

For now, things are fine. We are operating just fine with fewer and fewer admins. Reviewing User:EsquivalienceBot/Backlog and especially its talk page (where prior months to July of this year are archived) shows the backlogs in those five areas have remained within tolerable levels. Eventually, there won't be enough administrators though.

The biggest backlog on that list is CSD. Looking at the last 25k deletions spanning nearly 2 weeks, just 25 administrators were responsible for 67% of deletions. 10 of those were responsible for half of all deletions. Theoretically, the project could probably be run with fewer than 100 active administrators. We are not down to that level yet. Eventually, we will be. This day is coming sooner than you might think. Losing highly active administrators isn't all that uncommon. Just one this year that we lost...Zscout370....averaged more than a thousand deletions a year. He was easily one of our top 100 most active admins. No more.

We need to begin considering how to respond to the coming situation; what to do when we do not have enough administrators. How do we respond to that? What processes do we come up with to fill the gap? What bots could we create that would assist us? Etc.

I know it will, but I'd rather not see this thread spin out of control on every possible subtopic related to RfA and administrators. Please, let's keep this focused on how do we respond to a post admin future.

The floor's open. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This is an economics problem. En-wp has probably the best admins in the project and we have to have the best because we're the flagship encyclopedia with the most mature policies and procedures. In the workplace, when the skill level of the job goes up compensation has to rise, too. This is one reason offshoring happens, because skilled and efficient workers become too expensive. WMF in its infinite wisdom is still paying $0 for the professionalism we expect here. Those editors not labor conscious now want to find less skilled workers or replace them with automation. I, for one, am happy to let the backlogs grow out of control. Letting a fire destroy the factory is the only way the municipality will accept we need more than a volunteer fire brigade. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. I know I have absolutely no desire to do thankless bureaucratic drudgery for free. People continually say nothing about adminship needs to be changed because there's no crisis. So, let the backlogs grow until there's a crisis, and people will agree on something to deal with it. That's human psychology. It'll probably be poorly thought-out and hastily thrown together, but hey, at least it'll be something. Until then, don't bother worrying about running out of admins. Write and improve articles instead. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The question is a good one, and it's difficult to come up with a good answer. I suppose one possibility is that eventually the backlogs will grow until they start to look objectionable to large numbers of the kinds of editors who tend to participate a lot in RfAs. If that happens, then I would expect that more and more RfA commenters will decide that we need more administrators and therefore will be more inclined to support. It seems to me that the reason the community has resisted making adminship easier to get is that much of the community does not perceive a problem. And as long as that's the case, new proposals about processes will continue to fail. Once a majority of the community decides, instead, that there's an unmet need, and that the need is affecting them, then all of a sudden the attitudes will change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I know it's a bit personal, but things like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yash! do not help the situation, with editors pulling up things said four and a half years ago that are irrelevant to his current skills, that caused us not to only lose a potential admin, but also an editor. Lourdes has apologised, everybody else, start putting forward admin candidates please, before we run out. I deal with CSD mostly, with a side order of RFPP and AIV, but some things like file copyrights and SPI make my head hurt. Because these backlogs don't generally affect people, and even could have a positive short-term effect (eg: an article about a WP:GARAGE band survives because there are not enough hands at NPP and CSD), the problem is just likely to continue - so, in the words of The Sun, will the last admin to leave Wikipedia please turn out the lights. As for how we can counteract that - I don't think there is a way short of dropping the RfA criteria and blocking a few serial oppose voters, which would cause a huge fracas and not necessarily get us the right admins anyway. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This thread is not concerned with further RfA reform (again, and again, and again.....) Leaky Caldron 21:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it isn't. Every attempt at RfA reform has failed to change the declines noted, even if such reforms were intended to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I would personally like to see more appreciation of admin work. I am not yet at the point of burnout, and, in fact, still far from it, but having socks appearing from nowhere and making disruptive edits and subsequently laughing at me is very difficult to deal with, and getting regular lecturing on what I should do as an admin does not help either. I am not even hoping to see anybody named "Wikimedian of the year" or smth like this for their admin work.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a "Excellent admin of the week" or something similar, much like the "editor of the day" award, but it would be a post about their efforts and their work. I don't know how much it will actually help to retain admins, but it could. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think any appreciation would counter the negative effects coming from users unhappy with admin decisions, at least not for active admins, but every appeciation sign would help a little bit. Btw thanks (e.g. for page protections) help as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks are nice. I don't want any myself, but if you're a fan of a particular admin, you could nominate them for meta:Merchandise giveaways. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 22:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hammersoft: Ok, I have two serious proposals. One, more unbundling. RfA is tight because of the immense power. If we could parse out pieces of mop to qualified editors who would only work CSD, or would only work AIV the community might accept this. It could allow non-content creators to pitch in on admin backlogs without having to please the folks that actually write. Two, start recruiting English-fluent admins from other wikis. These people may already work as stewards and with the prevalence of English as lingua franca I suspect there are Indian and Filipino editors who would be willing to serve time as admins on their home wiki before getting called up to the big leagues. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Unbundling can and has helped, but there are limits. It can help stave off the day when we are woefully short of admins, but it doesn't change the matrix. The idea of recruiting fluent English speakers from other languages wikis is interesting, but I feel it may harm those wikis. Thanks for the ideas! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Supposing that it does reach this stage (I'm not yet convinced; at current trends it's too far in the future too predict due to other factors affecting the movement), I suspect that the community will notice the terrible backlogs and take action of some sort. General backlogs don't seem to bother people, but when WP starts going under from spam (you may think it already is), RFA may naturally bounce back. If not, we will need to unbundle rights currently too controversial to touch. For example, we would need a "deleter” group, so they can delete spam straight away instead of sending it to the CSD pile-up. This group already exists on some wikis. Blocking IP addresses and new accounts would also be necessary. The tricky question is how this would be overseen. Once the admin core becomes to weak to perform all the sysop jobs, I suspect they would become the overseers, for example using their viewdeleted right to monitor the deleters. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 22:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I could see the first working well, the tiers I think would work, are:

Tier 1: Full admin, can block peolpe and give rights, has every right that a current admin does.

Tier 2: Can delete and restore pages

Tier 3: can edit full protected pages

Most of the other rights could be split off into separatete rights. For admin only viewable pages, there could be "Extended viewer" for people trusted to be able to see such pages, the ability to move to and from sysop move protected pages could be grouped with the "up to 100 subpages" to become "Super extended mover" or something to that effect. What do you think? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed for ages, and the consensus has always been (rightfully, in my opinion) that this is likely to raise the bar for Tier 1, not lower the bar for Tier 2. (The Tier 3 you described is so niche that it functions like a new protection level, and I don't think anyone would support that.) Further, it would require Tier 2 admins to run the gauntlet of Tier 1 RfAs after already doing so once, since the WMF will not allow us to give editors the ability to see deleted revisions without a community process. From experience, I can think of no editors who would be willing to do that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As has been said above, this would primarily be backlog driven - other projects have specialty groups (e.g. technician, engineer, elimnator, etc) that can do a subset of admin work. So where is the unmet backlog? As far as WMF stuff goes - yes you need an "rfa like process" for viewing deleted content - but you don't for deleting things (yes this would mean that an admin would have to undo errors - but if the error rate was low it would fight backlogs). As far as vandalism fighting, compared to building a new software process - building a "rule" process is cheap (e.g. make a group that can block - but make a rule they can only block anons, or only block for up to 31 hours --- if they violate the rules - they lost trust and get access removed). — xaosflux ^Talk 22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, my proposal was that "deleters" would not be able to undelete or view deleted content. The right would be a kind of über-rollbacker rather than partial admin. Potentially they could be given a new "small delete" right, allowing them to delete only new pages with few revisions. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 22:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That requires building something new to the software - though if there was community support that could be rolled out quickly using "administrative controls" (rules). At least one other project (ruwiki) has a "closer" group that can delete but not undelete. But is there a backlog demanding this? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Bigdelete already exists, so it shouldn't be too hard. In any case, I was responding to Hammersoft's hypothetical. CAT:G11 is usually kept under control. 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 23:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The good news is that once people become admins they usually stick around for a very long time. I'm just beginning an update on some retention stats. Of the 18 admins we appointed in the second half of 2012 15 have edited in the last month, many in the last day or two. So our decline may be long and gentle, but we have no idea how close we are to not having enough admins; and we are heavily dependent on a few hyper active admins. I'm not convinced that the increased arbitrary standards are a rationale response to the process, in fact I think it deeply flawed that if 40% of editors want to add "Username must contain exactly two vowels" to the de facto criteria for adminship that extra hurdle is then part of the criteria however silly 60% of us think that extra test is. But back to the issue of fewer admins. We have almost reached the limit of unbundling. Much as I would like to see "block IP and not yet extended confirmed" rolled out to vandalfighters, I'm aware that the community is too evenly divided into those worried about slipshod deletionism and those worried about admins blocking the regulars for another major unbundling to go ahead. We do have the option of an admin bot or better a mediawiki tweak that would do some U1 and G7s for us, by allowing anyone to delete their own work under certain tight criteria (no moving articles into your own userspace and then deleting them), I think we worked out this would be the equivalent of an extra admin a year. I believe some IT investments in smart blocking would give us a huge advantage against certain types of vandal, but that would take a willingness on the WMF part to invest in admin tools. We have over a thousand former administrators out there, only a small minority are dead. We could do more to welcome them back or at least maintain a link, emailing a New Year message every year with a "Hope you are well and happy, if you ever have the time to come back we now have a little refresher before former admins can resume the tools" might increase the number of returnees. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I do think it's important to realize that this isn't a Markov chain. The probability of burnout increases greatly with time spent on-site. An editor who's been here a year is far less likely to decide to retire than an editor who's been here ten years, all else equal. Part of that is changing life circumstances, part of it is the disillusionment that occurs over long periods of time, and part of it is just straight-up boredom with the same stuff over and over. The "hump" of administrators from the "good old days" isn't going to peter out slowly, in my opinion. Almost all of administrators will rapidly leave or go at least semi-inactive over the next five years. This has already started happening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  - While there's no doubt people get busy/bored/burned out over time, I'm not sure it's true that the old-school admins are going to turn into pumpkins anytime soon ;) The distribution of registration dates for active admins is here - 75% of the currently active crop had registered by the end of 2006. To my mind this speaks to the opposite problem - most currently active admins have not the slightest goddamn clue what it's like to be a newer editor these days. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
    - Agreed. We only have ten admins who created their accounts in 2012 to 2015. There must be loads of qualified candidates from that era. In fact we might even be able to get someone from the start of 2016 through. A few months ago an admin passed with only 9 months activity and about 20% opposes. So maybe we have passed peak tenure requirements - I've been warning people not to run until they have a year of activity. Perhaps I've been over cautious. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Should I close this now as consensus that a problem exists but no consensus on any solution, or do you want me to wait a couple weeks first? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

There is a backlog of editors who are prepared to answer your question. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Aren't we just falling back into RfA reform, and getting away from the proposal of "Post-Admin" era... So here is a BOLD take at that... what would it look like to have NO admins -- gasp! What might that look like to totally do away with RfA, and the entire process? Here is a stab at it... One thing we've seen is that we have the fantastic ability to quickly undo bad stuff -- both abuse or good-intentioned actions. We can completely wipe away the really bad stuff like it never existed. There is an existing process for consensus building and decided that is used in places like AfD, RM, COIN and others, and on the whole, it works really-really well, without someone utilizing their 'admin' tools or title. When we look at it, generally it comes down to two things: (1) experience; and (2) proper understanding and application of policy & precedents. Those are things which can be handled by most people. And there are a lot of people closing such discussions as NAC. We don't have too many instances, that I see, where a "bad" NAC was much more egregious than an ADMIN closure. (To be clear, I mean those who clearly understand closures and not just those who are acting without knowing what they're doing). What would it look like to not only unbundle the tools but further make their appointments either automatic (such as the ability to edit protected pages after 5k mainspace edits or ability to page protect after 500 RPP) to simple appointments for things like page deletion (similar to how we appoint bits for things like ACC, Template Editor, etc). Even to go BOLDER what if page deletion was available with say 500 CSD tags -- clearly if you've tagged that many pages you know what CSD is all about -- and if you really made that many bad judgements about nominations you'd already otherwise be run out of town, or community sanctioned from CSD'ing -- so it's not that we're really going to see many people with a big history of nominating pages really making bad calls on what pages to delete. It's not to say that we don't need to trust these people with these tools, but what if we assumed more good faith in the community and the process of consensus, and remember that we can undelete pages, etc. So this is more than just an unbundle and make things easier, but rather a proposal that we remember that 95% of the non-content creation work is already being handled by a set of highly trustworthy, consensus-minded individuals, the majority of whom, are not admins, but are acting in an authoritative role. And generally, the execution of those actions (actually pressing the delete, protect, etc., key) is really the results of consensus or other non-admin work taking place ahead of time. It's not to say that those with the mop are 'just' button pushers, but I'm sure many of you would agree that there are certain non-admin editors who nominate pages for CSD, that when you see their nom, you already know it's quality work -- sure you do your due diligence because you are the one pushing the button, but at the end of the day, you have confidence in their quality... How many frequent and experienced CSD nominators would you be happy to hand over the single bit to delete pages themselves? Or likewise AIV folks the page-protect bit.... Sure we open up more room for abuse, but I'd propose two things -- (1) it is a really small minority of these users (either automatically tools, or simply tooled) who would abuse it; and (2) with more people with tools, abuse can be faster curbed. Now there will still need to be some form of oversight, and that role might change very slightly because there might be cases where we need a really heavy-handed page protection (protecting against otherwise trustworthy and high edit count editors), but those will probably be the very small minority. There are some things still like viewing deleted data and others which the foundation has voiced strongly on about the community consensus on providing these rights, but does that intrinsically mean the typically very harsh RFA process many people endure? Instead those can still be more like the CheckUser appointments versus all full RFA. In summary: truely open source the RfA tools and let the community self-regulate those with tools, which come from experience. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've said on previous occasions when this comes up, if you want more RfAs, make all admins subject to recall or set term limits. The idea of admins being super-users, appointed for life, not removable except in extreme circumstances, leads to fear and hesitancy at RfAs. Coretheapple (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

And making all admins subject to recall is a good way to lose admins in contentious areas of the encyclopædia, where there are no alliances other than alliances of convenience and anyone against you is a nationalist who needs removed yesterday. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this is already the case. There are only a handful or two of admins willing to touch the various morasses. And while you can't be deadminned at AE, admins can be blocked, topic banned, etc. like anyone else. Every so often someone takes an admin to AE for doing something they perceive as supporting the "other side". I doubt admin recall would add much to the existing unwillingness of many admins to touch controversial areas. (You might argue that admins tend to get more of a "benefit of the doubt" at AE, and I would probably agree with you, but this is of course not a formal power or privilege included in the admin package.) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are several Wikipedias that have now introduced various forms of admin recall and or fixed terms. As one would expect various systems to get rid of more admins do have success at getting rid of admins, but don't compensate by producing new admins. I've never understood why anyone would think that getting rid of the current cadre of admins would bring more new admins forward. I think it is time to conclude that such proposals are flawed not just in theory but in practice as well. Time to divert such proposals to WP:PEREN. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

RfA reform was a stupid idea to begin with, it was obvious from the start that the "very" good ideas will never be accepted and the "OK" ideas were just not good enough. It's a shame regarding Yash!, bullied off the wiki, not the first time mind you. Something I brought up on the discussion for Godsy's RfA was that we need to work on culling the admins and keep only the active ones instead of trying to continuously fix RfA which will never happen. We like to get new admins but we ignore the somewhat inactive older ones who only edit from time to time to protect their rights even though its possible for them to get it back via a request on WP:BN. It took us a long time to get a 'de-sysop' policy in place in regards to inactivity, a very long time and admin recall is also a failed idea. Most admins spend way to much time bullying newbies and creating vandals then actually contributing to the project and its because of that, that we have lost so many contributors or would-be contributors. Why not try to get more "contributors" to the projects by being more lenient towards new editors instead of the bully approach which sadly is the main reason for socking. An Admin Armageddon may not happen and the wiki may be around for another decade (or even longer depending on wars and technological advancements) but do we actually forsee the project growing just as fast? Just over 300k articles were created since we crossed 5 million articles on November 2015, that IMO is poor, we should be growing faster, maybe atleast half a million per year and then gradually going upwards. It took us 3 years and 5 months to get 1 million articles (From 4 to 5 million), we should have had atleast 5.5m articles before the end of the year but we won't because we are focusing too much on the nonsensical bureaucratic site of the project instead of the actual project side. Can someone compile a list of editors that have written say 250+ articles since 2001 and find out how many of those are still around? Isn't that what we should be focusing on instead of the other side of the project which deals with mainly bullying and removal of content. Once we start getting more contributors/creators, the RfA issue will automatically fix itself. When we start selecting admins based on their "Actual" work on the project instead of those who only focus on vandal fighting, maybe then we may actually start getting the right kind of admins who technically stay longer on the project than those that became admins through their vandal fighting work who generally get bored after a short while and sort of "drop out" (not necessarily leave but become less active than before they became admin)...I personally won't be around on the project for long since its not really going anywhere, the changes being made are usually unnecessary (VE and MW for example), too much dramah on admin related boards and the sub-projects are not evolving either. I think wikipedia probably was at pinnacle somewhere between 2005-2010 so its now either going to take a straight nosedive or smaller nosedives until we are left with a project of 2000 admins but less than a 1000 'actual' contributors.--Ste moc 05:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there is too much process and bauble editing today, as opposed to basic adding of content, but new articles are a very poor way to measure this. We probably have too many articles already (which isn't to say that some new ones aren't needed). We certainly have too many biographies - much of our current editor base seems to see WP as essentially a biographical dictionary. What isn't happening enough is the improvement of articles on basic encyclopedic topics that have been around for years & get high views, but are largely crap. These are improving, but very very slowly and unevenly. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closure / "open source admin"

I'm not upset with anyone that the thread so far has largely been focused on RfA reform or related subjects. It's what we've focused on for 10+ years, and it's very difficult to shift focus off of that. Nevertheless, we must. The 10+ years have only proven that RfA reform isn't going to happen in any way such that it increases the cadre of administrators or decreases the demand for administrators.

One general concept brought forth by Tiggerjay is the idea of devolving administrator tasks. This is a completely different concept than unbundling.

I've been thinking about this for the last day and have imagined a number of scenarios along this line. For these scenarios, we'd need a new class of editors that grants abilities automatically. Arbitrarily, let's say two years, 5k non-automated edits, no blocks within a year. Let's call this class something random; "Prefects". I don't care what we call it. Just useful to have a name for it.

Just one scenario; speedy deletion. In the vast majority of cases, speedy deletion cases clear through without objection from anyone but the original author. A Prefect would be permitted to tag an article for speedy deletion. Of course, anyone any do that now. Where it becomes different; if the speedy deletion is uncontested for 24 hours, a Prefect supporting bot would check to see that the article was tagged by a Prefect, that it wasn't contested, and maybe add something in like whether the article was was not more than 60 days old, and then delete it. No administrator would need to be involved. I've no idea of actual figures, but I would not be surprised if this would encompass 80-90% of speedy deletions. A further enhancement; the bot could check to see how many times in the last two or three months the article had been speedy deleted and if it was at least three times, it salts the article for six months or a year.

Another scenario; a Prefect places a {{uw-vandal4}} on the talk page of a vandal. The vandal continues to vandalize. The prefect places a request to block the vandal at WP:AIV. The Prefect supporting bot sees the report, checks that a vandal4 or vandal4im warning has been placed on the talk page of the vandal, and that editing continued afterward (which trusts that the Prefect saw vandalism after the vandal4 warning), and then blocks the vandal.

Another scenario; A prefect closes an AfD as delete after an AfD has run for at least 7 days. If the close is not contested via re-opening (removal of closure) within 24 or 48 hours, the Prefect supporting bot checks that the AfD ran for at least 7 days and deletes the article.

I could layout several more scenarios. There would be details and criteria to work out to be sure. But, the basic idea is that Prefect status is automatically granted to users who have been here for a while without attracting a recent block, and whatever other criteria. Once they have that status, an admin bot would trust them to have done due diligence, and they can perform uncontested admin actions by proxy, through the bot, which checks to various criteria being met. Prefect status is readily removed by an actual administrator temporarily blocking them for whatever reason. It's regained automatically after the block is at least a year old (or whatever criteria).

Don't get stuck in the details here (we are very good about quibbling over details! :)). Consider this more abstractly; imagine a paradigm where most of the admin work is done by a bot, supported by notionally clueful editors tagging things, closing things, reporting things. This would remove a very large percentage of the work that administrators do now, eliminating the need for a wide swath of administrators. Administrators would shift into more of an oversight role, a check against Prefects going south. There would still be some admin work, and we'd still need to occasionally promote new admins, but losing an administrator (for whatever reason) would not be a catastrophic loss as it would be now to lose, say, one administrator who does 10% of all deletions (there is such an admin now, who does just shy of 11%).

Regardless of what you think of the above idea, consider this as a way of thinking beyond our current paradigms. I encourage you to come up with other paradigm shifting ideas, that eliminates the need for administrators for the most part or even entirely. We can do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea of temporarily autosalting pages that have been multiply deleted. But I'd be loathe to see CSD deletion unbundled, we have too many errors there already. I've met taggers who literally think "would probably be deleted at AFD" should be a CSD criteria. I'd be very happy to have some experienced article creators given a useright that lets them see deleted edits and hand out autopatrolled userrights (you have to look at someone's deleted edits before you know they are ready for autopatroller). We have a long prospect list there and it would be a useful unbundling. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I see this as radically different than unbundling. The details would need to be worked out. Abstractly, this paradigm is potentially a way forward. The details might derail certain aspects of it. I'm more concerned about the overall paradigm than the details right now. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think the system must break to change for the better. Right now, our resources are severely strained. When things break to the point where we simply can't cover basic areas, only then will people be ready to come to the RfA reform table and work something out. (And I do classify something like this proposal as RfA reform.) As far as non-admins in general, we should be aggressively expanding their roles wherever possible. For instance, non-admins can close TfDs and CfDs with any result (including delete) as per the current instructions pages and past large-scale discussions. Non-admins can and should get involved there if they are competent enough to do so. We should be expanding that to RfD, in my opinion, but a large-scale RfC failed to find consensus for that. I wouldn't object to PRODs being auto-deleted by a bot if "checked" by a set of approved experienced editors, but I doubt the effort to get such a program off the ground would be justified by the minimal time saved. CSD takes more discretion, so I'm loathe to unbundle that. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think the ability to use the CSD and block you mentioned shouldn't be automatically given. I think that like most other rights, it should be requested, and a sysop would grant it. While the lack of block, and edit count is a good addition, edits dont necessarily mean experience, so, hypothetically if it were to become a thing, I would want them to be admin granted rights only. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

One aspect that caught my attention was the bot that would monitor AIV and enact blocks. Blocking anyone is a very serious matter, and I would not be comfortable with it being done by a bot that depends on prior checks done only by someone who has not passed something like RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

The point being of course that RfA is not passing sufficient administrators. Which would you rather have, an active vandal blocked by way of recommendation of an experienced editor or an active vandal allowed to continue vandalizing with abandon since there are no administrators around to block him? There are no easy choices here. In a perfect world, we'd have enough administrators. We already don't. --Hammersoft (talk)

Yes, that's a very good point, and I agree. I guess that what I believe is that I remain very concerned about bad blocks, to the point where I would actually prefer the vandalizing with abandon, because the result of so much vandalism would be that the community would react by making RfA easier. The way I see it, having too few administrators may be inevitable, and the community will be deadlocked until that happens, but once it happens, the community will react. It's like nothing focuses the mind so much as the prospect of the gallows.

But I have been thinking about the bot idea, and I think that there are plenty of other tasks that bots could be good at. For example, WP:FFD is chronically short on admins, and the overwhelming majority of cases there are obvious and uncontested deletions. A bot could readily identify threads where the nomination received no reply, and then delete the nominated files. That would leave a very small number of threads that attracted discussion, which could be closed the old-fashioned way. And if enough admin tasks can be handled sort of like that, then the few remaining admins (I'm assuming there won't be zero, and I think that's a safe assumption) could actually handle the tough issues like blocks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Having a bot do FFD would be a terrible idea. It is called Files for Discussion for a reason. Many of the images brought there are not up for deletion. But are there for other reasons. Fair use compliance, copyright license investigations, etc. Automatically deleting those, even if there are no comments, would be contrary to the point of bringing it to FFD in the first. place. --Majora (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thing is, the community won't react. Just as you would rather see the house burned down to get the community to react, there are those who would rather burn down the house then grant admin status to people they are opposed to. Social status on this project is immensely important if you want additional privileges. I've eschewed additional privileges for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I know that if I stood for RfA I would fail miserably. This would have nothing to do with the fact of my editing experience here and everything to do with that I don't subscribe to the social paradigms here, and don't care about people's opinions of me. I have every reason and every trust to be an administrator. There's no way in hell I would ever intentionally damage the project. Yet, I can't be an administrator. You can't shut down that social paradigm. It won't happen, no matter how many houses we burn down. Every effort that has been done to avert the long, slow, painful decline of administrators has utterly failed. NOTHING has changed that has stopped this trend. We either plan for an era where there are woefully insufficient administrators or we might as well pack up shop, shut out the lights, and leave the project to the vandals. The community will NOT respond to this house burning down. They won't care. It's more important to them to prop up the ridiculous social paradigms than it is to save the project. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You both may very well be right. (And interestingly, Majora's comment actually supports Hammersoft's prediction.) If, and I say "if", it goes the way that Hammersoft predicts, then the simple reality is that Wikipedia (as we know it) will progressively cease to exist. And that's a real possibility. Just think of all the other IT products that were once big deals, that subsequently were made obsolete by something that replaced them. It's foolish to think that this could not happen here. Everybody feeling cheerful now? But I really do believe that it is more likely than not that some significant number of community members will reach the point of saying that things must change (but we aren't there yet). And if things do change, there will probably be a result where editors like Hammersoft will be granted some sort of tools if they ask for it. But I doubt that we will get to that point without first hitting rock bottom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice to know I'm below rock bottom for an admin candidate ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Well, after hitting rock bottom, there's no direction to go but up! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for adapting my idea. The thought of a bot is an interested prospective, basically indirectly giving non-admins the tools and would be a lot easier to implement. For those that are concerned about an automated task taking place such as deleting pages, user blocks, etc., I'd like to re-stress the fundamental is two things (1) long term users can generally be trusted; and (2) we can quickly and easily undo just about anything. Here is a bit of a theoretical situation. What 10% of the long term users cannot be trusted to do the right thing -- and every thing they do is 'bad'... Which is more effort and more harm, having 90% of the work done by trusted people, leaving only 10% of the mess to clean up. Or leaving 100% of the work to those with a mop? Now I get that there might be a hidden point of 'self-worth' for existing admins that need to be considered. After all, anybody who has gone to great lengths to achieve something, is very reasonably 'hurt' to see someone else achieve it with much greater ease. But remember if we're serious about discussing a post-admin era, then that writing is already on the wall. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Crowd tagging

This is just brainstorming, but: What if there were these "prefects". Someone speedy tags an article. Prefects come along and add some sort of 'endorse' mark to the page. If the page accumulates a certain number, a bot comes along and deletes it. Admins monitor.

Maybe this could even work for vandal blocks. Someone adds a "I think this account should be blocked" template. Prefects quickly pile on endorse marks. A bot or prefect with special limited rights to block such multi-marked accounts can block.

Just a thought. As is, a bad plan, sure. However, maybe it could spark another idea. I mean, the internet is all about crowds floating something to the top of the attention pile with "likes". Maybe it could work at Wikipedia.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

If we trust them to do blocks and deletions, though, shouldn't we just give them the mop? I worry about any system that relies on a crowd to do the work previously handled by a single person. What does that mean for the number of editors required to sustain our model into the future? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BU Rob, if we are to implement the plan of cutting the mop into bits, which I personally support to an extent, having it require many people would be the epitome of counter-intuition, as it's meant to cut down on the number of people that need to run that blood, sweat, and tear stained gauntlet. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

But we do not completely trust them, yet. But we could trust five of them all in agreement. And a good track record could make them mop ready and solve the diminishing admin problem too. Who knows.

As for numbers of editors to sustain it, well, that has always been Wikipedia's magic. There are millions of editors.

And relying on a crowd? Crowds tend to get it right when all working together. Another bit of Wikipedia magic.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Not to WP:ABF (hehe) of the community, but that would be too easily gamed, unless we have a rigorous selection process...and then we're right back at square one, as the prefect promotion criteria grow and grow... ansh 666 06:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Crowds can get it right only if they are aligned in their purpose, or there is a filter on their contributions to select those in alignment. The problem is that even among good-faith editors, there are disagreements in the priority of goals. For example, some people think every article should explain its key underlying concepts at a given reading level, whilst others are content with delegating further explanations to other articles. Neither viewpoint is wrong; they just proceed from different assumptions about what will best serve the readership (which can vary based on assumptions of the reader demographics, including their reading devices). Most disagreements on style also fit this category, as style manuals make arbitrary choices so writers can get on with the business of writing rather than flip-flopping between en-dashes and em-dashes. Add in editors whose goals are at cross-purposes with Wikipedia's mission, and solely relying on an unfiltered crowd is problematic. The lessons documented by Clay Shirky need to be understood by the community: consensus doesn't scale, and attempts to put rules in place to get by without a decision-making hierarchy end up collapsing as it becomes more work to manage the resulting morass of rules than to mitigate the disadvantages of having a hierarchy. isaacl (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I fear it could lead to an unprecedented amount of wiki lawyering. Some people already feel that there is a cabal on wikipedia, I feel that a group of unelected people (Draw your EU comparisons as you will) shouldn't hold the power to delete pages, because, as mentioned earlier, people have different standards. What if someone managed to game the system and get 5 accounts that could do that? It's unlikely but they could delete pages with it, and if they were smart they might pass them off as legitimate deletions. I fear that it would only lead to an increased need for deletion oversight, which would be very counterintuitive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sadly it is far from unlikely. Imagine a certain trolling group that was making life difficult for feminists not so long back, or a nationalist group speedy deleting anyone of a certain nationality. Auto empowering subreddits and 4chan trolling operations with admin deletion rights, what could possibly go wrong? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

An even more radical idea (although it would need software development): have the software assign each user a reputation score. Once the endorsers of a certain admin action reach a certain total score, a prefect can do it immediately without a bot. (It should go without saying I think this would be a terrible idea.) 🎄BethNaught (talk)🎄 09:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That is similar to the idea I proposed where specific tools require a specific number of actions, but a reputation score is even better. My thought is for example I do page moves and work that backlog. Over the years I've requested over 100 CSDs to make room for the page move, and they have always been deleted per my request -- someone like that should have the reputation to be able to delete pages (at least for G6) automatically. The same could go for other tools. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Foxes guarding the hen house - and we've got enough of that already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I've recently been dabbling my toes on Quora which has elements of such a system. One key difference is that you don't know you've been downvoted, who has downvoted you and why. Not knowing about multiple downvotes is an important part of such systems - if you do know about every downvote you have made the system as toxic as RFA. But you lose transparency, and you lose the ability to handle things gently at an early stage, as the first you know of a problem is with a blocklike final warning. I'm not convinced that such a system could work for us, not least because of our one article per topic policy, instead of on Quora seeing that your answer is just getting less attention than some other answers to the same question. I'm not convinced that we could combine such a system with our one article per topic policy. Either the article on the best new grunge band in Cheltenham exists or it doesn't. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I dislike the idea of having any sort of rating system for editors, because it undermines the concept of the entire project (anyone can edit, etc.). As for having some sort of "quorum" of experienced editors serving in lieu of one administrator, there's one situation we would have to watch out for. If a page or topic has a smallish group of like-minded POV-pushers, they could get together and do a lot of harm. They could revert edits they disagree with, template the editors who made those edits, and the bot would be unable to tell that it was not vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I like the idea, generally. The major problem I see with it is that the proposal makes CSD work like this: a user flags an article for deletion, some time passes whereby other editors can agree or disagree with the deletion rationale, then an account preapproved by the community comes along and carries out the result. Sounds good, but the problem is that I've just described AfD except with more qualifications. Not that this isn't a proposal worth considering, it is, but attention needs to be paid to keeping CSD a lightweight process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting concept of using the crowd tagging, but that seems like it might slow down the process, not speed it up. With a declining number of admins, my CSD's must wait longer. Since the majority of those right now are just page moves, it's no great urgency. However, when I was active in AIV, finding an admin to act on a RPP was more time sensitive. Having to track down a few more perfects would be potentially slowing down the process. This might be a step forward with reducing the numbers of overall admins, but also in the process slowing down the mopping up.Tiggerjay (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Radical idea

Here's a radical idea. Currently, the problem isn't our RfA standards. It's our lack of candidates. Yes, there is a fringe of voters – roughly 10–15% of them – that have standards most consider absurd. But those 10–15% don't turn an RfA, since you only need 75% to pass. Take Godsy's RfA, for example. I was one of his stronger advocates during the RfA itself, but toward the end, there were some clear non-trivial issues brought up. I don't think they were a good reason to deny the mop, but I can perfectly understand why they led to a no consensus result. In the absence of the last-minute Infowars revelation, it seems likely that Godsy would have passed. Meanwhile, we have a candidate like Boson with relatively "weak" numbers (<10 AIV and RFPP reports combined), and they're doing well so far. I think RfA toward the end of 2015 and in the beginning half of 2016 was terrible. The standards were severely over-inflated. Several of the voters who I considered unreasonable have retreated from RfA a bit or adjusted their standards to something more reasonable given the realities of our existing resources and needs. Today, they seem to be more reasonable around the margin of what determines whether an RfA passes or not. We just haven't chucked all that many qualified candidates at the wall to see if they stick. Perhaps the problem here is at least partially a PR problem. If we took the shotgun approach and threw 10 roughly qualified candidates at RfA around the same time, some would get through. Maybe most, even. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I have noticed that there are people who are in one of two parties, the "If they deserved to be an admin they already should be" party and the "We need admins so I don't care about qualifications" party. Both are equally bad, the question being is there a way to stop them? Would it be reform or does it require social change, is the real question. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Neither group exists at or around the 75% support mark, so their standards don't determine results. That's my point. The only standards that matter are those of the editors who tend to fall in the 65-80% range or so in terms of how "strict" their standards are. I think that, at or around the 75% mark, the standards of voters have become a tad more forgiving since mid-2016. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons we don't have 10 at a time or anything significant, is how much of a bloodbath it can be, take the brutalization of Yash! for example, as of now it can resemble the "roast me"'s of reddit, with the extra part of people digging deep into your past, people just aren't willing to have themselves be subjected to that. But that's a social issue and I don't know if any reform can really help that. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly BU Rob13 is in the latter camp. Commenting "given the realities of our existing resources and needs" intones that there are no real standards, just a level of community desperation. It continues to rankle me that we have editors who suggest that we must let standards drop, as if that would help. As for the shotgun approach, you can nominate anyone you like, ideally with their consent. Sure, more candidates statistically would result in more admins, especially if you have more than one RfA going so there's less time to conduct oppo research. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I !vote support for administrators I believe will be net positives. That doesn't mean I don't have standards. See the ongoing RfA, for instance, where I'm on the fence vaguely leaning oppose despite the amount of support. There are actual realities about what our needs are for administrators, though. It's better to have backlogs than a rogue admin, but it's better to have an admin who's still developing that last tiny bit of polish while working in uncontroversial areas than to have huge backlogs at RFPP and AIV. I'm highly likely to support a candidate with demonstrated clue who's still gaining some experience if they show an ability to learn, admit mistakes, and know when they're in over their head. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree that RFA has a PR problem and that there are lots of current editors who could easily pass RFA if they ran. I don't believe we have a "We need admins so I don't care about qualifications" party, if we had we would not be seeing RFAs withdrawn with zero supports and multiple opposes. What we do have is a lot of people who care about some criteria and not others, and two people with very different criteria could categorise each other as not caring about qualifications or having unrealistic criteria depending on the RFA concerned. We currently have people who care about at least seven different criteria for adminship, length of time someone has been here, editcount, need for the tools, can they be trusted with the delete button, can they be trusted with the block button, have they made quality contributions, do they communicate clearly online. I doubt if anyone actually cares about all seven, I suspect most of us regard at least a couple of those seven as bonkers and unhelpful. The problem is that each of those criteria has people whose !vote hinges on it and people who regard it as irrelevant to adminship. Those of us who are active nominators may look for candidates who can meet community expectations on all seven, including the ones we personally think are a distraction. I'd urge nominators and candidates to at least be aware of the criteria that they regard as irrelevant. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of people have criteria for what they look for in an RfA candidate. Reality; I've yet to see any direct correlation between any of those criteria and actual performance on the project. For example, there's an assumption that N edits = experienced. Yet nothing has ever shown that a less "experienced" admin, on average, is less capable than a more "experienced" admin. The shake out of this is the criteria various people have are a direct detriment to promotion of people who are clueful enough not to do something they lack experience in without assistance, and trustworthy enough to fix the generated problem if they do screw it up. Instead, we create massive walls to adminship; <infinity> edits, 100 featured articles, 20 years on the project, last block 1000 years ago...yes I'm being hyperbolic to make the point, but the various criteria that people have are EVERY bit as hyperbolic in the absence of ANY connection between such criteria and actual performance on the project. A big, huge, massive step in a positive direction would be to delete every RfA criteria page that any user has. Sure, they might still maintain that criteria in their minds or even offsite, but removing them here would undermine the massive bloating of criteria that we abjectly suffer under now. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

- - What Hammersoft said. There is absolutely no correlation with the various shopping lists of criteria (there are dozens of them out there) and the actual abilities of any individual to appropriately act in an admin role. There are one or two criteria that almost everyone agrees on and that are actually tied to some degree of success: at least 2000 edits, no blocks in the past year, and 6-12 months on the project. There is zero correlation with success as an administrator and: creation of featured content, high edit count, use of edit summaries, knowledge of arcane rules involving user names, tenure above one year on the project, more than 10K edits, frequent participation in discussion on AN, ANI, AE noticeboards, or a dozen other criteria I can think of. I'm pretty close to saying it's time to create voter criteria and restrictions rather than candidate criteria. I'd suggest that anyone with more than 50% oppose votes should be restrained from voting for a minimum of six months; either they're way too focused on RFA and are jumping in early all the time, or they're operating under wrong assumptions about adminship. Nobody should have more than 50% opposes. Risker (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    - I agree with the first half of what you say, and with Hammersoft, but can't agree with the 50% thing. I probably come close to that, but it's not a case of serial-opposing; unless I'm already very familiar with the candidate, I consider it inappropriate to comment on an RFA without researching the candidate. If something is obviously destined to pass or fail, it's not a good use of my time to spend up to an hour wading through talkpage archives and dip-sampling contributions, so those RFAs where I do participate are those in the grey area where it's more likely there will be problems (since by definition, a number of respected people have already found grounds to oppose). I assume I'm not alone in that, since the only people who don't have the same "is this worth investing my time in?" issue will either be those who shoot from the hip without examining the candidate, or those working inflexibly to a set of arbitrary criteria. ‑ Iridescent 20:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
      (adding) One common criterion I do feel is sensible is what Wehwalt calls "skin in the game"; that the candidate has contributed something significant, be it an article that took some time to write, an image that took some time to draw, a template that took some time to code, etc. There's a very definite correlation between those admins who have no experience of actual writing, and a mechanistic application of the rules without empathy for people who get frustrated in disputes. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
    - Easily done if you have just three RFAs you've participated in, and if two of those were snow fails 66.666% oppose rate might be quite reasonable. But I agree that we should try to set criteria for adminship, if only to fossilise some of the arbitrary criteria like tenure and stop them getting worse. Of course one of the big advantages of individuals creating their own criteria is that it may fossilise their criteria and stop it increasing. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
      - What exactly would said criteria be do you think? In my opinion there should be a minimum edit amount, probably 2,000. A certain time on project, perhaps 6 months, and a certain percent of edits on mainspace, unless they were highly specialized, such as Samtar. I would recommend at least these, but likely more to elaborate on. One possibility would be to have them perhaps be a "must have this or this" (in cases like the mainspace edits), to potentially help the rules not to seem arbitrary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
      - I see your point about "too many opposes", especially given the limited number of opportunities. However, there are several people who seem to almost always find a reason to oppose. Anyone who's got a 80-90% oppose rate over more than 25 RFAs (or the last 25 RFAs) should be strongly encouraged to re-examine their position, at minimum; I'd prefer that the 'crats discount their votes to almost nothing, and a reasonable argument can be made that they're practically trolling and should be removed from participation on a more definitive basis. Risker (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
        I agree with Hammersoft and Risker about many criteria having little predictive value about performance. I don't, however, like the ideas of either banning editors from RfA based on how frequently they oppose, or of forbidding opposes that are not based on agreed-upon reasons (unless, of course, an editor is actually being disruptive). Better to let editors say what they want to say, and find out whether anyone else thinks it's a good point. But I think a better approach is to make use of the fact that we have Bureaucrats to evaluate consensus, and they are quite good at it. So if the 'Crats were assured that the community as a whole rejects opposing based upon "X", the 'Crats can simply disregard such opposes. I think the best way to establish that would be to have some RfCs, asking questions like: "Is "X" a useful criterion, by itself, for evaluating RfA candidates?" If the consensus is that it is not, then the 'Crats can use their discretion about such opposes, and that could increase the pass rate considerably, as well as encourage more candidates. On the other hand, we have to recognize that there will be many criteria where it will be difficult to get such a consensus against, and that's just the reality of community norms. Another suggestion would be to further restrict the questions to candidates, which after all have gotten rather ridiculous. I for one would like to forbid any questions along the lines of "how would you deal (or have dealt with) the following situation?" or "state in your own words what the following policy means." Such questions are almost always really about "look at me! see what a smart question I asked!". I'd prefer questions to be limited to requests for clarification about things that the candidate has done or said. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
        I don't think that the "How would you deal with this situation" ones are inherently bad, depending on the actual quality of the question it can show that the candidate had good judgement or bad judgement. While there is some bad "how would you deal with it" ones, like the entrapping ones mentioned above, I don't find any problem with them existing. The policy questions are however inherently bad, unless the user has shown to in the recent past not know or else be bad at applying a policy, however I suppose that falls into your "about the candidate" category. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
        Actually, I think pretty much all "how deal" questions are just showing off, and one can find out about such judgment by reviewing the candidate's history (and if the specific thing isn't there, then utilizing the history to assess whether the judgment can be expected to be ok). But the fact that we disagree demonstrates how difficult it would be to change anything. As for "policy" questions, if the candidate has previously done something questionable and one wants to follow up on it, just ask the candidate to explain, rather than to recite policy. I really think that there are waaay too many questions, and all anyone really needs to ask is for explanation or clarification of the candidate's statements and actions. And I still think that the 'Crats can use discretion about dubious !votes, so long as they have a community consensus to draw upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw something interesting today. Some editor made an apparently disobliging !vote. 4 "senior" admins. with 28 years experience swarmed around the editor's TP like macrophages. Radical suggestion, spend more time dealing with Admin. work instead of complaining there are not sufficient of you. Oh, and ban yourselves from discussing this subject for 6 months. This is the 3rd current thread touching this boring topic. Leaky Caldron 21:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I have re-read your post several times and still have no idea what you are talking about, can you please clarify? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No. Leaky Caldron 21:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Iazyges I think this is the relevant conversation. UNSC Luke is the one who has been opposing RfA candidates for not uploading a bunch of images and not working on 2+ WikiProjects (both of which are unreasonable standards to hold candidates to).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Forgive me when I paste my well worn mantra one again:

Fix he voters and RfA will fix itself.

I'm glad to see stalwarts of Wikipedia, such as for example Risker, finally now agreeing. Difficult to say for sure, but judging by their level of participation around the Wiki, I tend to get the impression (a view I have held for years) that most of the votes (and questions) we suggest are misplaced come from users who are either very young or very new on Wikipedia, or both. We can't do much about the former, but we can certainly do something about the latter - most other Wikipedias already have. As for obvious serial opposers, including those who occasionally vote 'support' in an attempt to throw us off the scent, there's something that can be done about that too. Radically redesigning RfA or the way we choose our admins is not going to address these fundamental issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

An interesting proposal about seeing what will stick if we throw them against the wall... But I think that is what might be keeping some people away is that they don't want to be thrown up against a wall in the first place. For my own part, I've been approached a few times about RfA and continue to decline for various reasons, my various wikibreaks chief among them. I wonder how much we've done to evaluate why people are not going through the RfA process to begin with. Many good editors that I encounter here are not admins doing good backlog work themselves. I haven't taken the time to see how many of them have decided to attempt an RfA. But we might be missing a huge part of the equation if we don't understand why experienced, veteran editors are not putting themselves through RfA. If we think it is an intake/input issue, we need to understand why there are not more people running through the process. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Falling apart

I keep hearing people discuss that things will finally get fixed once things fall apart. I would propose that the statement doesn't really apply to open-source type projects like this. People must have a vested interest in something to 'rise up' to do something. The problem is, that if those people who care are leaving (even just natural attrition), then all that remains are those who don't care -- the users, the consumers. And by in large, they're only loyal to WP for what they can get out of us. And if our quality goes away, they will do. Leaving an even smaller number of people around to maintain it. I believe it is LOGICAL FALLACY to believe that it will get to a point where people rise up.

The question if the backlogs all triple, and many pages you go to have errors that only admins can address - what will happen? Do we honestly think that a poorly maintained wiki will

Encourage individuals to step up to be admins
Relax the existing criteria for adminship

Sorry to sound pessimistic, but I don't believe that a worn out wiki will solve the problems and encourage people to rise up. This is a tired rational to let a broken system persist until it 'gets worse'. Honestly that is the viewpoint of people who think too highly of themselves and their own personal contribution to the project. It is like the employee who says, "they'll miss me when I'm gone"...

Sure, perhaps it might get to the day that we're desperate for 'anyone' to have the mop. But my fear is when it comes to that, it will be simply too late to chance course and the fate is set for WP.

Instead, finding meaningful ways to avoid this are essential. This could be RfA reform, but more likely in a completely new approach... the post Admin era as people have proposed. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

In October 2005 we appointed 67 new admins, and another 68 that December. That's more new admins in those two months than we have managed in the last five years. That all happened before I had started editing, so I'm not sure of all the details, but I do remember someone once saying there was a bit of a spike because a change they were about to make was expected to increase the admin workload. I'm fairly sure that as long as our community continues to be numerous, and the 2007-14 decline doesn't resume, if we suddenly realise we haven't got enough admins we will appoint a huge batch of poorly considered ones; Most of whom will do just fine. My preference is that we fix things before we get to that stage, but I'm much more sanguine about the situation than I used to be. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Mostly general question about the 2-question limit

The RfC doesn't make this clear - do multi-part questions like the UAA questions asked by Class455 (e.g. Q5 at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Ivanvector) count as a single question, or many separate questions? The intent of asking these types of questions is obviously not to get around the 2-question limit, but it would be nice to have some sort of guideline (not WP:guideline) on what actually counts as a single question. ansh 666 01:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think handling it on a case-by-case basis is working and is fine enough. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, common sense works well enough. If it's all related, it's one question. If it's disparate things just mashed together to get around the limit, it's not. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, in this case it is all the same line of reasoning although I would say the number of hypothetical usernames is too many. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not bothered at the number of examples in the UAA question, just I get the impression it is being asked indiscriminately. That question would be very useful for a candidate who intends to be active at UAA but who hasn't been very active there or has only tagged some extremely inappropriate usernames. Or who doesn't mention UAA but long ago did some dubious tagging. We don't have consensus for a fourth standard question, and looking at that and another question where I've been left puzzled and wondering about the relevance to the candidate; I suggest we tighten the wording at Wikipedia:Advice_for_RfA_voters#Asking_questions to discourage people from asking questions that aren't specifically relevant to that candidate. Perhaps by requiring a diff to show the relevance of the question to the candidate? Ϣere SpielChequers 11:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I too have found some questions, like this one, troubling for two reasons. First when they're asked to users who have shown no interest wanting to work in the area as an admin (i.e. in their Q1), and second because they often seem to be deliberately trying to catch the user out. One example I saw recently was a user asking the candidate about a mis-spelling of another admin's username. This requires the candidate to be aware of the existence of other particular users or else be caught out with a 'wrong' answer. Sam Walton (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Well stated! Yes, it would seem that these are "passion areas" of the person asking, but may not be relevant to the Q1 answers. As if they're more interested in getting their questions asked without regard to understanding the candidate in the first place. This isn't to throw the UAA asker under the bus, but rather those who are have their perennial question of all RfAs. Tiggerjay (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to single out anyone, but I do want to add a +1 to the advice to restrict questions to those that are relevant to the individual candidate. There are way too many unnecessary questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Additional question from 47.138.163.230 (talk):

42. Do you think there are too many questions asked at RfA? --47.138.163.230 (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea was to cut the burden on the candidate. Often the asker is just creating busy work for the candidate with no real interest for others in the answer. Most multipart questions would be counted as multiple questions, unless as BU Rob13 says its all connected. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There are broadly six kinds of users who pose questions:

Those who are genuinely interested in receiving an explanation to some part of the candidate's history that may help the questioner and/or the community decide how to vote.
Those who are looking for an answer or explanation to something they do not know but should (requests for help masquerading as RfA questions).
Those who are trying to be clever by asking trick questions or ones for which there is obviously no right answer.
Those who ask questions that are unrelated to the bid for adminship.
New and/or younger users who are characteristically drawn to Wikipedia back-office areas.
Trolls.

Disquieting question types are often posed by the same regular voters. See more by checking out the research discussed below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The questions they ask at RfA

As part of an extensive study into analysing the negative environment at RfA, a detailed, in-depth research was made into the questions feature of RfA at Question profiles and the discussion on the associated talk page. The comprehensive data may now be considered by some to be old but it is certainly not outdated - since then, there have been many more examples of silly, inappropriate, and/or disingenuous questions of the type in the long list linked to by the research. The entire 'optional' user question system is a feature of RfA that should come under serious review if we expect to attract more candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be interesting to update that data to 2016 (I wonder how we could do that, maybe Opabinia regalis could throw in some ideas?) just to see what sort of question types come up. As you're probably aware, I don't often ask questions, and when I do it's because I am undecided about whether to support or not from simply looking at the contributions. Usually they take two forms : a) "A new user creates [non-existent but potentially suitable article] with the text [vague unsourced sentence that has just enough substance to be improved] - what do you do?" and b) An acrimonious edit war between an experienced editor and a newbie, with much incivility being flung around in the edit summaries. There is no "right answer" and it's more the way the answer is given, particularly the hints into how the candidate thinks, that make me decide. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ritchie333, the data I've looked at is here; I haven't looked at questioners. That's a bit of a pain since parsing the RfAs themselves is harder than parsing lists of them, and question formatting varies, and it's more hassle to find things like someone's edit count at a particular time in the past than their edit count now. Unfortunately my experience with data analysis on RfA stuff - no, actually make that Wikipedia stuff - is that you can shout the results from the rooftops all you like and if it disagrees with people's personal perceptions, it'll never sink in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

As the user who (I believe, though I'm happy to be proven wrong) has participated on more RfA than any other editor, I have in fact asked a question only twice (or perhaps three times). I believe the question system should only be used to delve into an existing issue that could well be influential in guiding other users. My own RfA garnered a negative neutral vote from a user who insisted that as a resident of Thailand I should be spending my time editing Thai related articles. Such behaviour should be allowed to go unnoticed particularly as the editor had obviously not done any research - I had in fact contributed extensively to Thai articles; needless to say, I haven't bothered much since. One vindictive admin who lied through his back teeth in an attempt to scupper my RfA later got himself desysoped - a pity his tag team were not also sanctioned. It's time for a clean up of RfA, I keep telling everyone it's only the voter behaviour that is discouraging candidates of the right calibre from coming forward. RfA needs a three strikes rule, and certainly a formal warning for even one or two inappropriate votes or questions. There's even been blatant trolling on Ivanvectpr's RfA by people who just can't abide to see a virgin oppose section.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotes. Not noteworthy, not interesting, not relevant to anything or anyone - other than you. I was once accused of being a multi-blocked editor who had missed a particularly "vindictive" Admin's. notice. Who says they were vindictive - me. Is that a fair description - maybe not. What you call a vindictive Admin from 5 years ago, later desysoped (so what), was someone with an opinion. People express opinions and should do freely. Your desire to continually regulate & exercise control everywhere you get involved is concerning, especially as the community shows little appetite for it. Leaky Caldron 11:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Leaky, I think you are going too far in so broadly dismissing Kudpung's comments as if you speak for us all. I believe that Kudpung is at least as entitled to express his opinion as you are to express yours. Kudpung is genuinely trying to solve the problems at RfA. Are you? Lepricavark (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the extent of the alleged problems and most certainly disagree with his draconian proposals. Might as well let him and his cronies hand pick Admins. without any discussion and ban anyone who disagrees. Leaky Caldron 09:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You believe a lot of things about yourself but that does not make it remotely true. You have participated in 318 Requests for adminship including yours. There are at-least a dozen or more active users on the English Wikipedia with over a 500 RFA participation record. The most recent flagged admin Fastily has voted in 429 RFAs, so stop with the grandiose statements, it’s getting old. 104.174.76.165 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — 104.174.76.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You know what is also getting old? Users who hide behind a never-before-used IP address instead of saying what they have to say under their account name. Lepricavark (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Particularly IP hoppers and those who are evading their blocks. It's probably time for the WMF to expand on the rules they levied in 2006. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been saying for years we should be using CU tools under a continual fishing expedition to discover these gutless cowards and prosecute them. WMF has the tools and money to ruin these people's lives and meanwhile we have to suffer fools while we're trying to make this encyclopedia better. I, for one, cannot appreciate the thrill of making anonymous remarks beyond the natural aversion to being held responsible for your words. Write a GA and then tell Kudpung you think he sucks. If you're hiding behind an IP, your opinion is worthless while Kudpung's history of volunteerism is a platform upon which he can speak. I edit under my real name while letting people know where I go to school, which most editors can't handle. I'm also not a candidate for the mental institution so maybe I'll never understand. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you would be wrong. Whatever resources WMF has, it is not probable that they are in the business of prosecuting or ruining people's lives. WP is made up of all sorts of fools, live with it, stop whinging. No doubt if an anonymous IP posted something you are in complete agreement with but others were not, you are the sort of honest person who would nevertheless condemn the IP for remaining anon? Why do I doubt that? Leaky Caldron 10:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: So you know, I have been against IP editors for almost three years now. I tolerate IPs because that's Wikipedia policy and I judge unhelpful editors by their edits, not merely their lack of a registered account. I'll continue to whinge, however, because if our goal was to write an encyclopedia (which it's not) then legally prosecuting our long-term vandals would (to my mind) be totally understandable. As our business is online I see no reason a private entity wouldn't exercise legal recourse to online harassment. If you had a bunch of anarchists interrupting the work of an NGO like the Red Cross it would be no surprise if the police were called to reestablish peace and order. Likewise, we need to maintain order. I can only assume you doubt my honesty and integrity because I disagree with you, which is a shame. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:Your honesty is not in question. I also do my bit, having assisted in clearing up after this long-term vandal, including many IPs not listed [1]. Leaky Caldron 08:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a phrase I don't find myself saying that often around RfA, but I agree with Chris troutman, at least on the subject of the WMF exercising their legal resources. Particularly in the area of paid editing, the Foundation could do so much by exercising their resources to shut down some of the problematic behavior that we're unable to manage on our own. I know they don't want to set that precedent or expend those resources, but seriously, it would be worth it to force people to think twice before engaging in this behavior. (On the other hand, I would strongly oppose CU fishing expeditions. They tend not to be effective, and they're a major privacy concern. They would likely have a chilling effect on positive contributors who do not care to have their privacy invaded.) ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The WMF's pursuing legal remedies against the people behind the very worst long-term abuse accounts is something I've suggested as well, although what I had in mind were civil remedies rather than "prosecution." However, that's off-topic for this discussion about RfA, especially given that the IP whose edit triggered the discussion made just one comment here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, reputations do matter. For example, what now comes to mind in association with the name "Chris troutman" is "oh yeah, that's the guy who just casually brought up 'ruining lives' in response to people being nuisances on a website". I feel like this should go without saying, but even in those rare circumstances where WMF action is warranted, the goal is to stop disruption, not to actually harm people. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Particularly in the area of paid editing, the Foundation could do so much by exercising their resources to shut down some of the problematic behavior that we're unable to manage on our own - the irony is, however, that they won't even let us do anything about it or support us in our search for solutions. A bit like rather a lot of our own volunteers.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This goes back to why wiki can't keep editors, it's near totally dysfunctional--disruptive editors run amok with no effective control mechanisms, admins and good editors volunteer their time and get treated like crap, someone makes one goof and they're hounded off the project, edit bad day where you posted a comment you shouldn't have 5 years ago is brought up and your RFA is tanked, one person controls some facet of wiki with dictatorial powers...the list goes on and on. Good editors simply won't put up with this crap forever. Ergo, the lunatics run the asylum. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2 requests for adminship in progress on my watchlist

At risk of getting shot for posting in the wrong place, I noticed this on my Watchlist: "Two requests for adminship are in progress. [dismiss]" I clicked on adminship, which took me to this page. However, I don't know if I've been nominated, or what this really means, because I didn't think I'd done anything to get nominated. I'm not sure where to get information on this, so I'm posting this here. If I have been remiss in doing that I am sorry. L3X1 (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you have not been nominated. The notification is for everybody, in case they wish to comment on any of the candidates for adminship. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't listen to him! The fact is, we've had to introduce conscription. But don't worry, the term is only 5 years. Best wishes for the holidays, Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks I'll ignore it then. L3X1 (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to set that watchlist notice to only display to editors who have 100 edits? Or if that's not possible only to those who are extended confirmed? Ϣere SpielChequers 20:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Since we allow anyone to !vote on RfAs, even if they have a brand new account, that would be counter to that philosophy. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't likely that anyone that is not ext.conf. would be interested. No one is preventing them from voting, it is about preventing confusion, like the above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
In reality we don't allow everyone to !vote, if you have fewer than an undefined but low number of edits you will be treated as a sockpuppet or a returning troublemaker. The first time I looked at RFA I couldn't work out what the minimum voting qualifications were and I went away for several months before my first !vote. My belief is that defining a low qualification would be more welcoming to newbies; It could even mean we could send an automated message "congratulations on your 100th edit, you are now entitled to !vote in requests for adminship". But as Dennis says not sending out a watchlist notice that very few new editors respond to is about preventing confusion not excluding people. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
More participation is not always good. If it was, we would advertise RfAs on the main page. I honestly think the watchlist notice was a mistake. Putting RfAs on Cent is enough. If a user doesn't know about RfAs, then maybe they shouldn't be forcibly informed. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between advertising requests for adminship to every reader of Wikipedia and advertising them to every person who has expressed enough of an interest in editing to have an account and be looking at their watchlist. Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I was similarly confused as to why I got the notice, and at the very least it should say something about voting to make it clearer. "There's an new request for adminship and your vote counts. [dismiss]" Max Nordlund (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Max.nordlund The message is updated here:Template:RfA watchlist notice/text and can be discussed here: Template talk:RfA watchlist notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:23, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll write something there then. Max Nordlund (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I beleive I was looking at some stats somewhere and there seems to be a correlation between the number of RfA attempts inversely proportional to the number of !votes. Now that isn't to say that there is a direct correlation or causation here, but it is an interesting observation. And more doesn't always mean better. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note that this happened again. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah. That's what that was. I left them a message on their talk page regarding it with links to the help desk, the teahouse, and the IRC help channel. Perhaps we should figure out a way to limit those notices. --Majora (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to modify administrator inactivity policy

I have posted a proposal to modify the administrator inactivity policy; see Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Proposal. Maxim_(talk) 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Tally and weight

Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent#Tally and weight for a discussion on the template's use of support/oppose tallies instead of support percentage and the number of total participants czar 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No active RFA

Per [2] this is the official "There are no active RFAs and we are doomed thread. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! Think of the children! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Now we wait and see if it's a blip or sustained. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(meta) Will pay good money (two, maybe three cents!) if someone can do a free animated kermit flailing arms gif. We so need that directly viewable to go with the Trout of lesser justice. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm so old that I still remember when we'd have five, six, even seven RfAs at the same time. Those were the days... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

So can we. It was last week ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Like Chickadee46 talk 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

No active RfAs? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaa^{aaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAA}AAA_aaaAAAAAAHHHHHH! We're doomed! Reyk _YO! 08:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! I'm also doommed!!!! Of course I may nominate Zackmann08 in the future, hehehe ;) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Darn. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, it looks like we will have 6 new admins soon

6 active RFAs with 4 (including 1 new-ish one) looking like sure bets unless there are last-minute surprises, and another running at 82% with less than half a week to go. Two of the 3 new-ish ones don't have enough participants to call them "sure bets" yet but they are both running over 90%.

To borrow (or mangle) a meme, I for one welcome our new mop-carrying overlords. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't tempt fate... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's set a new record, can we break doubt digits on passing noms at one time?--v/r - T P 23:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfATIGUE.. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} —Preceding undated comment added 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Doesn't exist. This is refreshing.--v/r - T P 00:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Seven RfAs now. Did someone roll back the clock ten years to 2007? — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope they didn't, I am off nappy-changing duty forever (until and unless I have grandchildren) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

...And by then, slimline CDs might have come back into fashion ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dying! Requests for adminship is dying! &c. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm getting worried. What are we going to do to recruit more editors who do not want to be administrators? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A few bunched together RfAs does not a pattern make. It certainly does not override the years long pattern of decline, across more than 300 RfAs and 5 years, we have been in. As I mentioned before, this could be no more than a dead cat bounce. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

It is what we make it. I hope there are plenty of people out there twisting some arms to get a few more candidates to put their names forwards. WJBscribe (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There are, there are, WJBscribe, you can rest assured of that. It all takes place off-Wiki - probably as it should - and while we don't always put our own names to the noms/co-noms, we certainly get the ball rolling. Also, without Anna Frodesiak's project at ORCP there would have probably been even fewer RfAs, because that's where we're often pushing other potential candidates of the right calibre to go,particularly the ones that might not be quite just ready right now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. I still wonder if the poll's appearance of efficacy is just an illusion. I've been trying to draw conclusions from 2016, but nothing too telling. Maybe I'll post at some new admins' pages and simply ask. Best wishes, and yay! to the new admins, especially Ealdgyth -- a woman, and probably ending top 3 in votes ever! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly think your project has had a lot to do with it, Anna. What you may not necessarily be aware of is that some of us behind the scenes have dragged some of your customers kicking and screaming to successful RfAs. I wouldn't worry too much about ORCP now, and not spend valuable content and/or admin time researching it further, just let it run - it works. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, Kudpung, maybe. But it could just be the advertising I've been bombing project pages with. Speaking of which, I'm due for another round of that. So, while the poll might be working, the dragging is working.

I'll take your good advice about the research.

Keep up the good dragging. Don't worry about the kicking and screaming. That's normal. Follow the standard procedure: Lull them into a relaxed state about how they're a shoo-in and it's all dull, dull janitorial work anyhow. Once they transclude, we can relax. They go into a type of shock-panic. The RfA passes. Then there's the months of expensive PTSD therapy, but emotionally they're never the same. You seek out the next customer. The circle of life. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I am pleased to see a good batch of candidates brought forth and going through the process without much a disturbance. It's a fine start, but as previously mentioned, there are many years of damage to undo and administrators are desysopped for inactivity on a monthly basis higher than the number we promote up. Retention is the problem were facing. I feel like it might be because there's so little need for 1,200+ administrators. 10 administrators working on any one area of Wikipedia (like WP:AIV) is more than enough and some editors were given the bit for their expertise in one area. Whatever the reason, I hope our recently elected administrators are prepared to use their mop for a long time. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It would be useful if we had an idea of why administrators are giving up their bits (other than inactivity). Exit surveys? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Admin retention is not the problem, I've studied if for years, retention of Admins is pretty good for a group of volunteers. Our main retention problems are bigger elsewhere. Expectations is a problem - 10 volunteers can cover AIV if on average they cover it for two and a half hours per day. But if you are relying on volunteers then you need to be reasonable, someone who does two and a half hours a week at AIV is doing an awful lot for a volunteer - especially if we want our admins to be editors who occasionally wield the mop rather than admins who mostly or only do admin stuff. If we staffed AIV with volunteer admins who did two and a half hours a week we would need seventy of them, twice that if you think we need two at a time. When its evening in California that might be easily achieved, less so at breakfast time in London. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm doing both of you a favor. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you really need to ask that question? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: (pinging only to make absolutely certain you have read this) You once indicated you wanted nothing to do with me [3]. I have since worked very hard to honor that request. I have repeatedly asked you to stop interacting with me [4][5]. You know very well that interactions between the two of us virtually always go south. Provocative responses as the one you have demonstrated above do not help matters. I am asking, nay BEGGING you again...Please stop responding to my posts, as I have done so with you. Unless you have a source for data indicating reasons why, other than inactivity, that administrators have given up their bits, further responses from you towards me are most decidedly not welcome. Hoping that the third time is the charm, thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You understand me not well, Hammersof. As you were typing your response above, I was actually praising you elsewhere off-Wiki for beginning this new unarchived page with #Planning for a post-admin era which has spawned some of the most interesting and objective discussion we have had here for a long time. Perhaps it's just your naturally vociferous, oft humourless, and possibly outspoken manner of expression that gives me pause, but rest assured you are very, very far from actually being on my metal list of people I dislike or even mental list of anyone in particular even if with surprising regularity you appear to oppose almost every good faith suggestion I make on Wikipedia. There are possibly others whom I would gladly ban from from this page based on what is really a constant stream of snide interjections which most of us, fortunately, choose to ignore. We certainly do not ignore what you have to say, so forgive me if for once I now sound rude, but please don't tell me where I am allowed to post. I keep off your own tp, I don't make PA, I don't harass you - here or behind your back, and that should be enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Since I have not responded to anything you have said in 1.5 years, except to remind you of your request and my acknowledgement of it, I fail to see how it is that I supposedly am opposing "every good faith suggestion [you] make". Your further insults against my character in the form of referring to me as humorless are noted. You have demonstrated, once again, why interactions between us are fruitless and even counterproductive. I have not told you where to post. I have not told you who you can respond to, except with regards to me about a request you made yourself 1.5 years ago. Please, stop, a thousand times STOP responding to me. I've done so with you. It's really quite simple. Don't respond. You can post all you want, say what you want, do what you want...just don't do it to me or about me. I've been honoring that with you, because you asked for it. Please, show the comportment that is expected of you and do the same with regards to me. Consider it a voluntary IBAN, as it is in the best interests of the project. Certainly dragging this through the mud of WP:AN/I or worse would do nothing to calm the waters between us and will waste a whole bunch of other people's time. Consider this the olive branch. Just drop it. Move on. Don't respond. Don't say anything. Your silence towards me is all the acknowledgement that is needed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought there was something wrong with the RFA page! We're not used to this many RFA requests let alone that all of them look set to succeed!--5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- And if I have anything to do with it, 5 albert square, there's more to come! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  - I hope there is Kudpung, so many admins burn out it's unreal :(. We constantly need new admins.--5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I have gleaned from my many participations at Wikimanias, meet-ups, Skype conferences, and other off-Wiki discussions, the reason why so many admins voluntarily hand in their tools (I did once myself - surprise, surprise) are various. My good friend Dennis who brought much very appreciated fresh air and reason not only into adminship but also into the project as a whole, was forced by distressful personal circumstances to retire after several brave attempts to come back. Other personal acquaintances, including one former bureaucrat, and one UK admin, now fortunately back with us who coincidentally has a pied-à-terre just a few kilometres from me here in the jungle, have had to make way for their commitment to their professions, new young families, or to care for their elderly relations. Many however, tell me that they have just got sick and tired of people who rant and rave but who can't take it when they are given just a tiny bit of their own medicine, and the constant unprovoked harassment by the anti-admin brigade and their outings on that that senseless and disgusting place they frequent in another dark corner of the Internet. Last but not least, those who SHOUT loudest on this page are not admins, and my advice to them, whether ready or not, is to transclude their RfA, then they'll scratch first-hand just the surface of the malevolence and spite which come with the voluntary territory of genuine adminship, or just shut up and not tell others where they can or cannot post. There's your answer, folks - no exit polls needed. Just fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. And possibly, just possibly, leave discussion about adminship to the people who know most about it or who can at least post here without being blatantly insulting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sounds like Wikipedia Armangeddon! On a serious point, rather than veiled and disguised oblique references to brigades of this and that and literally years of rhetoric suggesting blocks & bans aimed at unidentified individuals, isn't it time you cleared your stables? Raise an RfC seeking limitation on contributing unless (whatever you think qualifies), propose an RfA topic ban or escalate cases to ANI or whatever, but do something about which you constantly complain but never actually do anything. It would be a considerable weight off your mind. Repeated statements attacking or vilifying unnamed groups of editors is disruptive. Leaky Caldron 10:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  Sounds like one of the labours of Hercules. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Speaking to the original topic of this section, one possible reason for the cluster of Requests for Adminship is that some who have been considering it may have found themselves with a block of time to go through the process, either days off from work or other obligations during the holidays, or time between terms at school.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the winter holidays have historically shown an uptick in RFAs, I think there's a good to fair chance this is true. Mkdw ^talk 04:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA is time consuming, I know. There were some really difficult questions on mine (Andrew Davidson's and Glrx's, essentially) that took some time to answer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't recall the details so I've just refreshed my memory. In Jo-Jo's case, he had said that "image maintenance is my planned area of work". My experience is that that can be quite an annoying area for content creators so I wanted to draw him out by asking about some awkward cases. They were fairly high-profile and so I was expecting him to be already familiar with them. About how much time did it take to answer the question? I'd be surprised if it took more than an hour but I suppose a candidate might be anxious if they are looking out for trick questions and don't want to get them wrong. Andrew D. (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is, it's difficult to know beforehand how much time will be needed, so most candidates choose a week when they are less busy than usual. Some questions do take quite a bit of work to answer. For example, although my RfA ended more than two years ago, I am still working on the Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything....—Anne Delong (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I worked that out a while ago. It's 42.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but having taken many math tests, I thought I would have to show my calculations....—Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

It was good while it lasted, but things seem to be winding down. The two active RfAs will likely sail though, but there are not a lot of "8+/10" candidates in WP:ORCP. Is school vacation over already? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Any comments about RfAs increasing during certain time periods notwithstanding, if the other two pass, that will be 8 new admins this month. That's more than the last three Januarys combined; almost as many as the last four combined. It would be the biggest month since March 2011. Half the total successful last year. And all that is assuming no more new RfAs before the end of the month. It may not be a trend (we'll see), but it's a good month regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:Requests for adminship/Recent is entirely green for the first time since its creation! --Izno (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Talking of that, can I propose that Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Recent (the Talk of that page) be redirected here? It seems completely moribund; anyone unlucky enough to find it and think it's the active talk page will be sorely disappointed, I think? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I added a banner at the top of it, may be enough. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not only entirely green, but all but one of the entries passed with 97+%. Must be something in the water. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

One of the bizarre things about RFA is that when people do run successfully they often do pass by acclamation. I think this implies that RFA may be bad, but its reputation is far worse than the reality, a surprisingly large proportion of those who run get over 90% support. If the problem was simply that the RFA crowd were far too picky for the candidates available then people passing with less than 85% support would be normal and >95% a distant memory. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Something's changed though. It's noticeably less horrible than it was last year.—S Marshall T/C 17:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's my sense too. Still a spread of opinions and standards and behaviors (not bad by itself), but the "contributions" making up the long tail of destructive behavior seems to be largely MIA. --joe decker ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not sense that anything has really changed. We have just been lucky in that those who are busy off-Wki AND DOING SOMETHING have got a bunch of likely candidates to go to ORCP and dragged them kicking and screaming to the torture chamber. We have been lucky that those candidates were of such quality they could hardly fail in spite of the serial oppose votes and blithely disingenuous questions which may be revealing a pattern that might demonstrate a possible general aversion of those participants to all things admin - patterns that have not gone unnoticed and about which several users have now expressed their concern. Patterns that contribute not insignificantly to the very reasons why potential candidates of the right calibre are reluctant to come forth. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the general atmosphere has improved at RfAs recently, though there are still some unpleasant comments like "In my opinion, Rhododendrites has really screwed the candidate by prolonging this discussion", though it now sits as the very last comment in a successful RfA, which is ironic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
If it has, Ritchie333, then what do you base your criteria on for believing so? I base mine for 'no apparent changes' on the very visible bad faith serial opposes and disingenuous questions which have always been part of the torrid landscape of RfA - add to that it being a magnet for inexperienced voters who don't really know what adminship is all about, and the occasional bursts of sock and troll attacks on the process. If anyone, you and I, MelanieN, and WereSpielChequers, and perhaps a few others know best why candidates won't come forward, but unfortunately (or fortunately) we're not allowed to disclose our proof and sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Ritchie333, but I did say the atmosphere has improved above and I think so because I find the hostility levels noticeably lower. Not zero. But reduced to more tolerable levels than in the past.—S Marshall T/C 22:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

RfA is about as dead as ever. :p

With RfA being about as lifeless as ever we should talk about some reform ideas. :p Any suggestions?</humor>—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 22:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You are not speaking the politically correct line. Please report to the nearest re-education camp. </humor> Actually, I think it's a bit of a dead cat bounce. If it sustains somehow (highly doubtful), I'll be impressed. A few weeks/noms does not a pattern make. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The fact that there are multiple concurrent RfAs is highly intentional. It should be viewed as a lot of candidates choosing to move up their RfAs due to a "bliss period" of better standards, not an indication of lasting changes. If it persists for a few months, then we can talk. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
It's actually making me consider re-running.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 22:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This rush of RfAs is causing me to experience some nostalgia and enjoy remembering the good ol' days of 2007, when 7-10 active RfAs per week was the norm. Ah, yes - those were joyous times! :D Acalamari 22:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I for one am not looking a gift horse in the mouth. We have five RfAs in progress and at a quick glance I think all of them have a good chance of passing. That said there seems to be a general consensus that we are understaffed which I am not questioning. Do we have an idea of how many active admins we need to be sure things are running smoothly? -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- How long is a piece of string? It's hard to say, especially because much of the concern is looking to the future - while it's true we need more active admins now, it's also true that we're gradually losing the ones we used to have, and want to make sure the encyclopedia will still be well staffed in the future (see the doomsday thread above). Sam Walton (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  - Maybe it's time to think outside the box. How about trying an old fashioned recruiting campaign? We could start posting "Help Wanted" notices in prominent places like the various Wiki-Projects. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly the old chestnut about needing admins now than ever is alive and well; we all seem to be blind to the fact that with active editorial membership consistently and constantly falling, we are doing little more than welcoming more cowboys in with fewer and fewer Indians to play with. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 00:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mildly, think active editorial membership seems fairly stable. But while some admin backlogs are certainly increasing (CSD and MFD are two examples) and it's great that we currently have a bunch of good candidates, the real delays seem to be in more routine tasks like page merges and RfC closes. These don't require admins, they just require more people willing to manage the "back of house." -- Euryalus (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What I notice is simply the long-term conspicuousness frequency of a very few admin names. Sick with a mere cold, I have to wonder at the dislocations here if just two admins I'm thinking of got sick or worse. Do we *really* have enough admins loyal to each of the specific high-need tasks? I'm rather doubtful some of these tasks could be staffed up from the ready pool to the same *level* of performance over even the medium-term. I'd like to send some admins my appreciation, but not in the form of barnstars, rather cough drops. Enough admins? I don't think so. Shenme (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi cyberpower678, my dear friend. Your section heading and five RfAs at once made me just have to come and post here. Sure, it might be dead, who knows, but it sure is kicking! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It appears that today has been brought to us by the number six. I have heard stories about this sort of thing from old timers, but in my comparatively brief tenure I can't remember seeing six RfA's going at the same time. Kudos to those who have been actively recruiting qualified candidates. I think I am going to take a photo of my screen in case future generations question that this ever happened. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ad Orientam:- hope you got that screenshot mate ;) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I did not. I went to get my phone and when I came back the dreaded pink was there. On which note I think that Mike will make a good admin and hope he comes back after six months of filling in a few gaps in the resume. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you go: Special:PermaLink/758104824. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

We are back to five again. The last month when five or more (in fact, six) admins were promoted in one month was July 2012.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll give a prize^{[clarification needed]} to whoever can get Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cullen328 to turn blue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I will second that. Ping Cullen328 -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. What I will say at the moment is that my reluctance to put my name forward for RfA has to do with real life family issues which have nothing to do with Wikipedia itself. I have no major concerns about the process, or any on-Wikipedia issues. It is possible that I will change my mind in 2017, and if I do, it will be because my family approves, not because of any other factor. In the mean time, I will continue trying to be a productive contributor to the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Five RFAs on the go at once! And they all look like they might be good ones. What is this new year magic? — Amakuru (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This brings back good memories (circa 2007/2008) when Wikipedia was a much more friendier place. Never have I thought that I would see so many concurrent RfAs again. If non-admins are reading this, I would encourage you to run for it now while this is happening (hopefully it's a trend and not a fad). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It was even friendlier in 2005 and early 2006. Candidates weren't grilled and trolled ad nauseam about irrelevant things back then. I can only imagine how it was in 2004. Gizza ^(t)(c) 22:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, you should look at some of the original RFAs, just after it started being based on community consensus rather than a blessing from Jimbo. "Bob has some good edits, let's make him an admin." 10 people agree, and....done. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

See this successful RfA with two supporters, one of whom expressed concern about the user uploading images with no source or description to verify the copyright status. This supporter advised the user to start complying with the policies after becoming an admin. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Even more ironically, one of the two supporters is a blocked sock! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think something's gone wrong with the categories. Wik is definitely the original sockmaster, not a puppet. If memory serves (though this long predates my time on the wiki), Wik was once a good contributor but went off the rails. He was banned by Jimbo personally and cast from the promised land back in the early days (about 2004 I think). He may even have been the first person to be banned who wasn't an obvious vandal/troll from the start... WJBscribe (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I haven't looked into Wik's history in-depth, so I can't comment on that ... but my candidate for the first non-obvious vandal/troll to be banned would be Isis, now Isis~enwiki (talk · contribs), in February 2003. She was also the first admin to be desysopped for cause in the project's history. Graham87 12:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're right - it was Isis. WJBscribe (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh. I do wonder what causes these users to go off the rails like that.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 13:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Just to put this in perspective: Wikipedia:Inactive administrators/2017#February 2017 shows 13 admins on the chopping block to get their bits removed. Even if all candidates currently at RFA pass, we'd need to double that number and then some this month to actually see a net increase for 2017. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Still, at least I see that "Lord Voldemort" is set to lose his rights. After all, ArbCom have been very weak for not desyopping him for heading up the death eaters, slaughtering muggles etc. Hopefully there will be common ground that such activities constitute (at the very least) "a cloud". WJBscribe (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You dare to utter the Dark Lord's name? You fil*** muggle! 103.6.159.87 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix:13 non-productive admins do not need to be replaced. They are on the chopping block for a reason - they do nothing. So replacing the whole lot with one decent, productive admin. provides an infinite increase in productivity. The total number of "qualified" admins is the most misquoted, misrepresented and useless reference point for - well anything really. Leaky Caldron 17:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoa there, I'm just stating a fact regarding the raw number of admins. I'm not at all getting into productivity, qualifications, etc. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

"we'd need to double that number and then some this month to actually see a net increase for 2017" - why would we need to see a net increase? These people currently do nothing in the role - they are finished. They have done nothing for years. Therefore they do not need to be replaced just to maintain a notional number of functionaries that existed before they were removed from the role. Leaky Caldron 17:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And this, my friends, is what happens when people read too much into things... -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you are determined to prolong this using a snide edit summary. Okay. If you are going to bandy headline numbers around like you know what you are talking about - and do not produce even a basic analysis why such an attention grabbing value is actually relevant to any meaningful discussion - you will need to expect that your blandishments will be challenged. Now, I suggest you just drop it. Leaky Caldron 17:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

GOOD point. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: This assumes that the most recently elected admins will be more productive or be admins for longer. If on average an administrator will stop using their tools after the same amount of time as any other, a net decrease in number is not sustainable. Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

11 Admins (apparently) not productive for 3 years each? I would be more productive than that lot put together! Leaky Caldron 18:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

And now with 7 active RfAs....wow. See, what will happen is we will expend our entire quota of 2017 candidates in just one month, and the rest of 2017 will be devoid of RfAs. </pessimism> --Hammersoft (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

So I should apply now, while there are so many going on that nobody will particularly pay attention to my own? </humor> DonIago (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Many a truth spoken in jest, Doniago O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 21:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

There's truth at the bottom of every wine glass, and I had several... </hic> DonIago (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - less than 500 edits this year. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I have noticed that RfA's tend to do well when there are discussions happening at the same time on RfA Reforms or behavior of opposers during an RfA so do not think this means that RfA has been fixed, far from it. There will be another slump soon, maybe next month and then we will have 2 or 3 RfA with either all failing or just one barely passing. Still a very long way to go before we actually fix the problem...--Ste moc 22:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, it's settled. We'll have discussions to reform adminship every 3 months :) -FASTILY 00:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Inactive admins remind me of a famous sketch where a parrot was discovered to be nailed to its perch. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

False analogy. To slowdown the decline in the number of admins we rely on a steady trickle of former admins returning to activity. Putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of their return damages the site. Pointing that out and challenging attempts to deter good admins from returning is time well spent. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The sketch didn't end there WSC. IIRC, the customer was offered one of these instead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it was a slug, which in differing versions either didn't really talk or muttered a bit. Double sharp (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Relevant topic ban proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Andrew Davidson and RfA - Topic ban proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samwalton9:Time to close this silliness and not prolong the difficult evening through which Mr Davidson is being made to suffer unnecessarily. I should say that I'm quite concerned about the information that has emerged at WP:AN, disclosed properly by Ritchie333, about there being an administrator mailing list discussing Mr Davidson. Are RfA participants being targeted in secret off-wiki fora? --Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: If someone thinks the discussion can be SNOW closed then they can go ahead and do so. And I know nothing about an administrator email thread, there's no official administrator mailing list. Sam Walton (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mr Davidson is not having a difficult evening - Sam Walton (and those behind him) on the other hand should be. Leaky Caldron 21:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Leaky caldron, I appreciate you thinking of me. FWIW, there's no one "behind me", at least I hope there isn't. Sam Walton (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there's an admin mailing list, I'm not on it, and having been at various points on the genuine cabal lists (arbcom-l, functionaries-l etc) I'd expect to at least be aware if one existed. I imagine Ritchie333 actually means he was talking to a friend about this—IIRC Ritchie and Andrew both attend the London meetups so presumably know each other. ‑ Iridescent 21:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

If people here are so naive to not think that admins, 'crats, Arbs etc all communicate with other by backdoor methods, they're completely deluding themselves. Blocks have been handed out by rogue admins via IRC requests. It's nothing unusual at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

i believe there is a group who discuss RfA, possible candidates, noms. etc. Leaky Caldron 21:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is an IRC channel (#wikipedia-en-admins). Sam Walton (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's no official listserv for that, either. I've posed an open question of "Do you think X is a potential admin candidate based on your interactions?" to #wikipedia-en-admins on IRC before, and I've posed the same in #wikipedia-en a few times. I also often ask on IRC "I'm involved in X. Here's a diff. Could you take a look?" to the room at large (never a specific admin in secret). Discussing things with colleagues isn't unusual or sinister, nor is bringing administrator attention to an issue that you don't feel you should act on yourself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There are collaborative discussions off-wiki concerning suitability of candidates, noms. etc. No doubt that the likes of this topic are similarly shared. Leaky Caldron 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is not an admin mailing list, but for sure, trolls get discussed off-Wiki. Especially those who seek to disrupt, sow innuendo, and make snide 'innocent' and divisive comments. There is at least one very small group who canvass off-Wiki together for suitable admin candidates, but they generally do not discuss the trolls. Best thing to do with trolls is to ignore them, but unfortunately Wikitrolls just do not go away.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would really hesitate to characterize talking to colleagues about potential nominees as canvassing. ORCP seems more analogous than the idea of a secret cabal. So long as they aren't recruiting anyone to vote in the actual RfA after it's started, I wouldn't view that type of discussion as canvassing. In the interests of disclosure, I've discussed several potential candidates off-wiki. Most haven't gone anywhere, because often someone chimes in at #wikipedia-en-admins and mentions a negative that wouldn't make it worth running. Of those who have gone to RfA after I've had a substantial conversation about them, I've supported two and opposed one. I've never discussed any action against RfA trolls off-wiki or seen/heard of it being discussed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Putting 'write' another misunderstanding, BU Rob13, my error - and unfortunate choice of vocabulary - I used the word canvass in one of its other semantic roles. For sure, someone would misinterpret me as they often seek to do (diffs available) and in a momentary lapse I forgot that. I certainly did not infer canvassing for support for specific RfAs. I meant: • question (someone) in order to ascertain their opinion (OE), which means asking users if they feel they would like to consider running for adminship. In that respect there is indeed a small but very active informal group of which I am a member. They are DOING SOMETHING. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. In the context of editors querying about RfA voters "being targeted in secret off-wiki fora", I interpreted "canvass" the other way. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And if some admins exchange comments about other users around the water cooler or over dinner at Wikimania or meet-ups, it's perfectly normal. There is a misunderstanding that everything has to be discussed in writing 'on-Wiki'. There is no policy that insists upon it, and Arbcom members do it all the time - it's the way they work. Perhaps if users were more familiar with what their 'nice colleagues' are saying about them on other web sites, they would be more concerned. Generally those who are the target for such discussion, IMO, have only themselves to blame for their behaviour which may be under discussion, while pre-emptive, mendacious character assassination such as we have seen recently at ANI, and persistent long-term harassment that stays under the radar are absolutely block-worthy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Only 2 people have mentioned the word "canvas". You and Rob - 6 times. The meaning of your original use was quite clear - it is Rob's misinterpretation of your word that has led to this latest diatribe from you. My neutral remark which you latched onto simply identified what you already said publicly on this page above on 9/1 [6], that collaboration takes place to discuss potential new candidates. So it should, it is clearly successfully identifying non-controversial, capable and successful Admin. candidates. It may or may not discuss other topical RfA matters. This "canvas" misunderstanding is entirely of Rob's making and your response to it - no one else - so why attack unnamed editors who are wholly uninvolved in his mistake? Who are you aiming your invective at with comments like "For sure, someone would misinterpret me as they often seek to do (diffs available) and in a momentary lapse I forgot that." and "Generally those who are the target for such discussion, IMO, have only themselves to blame for their behaviour which may be under discussion, while pre-emptive, mendacious character assassination such as we have seen recently at ANI, and persistent long-term harassment that stays under the radar are absolutely block-worthy." It is about time you produced your evidence, against whoever. I note you were understandably annoyed with the closure of the AN/I because you wanted to participate in it. WP:DOUBLEJEOPARDY does not exist, so why not get on with it? Leaky Caldron 09:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Those "report" links

Right now, we link to toollabs:xtools/rfa in the rightmost column of the RfX report. I think toollabs:apersonbot/vote-history would work for this purpose as well, or maybe even better. Thoughts? Enterprisey (talk!) 19:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Trying to steal the competition away? ;-) Have your tool also detect duplicates, and then I'll support.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How many of these RfAs produce reports and graphs? My RfA just produces confirmation it exists. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a bug in the part that checks for usernames. Should display fine for everyone now. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, duplicates are now detected. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Something optional, but can you add a feature that allows users to download a txt file that can be imported to excel to recreate those graphs? Regardless of the answer, I support the change.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. (Sorta. I just added a text area with the stuff you can copy and paste.

) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Enterprisey's tool is extremely valuable. It presents data in a way that is of great use to people researching the ills of the RfA system and it is one that I wish had been around when the WP:RFA2011/VOTING research was being compiled. If Enterprisey wants to take his tool just a tiny stage further, I have some suggestions.

@Cyberpower678:, I don't see any rivalry, it's just a question of different code writers have different ways of looking at the data and displaying it, and trying to guess what the eventual users will do with it - things that programmers are not always very good at identifying, then market research is not their sphere of focus. Wouldn't it be nice though, if all those related tools could be accessed from one collective portal/interface, like for example, X-Tools. That's where rivalry should cease, dialogue between the individual developers should take place, and then together come up with something really impressive and nice to look at. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Enterprisey's tool is excellent. Mz7 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah your thing is really cool Enterprisey. Just wondered, but how bout an 'oppose percentage graph' like the support one? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if an oppose graph would really be necessary, since only the support percentage is what bureaucrats use to close RfAs. Mz7 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't my concern. Rather, for the purposes of analysis as Kudpung was discussing. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Added an checkbox that toggles between the support graph and an oppose graph. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant Enterprisey! That's really rather suave :) O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: Just to let you know, I've created an on-wiki soft redirect to your tool at Wikipedia:Vote history so that it can be more easily accessed. Mz7 (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I didn't think of that. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and switched {{Bureaucrat candidate}} to the new reporter. Please let me know ASAP if you see any issues. Thanks to everyone for the feedback. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Editing stats bot proposal

When a new RfA is transcluded, someone usually copies and pastes edit counter results onto the RfA talk page. These statistics are probably useful for people doing research on the links between the edit statistics and the result of the RfA itself (e.g. WP:RFA study). Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen, so what would people think about a bot that does the copy-and-paste? Of course, as the people copying-and-pasting the results have done, the stats will be hidden in a collapse box. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think we need to encourage editcountitis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but isn't editcountitis about obsession with one's own edits? I figure if someone were already checking their own edit counter results, putting it in a collapsed box on their RfA talk page wouldn't make any difference. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

No objection to such a bot working on closed RFAs, but I don't think we should do so on live RFAs. We already have a huge problem with people !voting in RFAs on the basis of simply looking at statistics about a candidate and not actually looking at and assessing their edits. I don't think we should encourage such low value !voting by making the provision of stats a standard part of an RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

WSQ, the talk page doesn't get that much traffic, so putting stats there shouldn't make more people base their responses on stats; if you're looking at the talk page, chances are you aren't a new RfA participant. Also, making it harder to view some data (as Andrew D. noted, the tools' load times are often awful) isn't the right way to make people stop using said data. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't buy that. My impression is that most people have discovered talkpages before they start !voting in RFAs. Making stuff harder or easier to find is crucial at RFA, I could point to multiple RFAs where people have undersold themselves by not listing enough of their content contributions in their answer to Q2. But more importantly automating its addition normalises it and makes it a standard part of the process. Just as the increasing numbers of questions per candidate increased the number of people voting per question answers. We have had some very unhelpful but easily measured things become fads in RFA !votes. Whether people are self noms, percentage of automated edits, number of articles created.... If we automate the addition of stats we risk a further drift away from actually reviewing the candidates edits and towards some simplistic check on their stats. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure of the formalities but we always seem to get the {{RfA toolbox}}. This contains a variety of links to various tools which produce a variety of statistics. It took me quite some time to discover this, make sense of it and start to use it. Even now, I don't know what half of the links do. I don't tend to experiment because the tools usually take some time to run. Maybe I'll explore it more thoroughly now that the issue has arisen. Anyway, this toolbox should be better explained and it would probably save everyone a lot of time if the output from each tool was automatically put on the talk page, as suggested. If each set of results was placed in a separate section, readers could then analyse their significance in following discussion sections. Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It has seemed random whether or not these stats have appeared on RfA talk pages. I think it's sufficient to link the stats from the toolbox, but if they are to be displayed, maybe they should be on a separate subpage - linked from main page - not on the talk page, where they submerge any, you know, talk: Noyster (talk), 10:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's random because the editors who usually do it sometimes forget, and I also feel like there's no danger of the stats taking up a noticeable amount of space on the talk page, since they have been and will be in a collapse box - just to respond to a couple of your concerns. Enterprisey (talk!) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Enterprisey. Most recent RfAs haven't shown these stats. Before that we used to get this kind of thing quite regularly, and had to do a lot of scrolling to get at any discussion. I think if they are necessary at all, they should be collapsed - but haven't always been. If I spot any in future I'll collapse 'em, and would encourage others to do likewise: Noyster (talk), 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017

This edit request to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

please change "votes" to !votes because technical 178.42.217.43 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done That text appears to be on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Header, which is not protected. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:178.42.217.43 has now been blocked (twice). From their other edits, they appear to have an intimate knowledge of how Wikipedia works.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

All Wikipedians welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA

The page says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA ..."

However, this isn't true in practice. Only those who use the source editor can do so, ignoring the growing community of Visual Editor users. And it seems that VE users do want to comment (see here).

What's the solution here? Make it possible for VE users to comment? Or update this page (and many others) to say "Only source editor users .... are welcome to ...". Kerry (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, since all Wikipedians can switch to the source editor if they want to (or, if they can't, it's not Wikipedia stopping them), I think the option of updating the page in the manner you describe is not the answer. Now, it may be okay to update the page to keep the current language that says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA ..." and add some text nearby that talks about the technical limitations on participation, such as a requirement to not use the Visual Editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) VisualEditor is not enabled in Wikipedia space (along with the majority of other namespaces). There is no such thing as a "source editor user" or a "visual editor user"; every editor should know enough source to comment on talk pages until this changes, and asking a question at RfA is more or less the same as using a talk page. Note that the user who put in the report you linked to managed to add a support comment just fine. ansh 666 00:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nothing prevents logged out editors from commenting on RfA's - the native wikitext editor should pop up and let them start editing immediately. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a growing community of people using VE who probably don't know the source editor. As someone who does training, I know that people find the VE relatively easy and the source editor complicated/impossible. Are these people not part of "all Wikipedians" if they are contributing using VE? I agree that Talk pages should be enabled for VE; previously we were told this was not necessary as Flow was going to rolled out, but this does not appear to be happening. Kerry (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

VE editors are welcome to participate in all parts of Wikipedia. Some areas (such as this page) do not have VE enabled, so "VE editors" have to use a different interface to contribute to those pages (including RfAs). That may change, but I believe VE was created as more user friendly interface for editing articles. It isn't necessarily the best interface for other parts of the project. For example, liquid threads / flow has generally been suggested for discussion pages but its downside as against VE is that it would need to be applied for everyone (not just be an alternative option). WJBscribe (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: Are these people [who find the source editor complicated/impossible] not part of "all Wikipedians" if they are contributing using VE? Perhaps I can draw a parallel: I occasionally make minor edits other-language Wikipedias including those for languages which I don't speak that language (typically fixing obvious wiki-markup problems or, prior to WikiData, creating inter-language links). I am, in theory, part of "all Wikipedians" on those Wikis, and if they have something like RFA which is open to comments by "all Wikipedians" then I am, in theory, welcome to participate. In practice, there are barriers to my participation, not the least of which is the language barrier. Should those Wikipedias (and, for that matter, the English Wikipedia) change the wording of any such statements to say "All Wikipedians are welcome to participate, except for those who can't or won't learn the language?" Of course not - it goes without saying. In the same way, if a person is barred in practice from participating because they can't or won't overcome a technical hurdle, well, that falls in the category of either "it goes without saying" or "it should be said, but elsewhere, not as a spelled-out-exception in the sentence that says All Wikipedians are welcome. If you spend time to think about it, there are just too many such exceptions to list them all without getting cluttered ("all wikipedians, except those who can't access the internet before the RfA closes, or those who are too busy to participate, or those who [fill in rare exception here], ....)." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems the problem has been resolved for that would be RFA !voter. As this is a beta feature there may well be a broader solution on the way. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

That user has many problems. I have helped with a few more. Any users wishing to participate in the more ethereal regions of Wikipedia should, IMHO, have enough clue to master the pure simplicity of traditional Wiki markup. Either that, or leave back office stuff well alone - especially RfA ! I find it risible that those of us who can remember black & white television, a world without jet airliners or satellites, and beer at 1/9 a pint, can handle it with ease, while newbies who have been spoon fed on IT since kindergarten can't get their heads round it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think newbies were spoon-fed on IT since kindergarten? ---Sluzzelin talk 02:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Younger editors in the affluent Western world generally grew up with many devices to use. (Results may vary in other parts of the world or people that didn't have said devices.) The entire WMF effort to make an easier editing interface is a claim for so-called accessibility. But many of us that used to change the TV channel with a pair of pliers because the knob broke are still able to learn. I have no sympathy with those that purport our current GUI is too difficult. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

All I'm thinking is that not every newbie is younger than 25 year old. I myself, too, started editing Wikipedia at a more mature age, and when it had already been running for a couple of years, and I misunderstood/fucked up a lot. (Though I admit not to have examined these specific complaints thoroughly. So everyone might be justified in ignoring my comments). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

"those of us who can remember black & white television, a world without jet airliners or satellites, and beer at 1/9 a pint." – Kudpung. Damn, you're ancient! Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

VE sucks. Direct editing of the pages, old school, is the only way to go. HalfGig talk 03:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to add and with Monobook or similar not the Vector interface that was designed to be more reader friendly at the price of hiding various editing features. But there is an important point here, we have members of the community who can only use the visual editor. I'm not going to suggest that anyone could be ready to become an admin if they only used the visual editor. V/E is designed to hide some things that admins need to see, and it isn't ready to support talkpages whilst potential admins have to have a proven ability to communicate helpfully and civilly with others, on talkpages and elsewhere. But we have always welcomed members of the Wikipedia community to vote on RFAs long before they themelves were ready to run at RFA. Is there any way to enable that, such as creating a subpage of the RFA for V/E input? Ϣere SpielChequers 09:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Brilliant, Chris, absolutely brilliant. I thought my Dad who just passed away at 97 was the only one who knew that trick. Of course for many years we didn't have that problem - our first telly was a small, perfectly round, naked oscilloscope CRT with a green screen, roughly mounted in a wooden Corona pop crate with the side taken out. There weren't any switches - there was only one channel. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to per se to VE or wiki offering it, but I find it clunky and not full featured, per WSC. As long as I have the option to directly edit I'm fine. @Chris troutman: and @Kudpung:, well said. Wiki keeps trying to find ways to get to editors with gadgets, which is fine, but a better solution would be for wiki and the community to fix all the dysfunction on wiki; which I'm not convinced can ever be totally remedied. HalfGig talk 12:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Clunky? That's putting it mildly. IMO nothing beats the speed of editing in Wiki markup that can be learned quicker than figuring out how to avoid making a Facebook account. What the Foundation should be doing is to concentrate on properly educating new users on what they can and can't write on Wikipedia - to heck with finding ways of making it easier for them to post their vandalisms, spam, and other trolling. If we could get the tools we need, it would significantly reduce the burden on admins and other maintenance patrollers Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Excellent points. But IMHO the petty bickering, infighting, protecting/attacking "rice bowls", atrocious treatment of newbies, cliques, battling over the "correct version", protecting vested contributors, and vandalism are bigger problems. I feel these are the reasons most people leave. HalfGig talk 20:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

At Village Pump: Proposals, there is news about VE potentially coming back, bigger and badder. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

BOT (back on topic), after a couple of days reflection, where en.Wiki is now the only major Wikipedia not to have rules governing who can vote at RfA, I seriously think in all honesty that where VE appeals mostly to new or newer users, anything that deters inexperienced users from commenting at RfA should be welcome. Not having RfA enabled for VE is a positive feature of the process. Especially with the doubling of participation caused by the new rules for publicising RFA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not really. You haven't returned to the topic yet. The original topic was about commenting and asking questions while using VE on RfA pages. It didn't talk about using VE to vote until some individuals went off topic. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Math question vandalism

Does anyone know what's with recent RfAs being vandalized by IPs who keep adding nonsense math problems to the questions section? ([7][8][9][10][11][12], etc.)
All of the edits have three things in common: first, they add two math questions in the questions section, second, they request unblocks with the reason that they were asking questions to test the candidate's knowledge, usually with poor spelling and grammar, and third, none of them continue to vandalize after their block is over. I've geolocated the IPs, and while most are from central Poland, one is way over in Texas and one is from Oklahoma. Is this just one person who travels while vandalizing? --Joshualouie711^talk 21:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Favonian seems to be familiar with this person, see Special:Permalink/765448591#Confused. –xeno^talk 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

All edits are from the Polish Neostrada Plus ISP, from a long term disruptive user with some very strange ideas, and should be reverted on sight. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Should self-nominations be prohibited?

There is no reason to leave this open any longer. It is not going to happen. - GB fan 13:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As many of you know, I and a number of other users have been tracking RFAs for over a year at WP:RFA study. So it appears from this study that the last time an RFA where the candidate nominated themselves succeeded was well over a year ago, when Yamaguchi先生 nominated himself for adminship in October 2015. Since then, none of the successful RFAs have been self-noms. This leads me to question whether people should even be able to nominate themselves for adminship, since it is statistically almost guaranteed to fail. So what I want to know, as the title of this section indicates, is whether other users feel that RFA self-nominations should no longer be allowed, and that you should only be able to run for adminship if nominated by another editor. Everymorning (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Question Did the self noms fail because they were self noms, or because they were flawed RfA candidates who coincidentally also chose to self nominate themselves? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, let them stay. Statistics can be tricky - looking at that report a much more telling sign is 0 editors with <1year editing experience have been promoted.... — xaosflux ^Talk 03:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The sample size is so small as to be meaningless. There's also an issue of causation; new editors who don't understand the process but are determined to "run" for adminship don't know anyone to seek a nomination from, so they self-nominate. Their lack of time on site is the reason they fail, not the self-nomination. There's a correlation, but not causation here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – WP:SNOW. WP:NOTNOW. There's more non-self-noms than self-noms and even then 70% are closed as Snows or Notnows. There's still some decent candidacies (e.g. Godsy's or extending it, Lourdes') that shouldn't be disregarded. At least it would eliminate the 'self-nom' opposes. J 947 04:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

(ec) I've never seen any evidence that an RfA has ever failed wholly or even partially because of self-nom objections. Being nominated by a trusted user is generally a good indication that you're not a total novice destined for NOTNOW, but there's really no reason to prohibit self-noms altogether. We're not exactly swamped by doomed nominations; in the unlikely event that we ever get to that point, a minimum edit count requirement would eliminate quite a few of the failed self-noms, while still giving experienced users a fair shot. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly the correlation between the two is that most self-noms have done it too early. Most successful noms would have at least one person willing to nominate them. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Certainly not. Self nominating is an excellent metric by which I can discriminate. If we require nominators then that criterion will have to shift to qualifying the nominator as important enough or trusted enough and we as a community don't want to go there. Easy traps like self-nominations benefit the community and removing them would only prolong the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Chris troutman: ...Why are we setting a trap? Deryck C. 10:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
People should be able to nominate themselves. The community can still support or oppose based on what's presented. Sure, granted, most successful candidates have someone willing to nominate them, but if someone would rather self-nom, we should not prohibit it. If someone feels that a candidate should not be an admin, whether self-nominated or otherwise, they can cast an oppose vote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Should it be allowed? Yes. Is it advisable? No. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
In the last 3 years, there have been no successful RFAs for users whose username begins with the letter Z. This leads me to question whether people whose username begins with the letter Z should even be able to be nominated for adminship, since it is statistically almost guaranteed to fail. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose As per Lies, damned lies, and statistics, eh Duke. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
A strong contender for here User:Everymorning/Mistakes. Leaky Caldron 11:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Leave it. THere's nothing wrong with it, although it does show you have some community trust if someone nominates you for adminship. I see most people oppose a self nom RfA purely because of a self nom being made but those opposes are utterly ridiculous and those kind of oppose !votes should be banned rather than self noms. Even some good candidates have been opposed purely because they made a self nomination. We could ban new editors or those below extended-confirmed from self nominations though, as those fail pretty quickly. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - ~~proposal is prima facie evidence of...~~ Just because it's rare for self-noms to succeed doesn't mean that they should be banned. —DoRD (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - this change holds no prospects for improving RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Pfah. Be wary of conclusions based on small numbers. Especially when you trim the dataset to suit those conclusions. No successful self-noms since 2015, sure, but six successful self-noms that year (out of a total of twenty-one new admins).
One could also say that no candidate with fewer than twelve thousand edits has been promoted since 2015, and that we should therefore permanently enshrine that bit of unhealthy editcountitis as a matter of policy. (What is up with that, these days? You can't be a Wikipedia admin without being an obsessive user of automated tools? Or at least a very obsessive user?)
What's the actual harm that we're trying to alleviate? It's not like RFA is being overwhelmed by the task of dealing with, perhaps, one NOTNOW per month. And it looks like the process is already pretty good at intimidating the vast majority of editors out of even considering adminship, which is a shame. We don't need to build a higher wall. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This is a solution looking for a problem. I took a quick glance at the unsuccessful self-nom RFAs from last year and there weren't that many, and the ones that were there were "blink and you miss it" before they were closed anyway. I think you don't see many self-nominations anymore because most people seriously considering running is smart enough to know how valuable a good nominator is, in addition to the other unofficial requirements. I also glanced at the "how to nominate yourself" instructions which suggest seeking a nominator if you are uncertain if you are ready, but if you are uncertain than chances are you're not ready. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lists of past RfAs

Now that we have Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year, do we need to continue (or even keep) Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) and Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I find the breakdown by month helpful. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 07:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see any reason to deprecate it. I also refer to it quite often. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments, and let me also note that the 'Requests for adminship by year' page only goes back to 2011, unlike the two monthly pages. Lepricavark (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

What? Three people who all disagree with me? You are all obviously flat wrong!!! Kidding. Okay, it is used, therefore useful. You see, this is why I posted: to find out.

Best wishes to all!

P.S. It's been so quiet. No RfAs and no post about how quiet it's been. Wow, that's quiet!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)