Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 255

Archive 250

←

Archive 253

Archive 254

Archive 255

Archive 256

Archive 257

→

Archive 260

2019 RFA

This year 2019 15 out of the 22 RFA have succeeded that is 214% 68.2 % success and out of the 7 which did not succeed 3 were NOTNOW ,2 had lost the tools after Arbcom cases for cause and only 2 others could have succeeded.That is the best success since 2004.The only issue is with the lack of candidates nothing else.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll bite. How is 15 sucessful out of 22 attempts a 214% successs rate? Moriori (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

No idea where you're getting 214% (15/22 = 68.2%). Part of this is fewer people willing to throw their hat in the ring, part of this is just a lack of people in general who are at "admin level" but don't have the tools already. — 🦊 02:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Presumably the 214% is actually supposed to be a 2.14:1 success:failure ratio. MarginalCost (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)\

68.2 % is the highest sucess rate since 2004 and it is the lack of candidates alone.Sorry copied a wrong number.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, honestly, seeing so many successful rfas over the last few months if pretty inspiring compared to last years climate. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 01:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not just the percentage, it's the raw numbers too. It is very possible that we will beat the 2017 RfA threshold of 21. We have less people running, but more people succeeding, even in raw numbers. This is in part because people are interested in running but in part because people who are willing to nominate are asking people they think can pass to run, and probably giving good advice to those who ask for it who shouldn't.

I'll repeat my plea for the last 2 years: if you are an admin who has someone who works in your areas who you think would be good with the tools, ask them to run and offer to nominate. You'll get some "no" responses, but ultimately asking people to volunteer is the best way to get them to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. As I've said many times, we could move on from most of these eternal RfA decline discussions if folks spent the time they invest in discussions here instead looking for and nominating candidates. Sam Walton (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

• It would be useful, yes, but this trend isn't going to get reversed, dead cat bounces such as January 2017 not withstanding. There are a great many reasons for this, almost all of which have nothing to do with WP:RFA. I've said before that we need to have the vision to create a project in a post-admin world. We're already seeing it to some degree, as we don't have enough administrators to cover the bases at times. This will slowly get worse over time, as it already has. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, people, if anyone you trusts comes to you and says "run", you should run. As recent graduate of The Week, this is a good time. (See also User:Barkeep49/RfA by Barkeep49 who is also a recent graduate of The Week.) --Izno (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RfA questions

This is a perennial issue, I know, but when will it finally sink in that stupid questions are, well, just stupid. It particularly lets the side down when even admins ask clearly inappropriate questions, but it also reflects on their own lack of tact. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Your definition of stupid may not be the same as other people's. And, unlike the content-focused areas of WP, because RFA is a judgement on an individual, the policies also allow individual reflection and conditions for participants without fixed policies on who qualifies. It's therefore right that, within reason, we allow people to ask whatever questions they feel will help them make their decision. For the rare question that's so silly that it's disruptive, as apparently happened with one question on the Nosdbag TFA, there are mechanisms by which those can be removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Amakuru, you said it yourself: ...within reason... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• I want to ask at least one candidate for their opinion about editing from toilet, and if they do it. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:53, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

usernamekiran, I am a mobile editor and administrator, and at least 1% of my edits have been made while "on the throne". I do wash my hands afterwards, though. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen: but you are not a candidate anymore Maybe both of us should ask similar questions in the next RfA —usernamekiran(talk) 10:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Usernamekiran, and Cullen328: you have chosen to treat my concern with little importance, but the very issue rears its ugly head yet again in the most recent (and current) RfAs. I wonder if any of you have actually taken a moment to read the catalogue of disingenuous or misplaced comedy questions. Silly, disruptive questions are actually not so rare at all. The mechanisms by which they can be removed are not as easily or as often implemented as they could/should be. What is still ignored or at least greatly underestimated is that 'question time' is also one of the reasons why potential candidates of the right calibre refuse to come forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for my attempt at levity, Kudpung. I agree with you that editors in general and administrators in particular should not ask bizarre questions, trick questions or inappropriate questions at RfA. The difficulty is in defining precisely where the line should be drawn. I see no realistic alternative to dealing with these things on a case by case basis, and imposing a topic ban on any editor who persists with clearly inappropriate behavior after being warned. If you have other ideas, I will do my best to respond to them seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to apologise, Jim. Actually, I don't have any ideas right now, but I'm always hoping that someone with institutional memory or who is prepared to read up on the research might come up with something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I apologise for my delayed input, I thought I already commented, after making the toilet comment. I will have to agree with Jimmy here. It is very difficult to define what's related to an RfA (or gauging candidate's eligibility), and whats irrelevant, silly, stupid. Trolling is trolling. Your (Kudpung's) userspace has an entire page dedicated to such questions. From my own memory, "canned poop of Jimmy Wales" stands out. I dont know if the editor who asked it was an admin at that time. But like Jimmy said, most we can do is to handle such question on case-by-case basis. I have gone through almost all the past RfAs included on "RfAs by year", and some RfA which were not on them. Dont know how can we avoid stoopid questions from being asked. And speaking about adding it to guideline, I added something relevant almost an year ago. That was the best I could think, even for now. I will certainly let you know if something comes to my mind. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a mixed feeling on the optional questions. For the fallacious questions (because they're loaded, tricky, pushing an opinion, etc.), they're an opportunity for the candidate to point out the fallacy and/or demonstrate knowledge of the policies and guidelines which make the question irrelevant or disinteresting or which limit the way in which the loaded question should be answered. This has article-writing implications; for example, some sources will commit fallacies in their own publication, and a writer should be able to identify those (not per se write about the fallacies themselves--WP:OR unless another source points those out) so that he knows to use the source with caution or not-at-all (exercising our editorial discretion not to say something [be wary of WP:WEIGHT concerns here either way]). Those questions asking after an opinion can have implications about the use of the tools; for example, a question asking about the user's opinion on the usefulness of a certain guideline might really be asking whether the potential administrator will treat that guideline with the appropriate aplomb rather than discarding it or weighting it less (or more) than some other guideline. And so-on. (This is rationalization on my part, FWIW.)

OTOH... it would be nice if the questions weren't the way they are (as documented). I'm not sure I can say much else on that point. I do think the high-water mark for quantity has passed, which is nice. --Izno (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I remember that during my RfA, I was asked what policies would apply for an article about Jimmy Wales' Canned Shit. The question was not removed & I felt obliged to consider the question & respond.

I think the best way to respond to some questions is with a mix of humor & sincerity and I didn't think that, in my case, it was mean-spirited. However, some questions asked of candidates in some RfAs can come from a place of hostility & "gotcha!" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for that question Liz. It was undecorius. And you did give the correct answer, demonstrating your knowledge of the relevant policies and guidelines . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Boilerplate oppose

I noticed we seem to have a boilerplate oppose returning.

1. Oppose Since there are no way of removing administrators, I will not support any new ones.

it's by Creuzbourg if it's important. I recall that there was another "Oppose because .... (same reason every time)". I remember there were many debates about whether it was a legitimate oppose, how much weight to give it etc., but I don't recall the user. Does anyone else remember the name? I do remember they were a fan of the NFL Colts, with the horseshoe in their sig IIRC. This was back in the 2008-09 era I think. I believe they were either community banned, or indef. blocked - either way I wanted to read up on some of the old discussions. TY. — Ched (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ched: You're most likely thinking of User:Kmweber. He would always oppose self-noms with the same rationale: I view self-nominations as prima facie evidence of power hunger. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Ched thanks for reminding me that we are both old, you are probably thinking of DougsTech, who used to say Oppose too many administrators. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also related User:DougsTech/RFAreason. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 17:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you folks - yes, there were actually two of them. IIRC Kmweber was a bit earlier than DougsTech, but I'm not positive on that. re kelapstick: .. LOL ain't it the truth buddy, ain't it the truth. And now to crawl through some old archives for links to show our newest serial opposer. — Ched (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

DougsTech final block discussion, partial grave dancing after a desysop and partial disruptive voting, it appears (but I haven't thoroughly read through it). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Kelapstick, I just noticed that DougsTech user talk page was deleted & I was recently castigated for mistakenly deleting a user talk when it became a broken redirect (so I restored it). Did that use to be the custom, deleting user talk pages for indefinitely blocked editors? Because it is certainly frowned upon now. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Liz, deleting userpages, even back, in 2009, was not a standard practice. I am surprised to see that it was actually deleted, it might have been a request to disappear, before renaming users was as easy as it is now (he may have had too many edits to rename his account as well). Looking a little deeper at the deleted history, it looks like there was a lot of back and forth between protections, blanking, etc. So that may have contributed to deletion. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The boilerplate oppose will never swing any RFA. Just ignore it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This is probably the most sound advice on this entire website. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As in so many things Groucho was there before us. MarnetteD|Talk 18:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction

This category no longer exists, as per this discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 October 6#Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction. Since this category was renamed to Category:Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected pages, should the main RfA page be changed to reflect this? Clovermoss (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: WP:RFA doesn't seem to be in the wrong category, can you elaborate? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: it's been fixed, not sure how since no one edited the page in the time between me seeing the red link, clicking on it and seeing its deletion as a category and posting here about it. Clovermoss (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: it may have been included in a template or subpage and just needed to the cache to purge. Good to hear it is all fixed. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

For the record, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Candidate disclosure of editing for pay

In this edit, a reminder was added to an HTML comment that a candidate applying to receive administrative privileges most disclose "if they have ever edited for pay", as a followup to the request for comments discussion now archived at Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 17 § RfC about paid use of administrator tools. In the context of that discussion, paid editing referred specifically to the definition in the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, where a paid contribution is any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. (Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure has a couple of clarifications: anyone who is compensated for publicity efforts is deemed to be a paid contributor regardless of whether or not the editor is paid specifically to edit Wikipedia, and there is a list of types of unpaid workers who are deemed to be receiving compensation.)

In one of the currently open requests for administrative privileges, some commenters have expressed a desire for any financial conflict of interest to be disclosed. For the sake of clarity, if there is a consensus for this viewpoint, the RfA template should be updated to specifically state this, rather than expecting candidates to interpret "edited for pay" as something other than how paid contributions are defined in the Terms of Use. isaacl (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read those comments in that RfA. And it seems clear to me that we need an RfC to settle this. It appears to arise in how some people are interpreting WP:PAY but if memory serves there was a consensus difference between the broad category financial COI and the specific editing for pay, where editing for pay is just one type of financial COI and that was the one requiring disclosure. I also think this discussion needs to be centralized (even if not moved to VPP). In such a discussion the community can decide at least two questions: is all financial COI to be construed as editing for pay, and even if it is not, should RfA require disclosure of all financial COI. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The definition of paid contribution in the Terms of Use essentially superseded previous discussions on the matter, as it would be highly confusing for the English Wikipedia community to agree upon a different definition for paid editing, resulting in "Terms of Use paid editing" versus "community consensus paid editing". isaacl (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any of what you said is responsive to my comment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my comment was related to the definition of paid editing, which you referred to when you said if memory serves there was a consensus difference between the broad category financial COI and the specific editing for pay, where editing for pay is just one type of financial COI and that was the one requiring disclosure. The definition of paid editing has now been codified by the Terms of Use. In my memory, prior to the change in the Terms of Use, there was no community-wide agreement on when a mandatory conflict of interest disclosure should be triggered. There were (and still are) vocal supporters of the view that any edits by an employee to their employer's article (and possibly other related articles) should require a disclosure as if they were paid contributions, which always clouded any discussion that tried to reach a consensus agreement on when disclosures had to be made. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

My memory point was not to going back to before WP:PAID policy. Regardless, it remains, multiple pages have been implicated and not just this page, so this venue is rather not fit for a synthesis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure; my original post was not starting a discussion to resolve the issue of what needs to be disclosed. I was just clarifying that the discussion that introduced the instructions asking if the candidate had "edited for pay" was referring specifically to the definition in the Terms of Use. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree fully with Alanscottwalker. I believe this will have implications regarding the interpretation of WP:PAY; consequently, it requires an RfC, and centralization of discussion, likely at VPP. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this practical? If we ask people to reveal financial conflicts of interest, aren't we asking them to reveal their employers? I can understand giving someone the choice of editing an article and revealing who you work for or not editing the article, but saying that you can only be an admin if you out yourself seems to be impractical. - Bilby (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

An untenable position. Even being forced to require to disclose any prior editing while under a potential "financial coi" would mean you would have to disclose your employer if you'd ever reverted obvious vandalism on their article. –xeno^talk 13:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't find this to be very ambiguous, despite the feelings of some !voters in that RfA. WP:PAY says being paid to contribute to Wikipedia is one form of financial COI,[emphasis added] meaning that paid editing is not the same thing as a COI, but rather one type of COI. Meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure, though not a local policy, goes into further detail, e.g., clarifying that a university professor isn't engaging in paid editing (or COI) by editing the article about the university that employs them. Per others here, I agree that RfA candidates should disclose paid editing, but not every actual or potential financial COI. If an editor wishes to change that, then I also agree an RfC would be needed. – Levivich 14:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the FAQ says that, but it was obviously written by someone who's not a university professor, because it shows a complete absence of understanding of how being a university professor works. The FAQ there totally contradicts what the policy actually says. WilyD 14:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

What don't people not know about how being a university professors work? And specifically what words contradict what? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

To quote the policy "For example, if a professor at University X is paid directly by University X to write about that university on Wikipedia, the professor needs to disclose that the contribution is compensated. There is a direct quid pro quo exchange: money for edits. However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university.", that isn't how being a professor works. The policy talks like those are separate ideas, but when you're a professor, they're really the same thing. Or rather, since professors are also getting paid for service, which typically can include public outreach, you can't really contribute without getting paid for it, even though you'd obviously not be directly directed to do so by some line manager. So certainly if you're editing in the area of your research, that's part of your job. When I was previously a professor (mostly in name, actually a glorified postdoc), I'd submit a report to ... someone at the end of the year that'd detail all the work I'd done, including public outreach/engagement stuff, but nobody would've told me to do that ahead of time. But it was what I got paid for, and what (nominally) determined my raises, etc. It's simply impossible to separate out what you're getting paid for in the way the sentence imagines is possible. WilyD 15:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems doubtful that people of even ordinary intelligence can't divine the reasonable dividing line. But perhaps professors are not very smart. A professor will know when there is a quid pro quo. It is elementary that when there is a direct payment for edits it is, as a matter of the TOU required to be disclosed, in a particular way, but just because that's the limit of TOU disclosure does not and cannot mean that every other edit is always fine, as far as broader COI is concerned. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, I know what I think is reasonable, but I can't speak for other people. I can read the policy and the FAQ, and see that they openly and directly contradict one another, in a way that indicates (to me) that it was written in a very general way with a specific case in mind (namely, public relations/advertising), without any real thought given to the consequences, which is why it was subsequently asserted the consequences simply don't exist. WilyD 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

We have no choice but to write for reasonable people. Reasonable people can read the policy and the FAQ and through reason see no insurmountable contradiction, and only those who desire to find contradiction will insist on reading a conflict into it. The purpose is not advertising, that is just one endeavor, the purpose is to insist that people disclose when they should know they have a COI, and they should know they have a COI when they are paid to edit. Either a professor or any other professional is ethical or they are not (and no rule will make them ethical), any person familiar with credible publishing including professors who write and publish know when they have a COI to disclose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're asserting this, you either haven't read the policy, or haven't read the FAQ. Reasonable people don't read a written policy and this "This is unreasonable, the author must have meant something totally different." If you think think "[reasonable people should know they have a COI when they are paid to edit", then you're asserting what the FAQ says is false. WilyD 06:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

What exactly is the perceived problem? The ToU and the FAQ are correct and compatible. For example, a professor paid for work related to biology education and research is welcome to edit biology articles at Wikipedia—there would be no COI. By contrast, there would be a COI if the professor were directed by their employer to "improve" the biology section of an article on their university. It is not possible to provide rules that apply to every situation without requiring reasonable interpretation. Johnuniq (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No, go back and read them. A professor paid for work related to biology education and research would have to disclose they're being paid to edit biology-related articles according to WP:PAY (and similarly, Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Wikipedians_in_residence says the same, which is a pretty analogous situation), then the terms of use say "However, if that professor is simply paid a salary for teaching and conducting research, and is only encouraged by their university to contribute generally without more specific instruction, that professor does not need to disclose their affiliation with the university" which is a woeful misunderstanding of how the job of a professor works.

Of course, this is really CoI and paid editing are being used somewhat interchangably (or at least, it's sort of assumed paid editing must entail a CoI). But of course, when I'm doing public outreach, my goal is the same as Wikipedia, so the multiple interests don't conflict. But of course, the point isn't about what should happen, or practice, but what's written in the policy. Or maybe it's easier to think of it as "A museum employee who is contributing to projects generally without more specific instruction from the museum need not disclose her affiliation with the museum." - well, what university employee would be responsible for giving me specific instructions on what kind of public outreach to do? I would be that employee, so I can never act without me telling myself to act. It's a little ambiguous once I'm out of my area of expertise, but I'm certainly being paid for all the editing I do on astronomy-related articles, because I do get paid to do public outreach, but am my own supervisor all the time - the same person tells me what to edit, when to give public talks, when to show groups of schoolkids the telescopes, when to talk to the press ... that person is me.

And of course, we can say "It seems doubtful that people of even ordinary intelligence can't divine the reasonable dividing line." but of course, when you read the instructions, it's pretty reasonable to think people mean them, even in cases like this where they don't. So, of course rules require interpretation, but when you're doing exactly the opposite of what's written, it's not a (reasonable) question of interpretation. WilyD 12:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• Just pointing out in passing that WP:PAY is a guideline. The only actual policy that relates to paid editing is the Terms of Use. We do not have a local policy, we have a local guideline. Risker (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Well, technically what we have written is WP:PAID which is listed as a policy, but yes WP:PAY is a guideline. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PAID) is almost entirely a pastiche of content from other pages: the Terms of Use, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Administrators, the only underlying policy pages, and other guidance pages. (See this breakdown from 2017, which I believe is still applicable. There's one original sentence, and now some clarifications on categories of people who are deemed to have received compensation.) So technically only the portions of WP:PAID drawn from policy pages are policy. isaacl (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Magic 173

I notice that 3 of the last 5 successful Rfa's have reached exactly 173 supports. I wonder how many of these are the same people? Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod: looks like 50, these !voters: Special:PermaLink/919629591. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:: I pulled the data from the RFA report, and while it's not adding up to precisely 173 for everyone, here's what I got:

• 50 supported all 3 (Xaosflux's list)
• 46 supported Bradv & Izno
• 26 supported Bradv & Nosebagbear
• 23 supported Izno & Nosebagbear
• 50 supported Bradv only
• 54 supported Izno only
• 72 supported Nosebagbear only

I for one am somewhat surprised at the diversity of supporters. I always assumed there was a much more stable group of regulars. In all, 356 people !voted, and 321 of those supported at least one candidate. MarginalCost (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - interesting. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @MarginalCost: That's really interesting - I wonder whether it's just natural variation, or people who know the person (e.g. a lot of AfD regulars !voted in mine) or if controversy/smooth sailing results in different !voters. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Unwanted RfA page

What is the procedure when someone creates an RfA for another editor, without discussion, and where the nominated editor does not want the RfA page? An MfD has been started but that seems pointless and unfair to the nominated person. I'm not feeling bold enough to speedy delete it myself, but perhaps someone familiar with procedures would. Johnuniq (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, that was my first inclination myself. But I could find no criteria which applies besides G7 which Dino245 may or may not choose to do. I suppose the fact that I was watching his talk page awaiting a response to a question made me disclined to ask if he'd G7 nominate it but that is a reasonable thing to ask and could perhaps close the MfD easily. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

just delete it and save time and trouble. I would, but I’m on my phone and not all buttons are available. —Floquenbeam (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

in fact, it says something bad about our current environment that two admins I respect are worried about deleting it. If we can’t do something so bleeding obvious because of rules, then the rules suck. —Floquenbeam (talk)|

I have speedy deleted the page. El_C 02:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Worry less Floquenbeam (at least if I was one of the two sysops). The G2s I see tend to be of a very different nature and so when looking at the list of criteria it just didn't pop as a possibility. I tend to be pretty cautious/conservative about speedys and so it didn't feel like garnering consensus through discussion was the rules sucking. I certainly don't have any issue with this G2 deletion done by El C. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Meh. G2, G6...either would have been fine. It's hardly like anyone would contest it. Risker (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I had it happen to me, the deletion summary for my declined nomination was just "declined nom". I see nothing wrong with that, sometimes just saying why instead of trying to neatly fit it into a policy criterion is the best and most efficient move. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. El_C 19:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely this; no need to murk-up the G2 waters. Call it G6 if you like, but a simple "Declined RfA nomination" is sufficient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• CSD G14 When commonsense says something just needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Rising success rate

Currently there have been 26 RFAs this year so far. Of these, 18 were successful, for a success rate of 69%. If this holds for the rest of the year, it will be the highest annual RFA success rate since at least 2004 (when 79% of RFAs were successful). IntoThinAir (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To what extent is this partially a result of WP:RFA's extended confirmed protection? It was in place in 2018 too, but curious to see how previous year's percentages hold up if you take out sub-ECP user self-nominations. Sam Walton (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• IMO the requirements have grown more stringent, but there's also better resources for being a good admin available. The voters are also more educated. I think we've had some good candidates this year, and even some of the failed ones I think could have grown into the job and may pass in the future. I believe there's a natural ebb and flow to most things, including RfA. You (IntoThinAir) don't ask a specific question, so I'm not sure what more you're looking for other than discussion. I'm also unsure how extended confirmed protection plays a part. — Ched (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Honestly I was just trying to call attention to this fact, since RFA seems like it is in need of good news with all the talk about how it needs to be reformed, etc. It seems like the reasons for the higher success rate are a combination of less experienced/qualified potential candidates getting scared off, and newer users being prevented from nominating themselves because of extended confirmed protection. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think many of the people prevented by ECP previously would have had their RFA reverted and deleted, so it would not have appeared in the stats either. But certainly more successes at RFA are good news :) —Kusma (t·c) 21:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely - we've not had a clearly unsuccessful (as in, no major support) RfA since June - 5 of the 8 unsuccessfuls/withdrawn had over 50% support, so they clearly weren't unjustified nominations. I think there's been more chasing of good potential candidates this year - and in the last 5 months, ORCP has been much more active. Our success rate last year was lower (though obviously on a depressingly small group size), so there are more-succeed features as well. For example, we (touch wood) seem to have slowed the demand for ever higher editcount etc. Having reviewed the last 3 years RfAs as well, I'd also say that RfAs have become more accepting of errors made so long as they're accompanied by an apology/acceptance. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• Do we know the minimum number we should be aiming for, say on a per montly basis, so we can perhaps have a target. I think 2 is insufficient to stem the losses. scope_creep^Talk 14:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Basically, you want the mirror of this to break even. That chart isn't quite accurate, as someone who resigns and changes their mind a month later will still show as a desysop for that month, but except for the Framageddon spike in June that's not a statistically significant number. The bottom line (desysops minus restorations) is the significant one; with an average net loss of around 50 per year we'd need 4 or 5 RFAs per month to break even, although bear in mind that most of those being desysopped are paper admins only who haven't edited for a year. ‑ Iridescent 14:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• (edit conflict; some of what I say is the same is Iridescent) Over the last eight years, we've been averaging a net loss (that includes elections) of about 42 administrators per year (based on WP:DBM). In the same time period, we've been averaging about 21 passing RfAs per year (based on WP:RBM). To reach net zero, we'd need to roughly double our monthly average of about 1.8. That said, this shows the pool of active administrators has remained more or less static for quite some time, having only lost 5% of active administrators in the last 500 days. Going back even further to see from what point to now we've lost 10% of the active admins, that takes us back 4 years to November 2015 when the active admin corps hovered around 560. We're at 502 today. Bottom line; we'd need to have a successful RfA every week to maintain current numbers. That's not going to happen. Eventually, we'll have to address failures in our processes due to a lack of administrators, but it's very hard to forecast when that day will come. But, come it will. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Hammersoft, DYK is very close to failing due to lack of admin help, IMO. --valereee (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure that would be a bad thing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Boing! said Zebedee, I know a lot of people don't like it. I like it a lot because I find it helps improve my new creations. But whatever your opinion on DYK, having that process fail isn't good for Wikipedia. If we don't want DYK, the answer is to get rid of it, not to allow it to implode for lack of admin help. --valereee (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Valereee, Yes, that's fair enough - and my comment was a not particularly helpful distraction, I admit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• 60 odd a year, although I think it closer to 70, although it varies quite considerably. Eight years before it goes south and the WMF will intervene. Is it possible to reverse the process, not the RFA per se? Change the ad-hoc process into a planned process. Is possible to plan the number of admins we need every year. Start from the premise, e.g. next year we plan to have 67 administrators elected this year. So we need 67 next year, what do we need to do to ensure 67 are elected? scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• The relevant bit is active admins, as noted by @Hammersoft:. We're losing about 1.2 active admins a month, going off the last 4 years. In that timespan we've accepted about 65 admins (1.35/month). So we need 2.55 admins per month to arrest the halt - 31 admins/year. That should be the goal we accept at the beginning of the year, because I think it is actually doable without radical changes to the system. As to admin time allocation - that's a separate matter. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• What do folks think about a project to collaborate on actively nominating editors for adminship? I've long advocated that one of the solutions to our eternal admin problem is that we just need to nominate more people. The problem, of course, is that finding the right editors to nominate takes some effort. I'm interested in the idea of collating some resources and guides on finding editors and going through the nomination process. The project could include milestones to meeting the above figures, which I think are quite achievable with some coordinated nominating effort. Sam Walton (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators was a thing that existed briefly. Worth reviving? Sam Walton (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Without the direct potential-candidate discussion, in my opinion. Sam Walton (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • According to @Hammersoft: and @Nosebagbear: it seems be one RFA every 11 days that is needed. The project WikiProject Admin Nominators seems to be have the correct name but I can't figure out what it did. The remit we need is to keep the pipeline going and present a suitable candidate every 11 days. Work could be done upfront to find the person, evaluate them, and ask if they want to do it, then queue them. scope_creep^Talk 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        FWIW I have long though a cohort model would provide some safety in numbers and could help convince some people to take the RfA plunge. But man one RfA every 11 days sounds awfully daunting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        Indeed, it is a mountain to climb. It's not to say if there was more folk available but certainly for 2-3 years to get the numbers up, as a sustained effort. You would get very good at finding the good and bad quickly. Work aspect would perhaps streamline the number of voters. The guides to finding editors and how to approach the process must be part of it, to smooth the way so to speak so it as as trouble free and more so to be as stress free for the candidate as possible. scope_creep^Talk 03:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        I would suggest starting new requests on the same day of the week, to establish a regular cadence where participants can plan their involvement. Thus either weekly or every other week, depending on how full the queue is. isaacl (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        That wouldn't help a (busy IRL) potential candidate looking in their diary for a 7-day period when they could do an RFA. DexDor ^(talk) 06:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        Specific-day levels of coordination probably aren't necessary, but I do think that with some guides, milestones, and a sustained effort by multiple editors the numbers above are quite achievable. I'll spend some time poking around that WikiProject and see if it's worth reviving as the place to coordinate this. Sam Walton (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        If there's enough interest, I suggest just going ahead with restarting the project, since the name is suitable and the goals broadly align. (The previous incarnation stalled when it decided it didn't want to discuss specific candidates on-wiki; however it seems you have other tasks in mind anyway.) isaacl (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

        True enough, but it can be scheduled whenever the candidate finds an appropriate opening. Candidates can specify on which days they will be responding to inquiries. isaacl (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: - I've generally thought that your cohort idea struggled to be practical, since at the moment it was difficult to find (say) 3 candidates who were free for the same week. Obviously, if we were able to find an increased rate, that might become easier and thus more practical - potentially a virtuous cycle. I'm against fixed days for launching, and to be careful about setting up a circumstance where we "fail" if we don't encourage a new candidate every 11 days. That risks all manner of negatives. If we do decide to go down a wikiproject approach, asking all the current members on the "willing to nominate" list would be definitely worth doing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  If a window is missed, so be it—it's not a big deal. Scheduled dates are motivating, though, and a regular cadence would help make requests for administrative privileges be treated like a ordinary event instead of a special occurrence. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I think isaac's thoughts that rather than a group taking the pressure off a constant stream could do the same. The reason I mildly favor the cohort is that I think it could prevent some of the tempests in a teapots from happening rather than longer discussion about more substantial concerns. Some editor would oppose for some silly reason, the sillyness might or might not be commented on, and everyone would move on. No big deal and something the candidate could brush off. What can happen now is that someone opposes for silly reasons and huge discussion breaks out and this might cause more stress for the candidate. But I don't know. I do think putting together a cohort is easier than putting together a constant stream. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  If requests for administrative privileges are a regular occurrence, then I think commenters will be more likely to move on to the next one. You had your say; others will agree with you or not, and whether or not this candidate is approved, another candidate is coming up right around the bend. It should help with the "while a medium deal, not a huge deal" point of view. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I didn't realize I had a set amount of say. I would have explained my thinking at more length originally and been deprived of the chance to say that your method might be more effective :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I apologize for imprecisely wording my comment; I was not referring to your statement. By "you" I meant the commenters on each RfA. If there were regularly scheduled requests, then each commenter would weigh in and perhaps feel less need to try to argue with others, as there is always another candidate coming right up. With many candidates to comment on, there is an opportunity cost to focusing on one. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical of the sky is falling concept. But setting that aside I mean this with full sincerity. One thing that will make RFA worse is to try pushing unapprovable candidates into the mix to meet a quota. If every week you put up 1 good candidate and 2 bad, you don't end up with any more admins than if you just put up the 1 good. You just self fulfill the view that RFA is 'mean'.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I think as much as possible, keeping it to one nomination in a window would be preferable. Of course, people can take the plunge whenever they want, but if they want to co-ordinate with others, then having one request active at a time will spread out the work load for commenters, thus keeping a regular rhythm going. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Heh. I'd rather see half a dozen nominations at a time. Those that are going to fail anyway are going to fail. Those that are going to pass with flying colours are going to pass. It's the ones that are in that "not a 100% shoo-in" range that benefit greatly from having multiple RFAs running at once. Candidates should start their candidacy when they're ready, not in accord with some arbitrary timetable that serves no purpose. (If you want to vote in RFAs, you're going to do it whether there's one candidate a month or one a day.) The reason we're having more success now is that people who have been well-qualified for a long time are finally realizing that the way to get admins is for *them* to run. They're starting to see that there is some fraying at the edges that requires admin tools to fix, and they're getting that they could do those things themselves rather than hope that some admin who isn't too focused on something else will come along and help them. Most of the admins who've come through in the past year have been qualified to run for some time. Now the rest of us need to get into that mindset: we need to get that we need more admins just to spread the work, to pick up slack when someone is away for a while and so on. Valereee gives a really good example above. So keep being respectful and kind to the candidates that will be fine as admins, and we might power our way out of the current leadership void. Risker (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  If we're trying to encourage discussion of candidate characteristics, rather than just voting on gut feel, then I disagree that having one request per day is going to garner the same amount of participation as one per month. I agree with candidates running when they're ready, but the nice thing is that readiness doesn't go stale, assuming the candidate maintains some degree of activity (and they should post-RfA anyway, so presumably they will). So I'd rather see six requests spread out a bit, rather than all six at once and then nothing for weeks and weeks. isaacl (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  I broadly agree with Risker. I believe that anyone who has never run before and who, unprompted, has multiple respected sysops telling them they should run for RfA stands an excellent chance of winning. I think there are some number of people who ran once who if they had never run would be a shoo-in now. The community's tolerance for a repeated RfAs is a bit of a mystery to me. If every candidate ran 6/12/18 months later as some at their failed RfAs were advised we could expand the sysop pool with people who've already been in the waters once. best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I do sometimes go back through failed RfAs and see if there's anyone who fancies a second go. Both Primefac and Enterprisey did well out of this, and GRuban 2 is probably more "when" than "if". Of other candidates who should give it a go, the one I'd really like is CaroleHenson, as I kind of screwed up their RfA and they've never quite been in a position to run again. If I'd left it 6-12 months and run it then, it might have passed and she'd be a good admin. Shoulda woulda coulda.

Part of the problem with second RfAs is that you need to show that the issue that caused the first one to fail is now adequately resolved. If it's too many bad CSD or AfD calls, that's easily demonstrable as resolved. For attitude and civility, it's harder. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions at RfA

I started a short lived thread above last month. I said the issue surrounding RfA is a perennial one, and while it is clearly one of the reasons why potential candidates won't come forward as was pointed out to me once again today, to save digging up the topic all over again, (new) regular subscribers to this talk page might just want to spare just 5 minutes and read this thread from nearly nine years ago! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung: which thread? Several address questions. –xeno^talk 12:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It starts here and then through the threads that follow on about questions. It could have been written yesterday - plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: not sure if I'm missing part of your question? The thread you linked to above is to the topic "Limit questions to one per user" from 2011. That topic has been addressed much more recently, in the 2015 RfC which decided (with a !vote of 82 to 24) on a "limit of 2 questions" per editor. Is there a new discussion post that RfC that needs following up on? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• I don't feel the volume of questions has been egregiously bad recently. And while we've had the occasional bad question, as a countervailing positive, questions seem to be moving more towards reviewing and providing reasoning for past actions rather than bizarre hypothetical tests. I'd be interested to know where questions are in a list of reasons why candidates don't apply. General hostility (rare for 1st time candidates) and the general discomfort of opposes based on character or competence (somewhat the sine qua non of RfA, alas) seem much more likely, but I fully concede I don't have a big data sample. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a theory that the number of questions is more a function of time than anything to do with the individual candidate. Double or treble the number of RFAs in a month and the number of questions per candidate will fall sharply, especially those questions that aren't specifically relevant to the candidate. If I'm correct the number of questions is a symptom of the lack of RFAs rather than a cause. Fix the problems that deter lots of qualified candidates from running, and the problem will recede. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• The idea is to read to the end of the page I linked to. It's got a lot more to do with the overall issue of questions than success of Biblioworm's December 2015 RfC that limited the questions to two per user. It addresses the entire philosophy of the questions and the ill spiritedness ( or even blatant trolling) that often lies behind them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The trolling cannot be blatant or it would be obvious. ——SerialNumber54129 14:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The trolling is obvious, Serial Number 54129, maybe you just don't see it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I only wish that were true. ——SerialNumber54129 09:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) To me it's not clear at all that the questions are what holds people back. After I passed I made a few serious pitches to people to consider RfA. One of them was Girth and obviously he said yes. The rest who declined all mentioned elements of their editing that they thought would prevent them from passing - that is draw too many opposes. None mentioned questions. To the extent questions came up, it came up with Girth around the timing of his RfA. He needed to do it at a point when he knew he'd have time to respond. That is a hurdle but feels like a logistical one rather than a foundational one that stops people from running. I'd love if some social scientist (ping Piotrus as someone who has studied sysop on Wikipedia before) would consider a study to find out about the experiences of those who go through RfA and those who are interested and don't (ORCP) or who people suggest should run and don't. Absent that we're all just using our experiences which might or might not add-up to an accurate picture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

This would be a fantastic thing to actually have more some more rigorous data on - I'd very happily support any such attempt Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, sorry, but that's not possible. Canvassing for candidates obviously takes place off Wiki and convention stipulates that we cannot reveal names and emails. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

While obviously that is accurate, I've seen a fair few bits of canvassing done on-wiki (including responses on why that can't/won't run), though obviously the number through email might be so high that its absence makes the rest of data too incomplete for benefit. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There is more than one way to skin this particular cat. If someone wanted to do research that included people who had been asked off wiki and declined, you could either post a link to a survey here or ask active nominators to send such a link to people who they had approached. Finding out how many people had declined such a nomination or getting a statistically representative sample of them might not be possible, but giving a subset of those people a link to a research survey is fairly easy. Alternatively one could do research to a whole swathe of editors who haven't run but who have been active in recent years and have some other similarities to successful RFA candidates. One of the questions could be whether they have been approached by a possible nominator. ϢereSpielChequers 12:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• @WereSpielChequers, Nosebagbear, Serial Number 54129, and Barkeep49:, I do very strongly suggest first reading the archive I linked to before jumping to any conclusions. That's why it was pointed out to me earlier today and why I posted it here - for the benefit mainly of those who don't have the institutional memory, and to avoid perennial repetition in the ever vague hope that some day something will be done about it. That said, I can assure you all as a former long time talent scout that the major reasons I was given by dozens of potential candidates of the right calibre for not running were the questions and general hostility. There was a time when an RfA talk page contained only a copy-paste of the candidate's edit count and nothing else. The talk page nowadays is nothing less than shameful and is a sad new trend that reflects the increase in trolling. Let's hope nobody is called Richard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Kudpung, 2011 was obviously a banner year for new sysops compared to now (there nearly were as many successful RfAs when that discussion started as there were all of last year), but was also a huge drop-off from the preceding year and was part of a trend of a substantial % drop in new sysops year-over-year stretching back to 2007. I agree with you that we should be having more than 20 or so sysops a year (the general number since 2014) but I don't think we can say, with evidence, that it's questions keeping people who would pass away from going. It might be. We just can't say that it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Barkeep49, I wouldn't say 2011 was a banner year. If anything it was the year signalled the start of what was to be a rapid decline. The point is however, that the behaviour on RfA was already rotten to the core. What has changed is that the majority of the (now rare) RfA today conclude with a large consensus to 'promote', but only because we nip the non starters in the bud. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, I agree that 2011 wasn't really a banner year - only a banner year compared to now. Arguably no year was a banner year after 2007. My point, however, is that 2011 was a different environment than today. I certainly had read that discussion and think it important. But I still respectfully, especially given the experience you mention below, disagree. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• @Kudpung: - I did read the archive set, including all of "How big a problem is the question section?" and the interesting "So... Are the optional questions optional?". I'm still inclined to agree with Barkeep49 in terms of what I've seen for the small group I've discussed it with - which is why I'm interested in your experience based on a much larger sample group. In terms of iffy questions, I would say that it just needs continuation of a point raised in the "optional" questions thread - candidates can't really deny answering a question, so it's up to everyone else to indicate that it shouldn't be answered. That's what happened to a very early question in mine (which was more struck in terms of "damned if I/he does, damned if he doesn't/irrelevance grounds) and also would have happened in the case of a question (as opposed to opposes) on naming basis. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• This discussion isn't going the way I had hoped at all, ist it? Rather than challenge the empirical experience of those who really do know, such as MelanieN, Ritchie333, and myself who for several years worked as a team to find victims for RfA, and the mass of research into voters and questions that was done at WP:RFA2011, I would have thought that once having read the threads I linked to and finding that the situation has worsened to the point of getting out of hand, someone could come up with a key phrase that could be the incentive for a new round of reforms. When Jimbo described RfA as a 'horrible and broken process' he was not wrong, even if RfA does actually do what it is supposed to. But it should be able to do that without all the silly questions, disingenuous oppose votes, bickering and in-fighting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Kudpung, I'm familiar with the arguments that have run at RFA over the years, and like you I have spoken to many, many potential candidates over the years, including ten who became admins. I'm used to people turning me down because they have skeletons in closets, because they fear that RFA is a brutal process that would make for a difficult week, because they don't need the tools, and because they don't fancy being at the community's beck and call. If anyone is specifically fussed about the questions, it really isn't as common a grief as any of the ones that I mentioned. Note to any watching potential candidates, some of the reasons I mentioned are true for some people, and at least one of the reasons is bogus - I get maybe one or two requests for admin action a month. ϢereSpielChequers 16:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

WSC, I'm not saying that they were all specifically fussed by the thought of the questions, but it was one of the many reasons they came up with for not running. The point I'm making here is that the questions are only one strand in the evil of RfA and it's one that could begin to be addressed. 'Baby steps' - you told me that yourself many, many years ago when you were unwittingly my mentor ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed re baby steps, but to my mind the next babystep would be to target that watchlist notice to editors who are st least edit confirmed. There are some like yourself who would like to go further, but I'm not seeing anyone disagreeing with that change. ϢereSpielChequers 18:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd rather have stupid questions than stupid oppose votes. At least in the former case we get to see how the candidate will respond, whereas in the latter case the convention is for them to stay out of it. – bradv🍁 16:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  I apologize if my drive-by comment misses the point of this thread. But I do think this is broadly applicable to the idea of placing further limits on questions at RfA. The ability of the candidate to answer questions (and the wisdom to know which ones to ignore) is a make-or-break factor in many RfAs, and may be the best measure we have of whether the candidate is suitable. – bradv🍁 17:22, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  One of my concerns about RFA is the overreliance of many voters on the question section. In RFAs we have plenty of time to assess a candidate's edits, look at how they communicate with others and especially how they perform in admin related areas. Do their deletion tags and arguments show they are ready for the deletion button? When they warn others and file AIV reports do they show themselves ready for the block button? Sadly most RFA voters skimp on this process, but a well argued and dif supported oppose or a dif supported question can sway a large proportion of those editors who, to be frank, don't research the candidate themselves and rely on others to do that and show their results in a question or vote. ϢereSpielChequers 17:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  @WereSpielChequers:, while that's accurate, the problem is that if you didn't have questions, people would still be swayed by the few opposes who did do that research. With the questions, they get a better chance to defend/explain themselves. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, responding to oppose votes is a trickier issue than responding to questions. I don't see anyone arguing for the abolition of the question section, but there are several, including myself and Kudpung who want it reformed. The question is how does one reform it and in what direction? I know the direction that I would like it to go in - "dif supported question"s that are the result of a questioner looking at the candidate's edits and wanting to clarify something or highlight an issue in a way that the candidate is expected to respond to. I'm less sure as to how one achieves that other than by example and discussion here. Others have different concerns re the question section, some of which I may well share. As for many RFA voters not doing research, we aren't short of RFA voters at present - in fact some record turnouts have recently been achieved. I want more voters to trawl through the candidate's contributions. But there is also an important role for voters who look at evidence and rationales provided by others, and decide whether it is germane and convincing. That role is not made easier by cluttering the question section with questions that could equally have been asked of any candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 07:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Tnx for the ping, this will be a quick reply as a have to run to work. A research study would be valuable, my gut feeling is that this has to do with the combination of 'we get fewer editors' leading to 'most candidates have much longer histories than 10 years ago' than in turns is coupled with mud sticks (also see mini-essays of mine there 'why perfect admins don't exist' and 'mud sticks again'), which means that as time goes, new candidates find our expectations higher and their record easier to nitpick. And there is a common stereotype that RfA are super stressful, lot of people decline likely because they don't want to spend a ~week answering variations of did you stop beating your wife... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

• Notwithstanding the comments by Nosebagbear and WereSpielChequers who make some valid observations, this is not a proposal to dispense with user questions entirely, but many of the questions are irrelevant even if it is claimed they are necessary to see how a candidate reacts under stress and stupidity. New, and up-to-date data as suggested by Piotrus is indeed required along the lines of this research where we documented and categorised certain types of over 100 inappropriate questions out of over 700, and examined the performance of 234 question posers over the 1 year sample period. Not that I believe any more recent data will come up with significantly different results.

I also strongly recommend reading the talk page of that research due to its poignant relevancy nearly 9 years later - it will stimulate further commenting here. Objective comments made there by users such as Mkativerata, Tofutwitch11, Swarm, Worm That Turned, and Scottywong, who are still around, could be the basis of new discussion instead of the perennial repetition here at WT:RfA without action over the ensuing 8 years.

The reforms made nearly 4 years ago touched on the issue of questions, but only their number. Where that reform project failed however, IMO, was in allowing the advertising of current RfAs. This has not improved RfA at all, neither increasing the number of new candidates nor changing the behaviour of the participants. To the contrary, the number of voters has more than doubled, and along with it, the drama which now overspills onto the comments section and the talk page - both places that were never or rarely used previously.

User questions and user votes both contribute equally to maintaining RfA as the one place where users can be as disingenuous and nasty as they like with almost total impunity. This should be a wake-up call either for new changes or for more, systematic, no-nonsense effective clerking but not while the core of regular, reasonable participants remains diluted by hundreds of drive-by, one-time, and often very inexperienced voters, and maybe the occasional troll. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Of some relevance may also be my study on why editors retire (for free mirror use Library Genesis), the key finding is that between a quarter to half of the editors, IIRC, retire because of stress / incivility / fighting. People don't enjoy being put on the grill, so to speak, and the RfA has the reputation of the biggest grill on Wikipedia outside being at ArbCom or such. It is hardly surprising that many people refuse to volunteer for such a stressful procedure. Why add to the stress in life and volunteering just so you can be allowed to help with the mop and bucket? :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung. How do you suggest we define and deal with "disingenuous and nasty" behaviour at RFA? Do you want to revive the clerking idea? ϢereSpielChequers 07:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers, the catalogue of questions here could be a start. Obviously since the community voted for the brilliant idea of publishing RfA so that every wannabe back office worker and troll can participate at RfA, it's unlikely that they will all become potty trained in Wikipedia behaviour, so clerking seems to be the solution. Of course, there is another idea: elect a thousand or so editors with a clean behaviour record, reasonable experience, and long enough tenure to be a RfA pool of regular voters. Sounds nice, but today's kind of community would never wear it. 09:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)~~

Thanks Kudpung. One area where you and I don't fully agree is over the advertising of RFAs. I welcome the higher turnout, partly because I was hoping that it would lead to more candidates coming forward after a period as voters. But I would be happy to target the ads a bit more tightly, and I accept there is a price to pay in that most RFA voters will take a few RFA votes before they are really effective RFA voters, and even more before they are ready to run at RFA. I'm not convinced that we could find candidates or voters to elect a thousand RFA voters, let alone keep that renewed over time. But I do think it would be an uncontentious improvement to target the watchlist notice to editors who are at least extended confirmed. That would require a software change, and it isn't a rule excluding those who aren't yet extended confirmed from voting at RFA, but it would target the ads at people who are more likely to find them relevant, and be more likely to be ready to be effective as RFA voters. ϢereSpielChequers 11:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from WereSpielChequers, but after nearly 4 years of the reform nothing has changed in this respect other than the increase by a factor 2 of the votes and the drama. Restricting the watchlist is one solution, but perhaps simply putting every RfA under ECA would do the same. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung:, what fraction of undesirable questions would you guess are from non-EC editors? As a note, while we could both restrict the watchlist and page access, it would be very poor form to protect the pages without limiting who had it showing up on their watchlist. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say there is a false premise in this thread that "the problem with RfA are the questions". Whilst there were issues with questions back in 2011, were people would each be given lots of questions, or trick questions, or unfair questions, all to get one vote - this has been largely taken care of by limiting the number of questions that can be posed and by allowing the 'crats (and other editors) to effectively clerk the the RfA. Kudpung, of the last 80 or so RfAs (i.e. the past 3 years), how many can you actually point to with problematic questions?
  The issue I see at RfA, is that people just don't want to do it. It's become quite a high standard to pass, people will oppose for all sorts of reasons. I've said before that RfA needs a PR facelift (that's something we could do by removing a lot of the scary bumf), but the community needs confidence that when an admin is no longer suitable then they will no longer be an admin. Far more important than creating admins is improving the system for removing them. but that's another question for another day :) Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been suggesting that the questions are the problem at RfA. They are one of several problems.I just chose to start a thread discussing this particular problem because it's visible and hard to deny. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kudpung, I would not like a situation where we were advertising RFAs to people through watchlists but then protecting the page against them editing it. I see that as very different to only encouraging people to vote once they are extended confirmed. What I haven't done is gone through the voters at a recent RFA to see what proportion were not yet extended confirmed, it may be that people at the start of their wiki careers ignore the RFA ads. BTW re Worm that turned, I'm not convinced that perceived difficulty of desysopping is related to RFA, other of course than the problem that many of the suggested reverse RFA systems would enable spammers and others and deter sensible people from running at RFA. I certainly don't buy the argument that making it easier to desysop Admns who Arbcom won't desysopp would lower the bar at RFA. Though there is a problem that almost any attempt to reform RFA risks being diverted into a discussion about desysopping. ϢereSpielChequers 18:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I've looked through the three most recent (2 successful, 1 unsuccessful) and by my count none of the users asking questions were below extended confirmed. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Wugapodes, and I have just refreshed my memory of the unsuccessful one and you're correct, though in that one the questions were almost all relevant to the RFA. So restricting the watchlist notice to extended confirmed editors will make little or no difference to the question section, though it might reduce the number of voters. Even if it turned out that almost all editors were ignoring the watchlist notice until they were extended confirmed I still think we should target the watchlist notice more narrowly as that would indicate it isn't relevant to new editors. ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

This, and similar recurring threads from editors over many years, are RfA Unicorns. There is no valid reason to curtail the overall numbers of questions (absolutely no evidence that questions inhibit candidates coming forward). Further, there is no need to limit the voting franchise and there is especially no justification in curtailing watchlist notices to encourage as wide a community participation as possible. Functionaries cannot be selected on a limited franchise. The handful of pointless / trolling !votes are readily handled by excursion to the Talk Page - an excellent initiative. To me, it is a case of an individual holding up a piece of their work from 9 years ago as somehow totemic and fully relevant to RfA when the rest of the world has moved on. Good candidates will come forward, be scrutinised and be successful. At the other end, Adminship tenure needs to be reviewed (I appreciate not the topic of this thread so I will no elaborate here). There is no "anti admin brigade". Leaky caldron (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly as Leaky cauldron says. I don't remember why we decided to place a limit on the quantity of questions a user may ask, but the measure was a solution seeking problems. While it uses a hybrid format, the core of RfA is debate – between a candidate and the community – and I think an effective RfA process has three features. Candidates should be approaching a broad sample of the community, receiving a healthy degree of scrutiny, and having that process of scrutiny be visible to voters. Measures that frustrate any of those three features must be treated more critically than they are being. AGK ■ 13:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that the core of requests for administrative privileges is debate. I believe the essential question being asked is if the community trusts the candidate to assume the responsibility of holding administrative privileges. It's not necessary for there to be a sequence of questions discussing opposing viewpoints for this question to be answered. However even within the context of a debate, in the real world, debate questions are limited by available time and so often moderated in some form. English Wikipedia chose to enact a mild form of self-moderation by limiting the number of questions each person could ask. That still leaves the range of topics wide open while encouraging a broader swath of subjects to be broached. isaacl (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Too wide, much too wide, Isaacl, and so broad as to encompass the very irrelevant and oft nonsense questions that are the root of the issues I belive should be addressed. The high number of questions is a fairly recent trend and they are often posed by users: "Ah, anyone can pose a question at RfA - goody, I'll think of something to ask". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My point was that RfA is not a debate. I think considering it as such is more conducive to the type of irrelevant questions you decry than my point of view that discussion (which doesn't have to involve questions to the candidate) should be focused on if the candidate is trusted by the community. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Isaacl, instead of talking about it, start an RfC with your idea - I might support it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what idea you're referring to—I was responding to AGK's comment that limiting the number of questions that can be asked by a single commenter was a solution seeking a problem, and that the core of RfA is debate. I disagreed that the core is debate, and supported the question limit. Regarding focusing on if candidates are trusted by the community, I don't sense that the community is any more ready to accept ways to manage discussion at RfA than it has been in the past. (At the last big RfC, my proposal to focus on pros and cons of the candidate didn't gain much support.) Taking real world examples, at candidate town halls, questions are selected by a moderator. In one-on-one interviews, an interviewer is chosen to devise appropriate questions. For better or worse, the portion of the English Wikipedia community that likes to discuss these matters is very reluctant to delegate authority to anyone and wants to try to make decisions en masse as much as possible. (Witness its continual questioning of any group that has been empowered with a level of authority.) Until it comes to terms with the fact that consensus, particularly in the form of a large, unmoderated discussion, doesn't scale upwards to a large group making effective decisions, we're stuck with the consequences. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

We could save the community much time if we just asked Bishonen and Iridescent, instead of RfA. A candidate they both support will not brake the wiki. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's an idea that has been floated before: have an appointment committee, or a nomination committee. Although I have no evidence, my wild-ass guess is if the entire Wikipedia community could somehow be polled, it might agree with this. But amongst the portion of people who like to participate in discussions on English Wikipedia administration, this would mean ceding their personal influence on the matter, and so far they've been reluctant to do so. isaacl (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's been floated several times before and most recently again by myself. Here's one idea - just an idea:

(arbitrary break)

Voters

• A user right to be requested at PERM.
• Requirement: 1000 edits/12 months. Clean block log.
• Grandfather all users who have voted on at east 5 RfA in the past 2 years, and not caused any drama. Clean block log for last 12 months
• 'RfA Voter' bundled with Sysop.

Any user with 90/500 can comment but not vote. Such non-voter comments to go on the talk page

RfA Election Commission/Coordinators

• Bureaucrats or appointed by voters from list of voters at a yearly election
• 1 year term. 1 term only
• Abstain from voting.
• Duties: clerking, verification of validity of votes, moderating questions

Before this could be proposed, it would be very wise for someone who knows how, to run an up to date voter profile of the kind Scottywong did in 2011. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a fine proposal, albeit not an appointment committee as proposed by Gerda, or a nominating committee. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, Isaacl, it's one idea - just an idea, but quite serious, not flippant. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• For those not grandfathered in, was it intended to suggest a non-time limited block log? And what is "not caused any drama" supposed to mean - some people state anyone who actively chooses to participate on the AN/ANI boards are needlessly creating drama, but most would say that might be a helpful experience set for !voting on an RfA. If it just means not (recently) blocked, then it seems duplicative. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't have words for how disturbing I find even the thought of this proposal. Some animals are more equal than others.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Can you give us an explanation of why you think it is disturbing, a simple proposal that could improve the process, particularly in light of the alternate proposal that is loss of control of this function entirely? scope_creep^Talk 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

One should never have to beg for the right to vote. I disagree with people every time but never will I support stripping peoples right to vote as the solution. "Clean block log" and "no troublemaking" "not causing drama" are clear words of voter suppression. Good candidates get through. Bad ones fail. Just because someones bad candidate failed is not an excuse to try to create an elite voting class. The fact that I have to explain this is double disturbing.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, Cube lurker, it's better than any of the suggestions you have come up with ;) What I find most disturbing is despite all the grand words, nobody has the guts to make a suggestion. That's what it's all about on Wikipedia, isn't it? No ideas but heckling from the sidelines. If you don't like the ideas, you could at least make an effort to put it more nicely, we're supposed to be on the same side.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I did put my disgust nicely. I rewrote it many times to keep my true feelings to myself and remain unblocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

New User rights, commissioners & coordinators. Seriously? This looks like the perfect recipe of WP:BLOAT. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Right to Pause?

The right two paws. --Tryptofish

The paws that refreshes -

EEng

Editing Wikipedia is a hobby. RFA is a 7 day process. Some of us, myself included, sometimes or often have a week or more when we can be around quite a bit. But there are plenty of active Wikipedians who I'm sure would make great admins, but who are rarely around for seven consecutive days. Would it help if we enabled candidates to program an RFA around their availability? Take the hypothetical active Wikipedian who has custody of their children three days a week and only ever edits on the other four. We don't need to know why that Wikipedian almost never edits Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, but would we be OK with an RFA that from the start was scheduled to run for 72 hours, have a 72 hour intermission, and then run for another 96 hours? ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this problem stems from the assumption that candidates must answer questions or respond to concerns. I'm sure if Floq had been so inclined, they could have simply said "I'm not answering any questions full stop, see my contributions and have at it", and then disappeared for 7 days, coming back to collect the bit or the commiserations. In theory, if everyone voting needed to search contributions to make a decision, and support or opposition was rebuked by uninvolved third parties, there would be no need to worry about a candidate's time as they wouldn't need to do anything. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary, and would add undue complexity to the process. A candidate needs to be available mostly at the beginning of the process, to fill out the required info and answer the initial questions. After that, it's not essential for them to be constantly available. ‑Scottywong| [soliloquize] || 22:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

When you start your RfA is one of the few things you can control about others around here! So start it when you have at least 2 days to reply - feel free to note that you will be off for a days 3 and 4 for example, then come back and catch up. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the philosophy "see my co contributions and decide for yourself, full stop" just does not work. Most people are too lazy to go and check the contributions; the project is still big enough that most voters do not know the candidate or work in different areas of Wikipedia, and it is enough to have a couple of enemies ready to cherry-pick a couple of episodes and highlight them, and the nomination is dead. Even if these episodes are old, and there are plenty of good more recent contribution. I had this illusion in the past, and I run into a troubles trying to follow it. If somebody shows up with any completely absurd accusation based on cherry-picking something I said and putting it out of context - I thought users would go look up diffs and analyze the whole episode, and then it becomes obvious that the accusation is bullshit - nope, nobody would do it, not even the arbs. They would just stick to the accusation and would decide whether I should be blocked now or given a warning and blocked later. That's life.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe it is necessary for candidates to be continually available for 7 days. If they state up front what days they will be active that will forestall complaints that questions aren't being answered (though I think we ought to tamp down expectations on that front, too). If they really wanted to, I imagine it should be feasible for candidates to state at the start that they want the request to stay open for an extra length of time until date X, to accommodate their schedule. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If an RFA goes really well, a candidate can pretty much disappear for the final day, maybe even the one before. I have known a candidate put an apology in that something had come up and they wouldn't be around for 24 hours in the middle. However that's about as much latitude as the community currently gives admin candidates. My suggestion is much broader, I'd like us to open up to the sort of person who might only be active on wet weekends. The only way such a candidate could run an RFA would be to have it in a series of chunks, or to rearrange their schedule to be around for 7 days continuously. I don't see any downside to such an RFA, other of course than that an editor who only edits on Thursdays and Fridays would not be able to comment on an RFA that ran in two Saturday to Tuesday chunks. ϢereSpielChequers 00:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see a need to halt the request process in the middle, though. The candidate can ask for it to run for nine days from Saturday to the second following Sunday to cover two weekends. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

As an admin, the sort of person who might only be active on wet weekends is likely to be a damp squib. Unless they live in England. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite a few of us do live in England.... and I'm sure I'm not the only one who is more likely to edit when it is dark or wet in the garden. But more seriously, do we want to restrict adminship to those who are here at least as many hours as a part time job, or are we open to someone who puts in the equivalent of an evening every week or so? Given that the RFA expectation of recent activity is 100 plus edits a month, I'm assuming the latter. If so I think it would be helpful if candidates could pause their RFA and not hold it in one continuous 7 days. ϢereSpielChequers 16:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

But then you're asking editors who want to vote on an RfA to understand when they can or can't vote, or ask a question, or add to the discussion. Imagine you're an editor who notices an RfA and wants to vote on it, and you try to do so, but ohhh, it's paused now, I guess I'll need to come back in a few days and try again? That would be a very strange experience. How about we just build a culture where it's ok if it takes an RfA candidate 24 hours to respond to a question? Does that culture not already exist? I don't think anyone has a stopwatch on the candidate, and if they don't respond to a question within an hour, they get an automatic oppose for being too slow. Additionally, while no editors are on Wikipedia 24/7, it's probably not too much to ask of an admin candidate to be available a bit more than normal during the week of their RfA (and I think most of them naturally are, because it's an exciting time). ‑Scottywong| [talk] || 17:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, doing this with a series of pauses would be different and you'd need a clear way of doing the pausing. Currently the expectation is within 24 hours, after the first few hours there is no problem in the candidate only being around a few hours a day. For our current candidates that is rarely a problem, but I'd like to open adminship up to people who aren't able to be here every day. ϢereSpielChequers 18:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We should not do anything that could prevent !voters from participating, one reason it is a week instead of say 3 days is precisely because some people can only access the site on some days. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any reason, anecdotally or otherwise, to believe that the need to answer questions over a seven day period is actually holding back any candidates from running? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  That would be difficult to figure out, but I am sure that multiple candidates, I believe including myself, posted notices during their RFA that they would be unavailable during a day or two. This means that they took the possibility of opposition due to lack of answers in a day, real or imaginary, seriously.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Interesting, thanks. If a notice like that worked for you (and for others), I don't see why it shouldn't work for anyone else. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC) I'll add that the reason I'm asking this is that I've seen countless attempts over the years here to solve what isn't the problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  It certainly should work in a normal situation, I guess the original question of WSC was how we facilitate RFA for people who can only edit say two times per week.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Sure, I understand. I'm just wondering whether there really are people who would be that restricted even during an RfA. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  - As a matter of fact, not being available continuously for a whole seven days has certainly put me off standing at an RFA over the last 12 months (as Ritchie333 and Amorymeltzer could probably confirm). But thereagain, I welcome any excuse to procrastinate(!), so I'm not too bothered about waiting until I'm free enough to do it justice. After all, there is no rush, is there? That said, why do we not ask candidates to indicate in their application the approximate UTC times they envisage being online/available in the RFA period ahead? One person's daytime is another person's beauty sleep. It could also be argued that, if an RFA were to run over 9 days, not 7, it would indeed allow its timing to straddle two weekends. But inserting a pause in proceedings, except in exceptional circumstances, seems rather unworkable to me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  Yes, that's what I said: candidates can indicate when they are active, and ask for the RfA to run for nine days covering two weekends. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  I like the idea of extending RfA to 9 days more than I like the idea of an intermediate pause, and then asking the candidate to say when they'll be available for questions - it should be easy enough to make an availability template to display in the RfA. It would be simpler than tailoring intermissions to suit individuals, and I'd hope it would fix the availability problem for most people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) (Updated, Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC))

  FWIW, I don't agree with the premise of this thread that the requestor needs be available continuously for a whole week. A few days up front to answer the slew of questions, but if nothing significant arises, these days it's a good five days of a slow trickle of supports and some opposes. There's little a candidate needs to do except check in an answer a question here or there; popping on for a quick bit before going to bed or after waking up should be be sufficient. More controversial candidates should likely be more available, but even then, unless they do something new, there's not much to change.. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• Do we know that candidates would want a 9 day RfA? I would have preferred to go 5 days rather than 7 let alone 9 - less time for the slow drip anxiety that RfA can engender. It seems at least one potential candidate for RfA would also prefer shorter to longer (Nick Moyes). If going to 9 days would help real candidates than by all means let's do it. But I just have to wonder if we wouldn't be better off doing some sort of RfA survey where we would ask "Would this make you more likely, less likely, or not make a difference for you to RfA?" of potential reforms. In this idea I would see us polling X number of the next RfAs and an equivalent number of people who we identify (somehow) as potential candidates who didn't run and see what we come up with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

  The idea is to allow those who participate once a week to have a chance to comment, so the request should remain open at least seven days. Most requests are pretty cut-and-dried and don't have a lot of new comments by the end of the period, so I don't think extending the request a couple of days will make much difference. (And for a weekend-only editor, the current alternatives are for the editor to either schedule the request so it ends without making any last replies, or to schedule it so the editor isn't available at some other time.) I don't think we need a poll on this specific issue: it's just an option that they can choose if it helps. If not, they can choose any other available options that they prefer. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mine went easily enough -- the majority of work on my part was in the first two days -- so I would still prefer 7 days minimum. If a user feels he cannot attend to an RFA except on the weekends, I don't see an issue with a request to the crats to hold on closing, since it's always been 7 minimum, not 7 absolute. --Izno (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
• The greater issue is the community (in its form of a bunch of individuals, not a hive mind) being fine with it. I think if the candidate posted at the start that they'd be non-answering for days x, y & z but it would be open another 2 days, most would be fine with it. There is the potential for some incidental difficulty (most RfAs that ultimately end in the 55-85% range go "big pile of supports, a few opposes, mixed pile of opposes, relatively equal trickles of supports and opposes), though the most recent was a distinct anomaly on that front. As such, a longer RfA might get a couple of % lower than an otherwise equivalent RfA, but that would be relatively minimal (few people !vote on day 6) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think there should be a pause. Voters also have the right to only edit on Monday mornings and Wednesday afternoons, and still have their voice heard in an RfA. Just make it clear to anyone who expects candidates to be always available within 48 hours that this is not a reasonable thing to expect from other volunteers. —Kusma (t·c) 14:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think the best timing for an RfA would be to set aside at least 2 or 3 days where you can look at an RfA attentively, perhaps a weekend on which you are free, and schedule those three days as the first three days of your RfA. After three days, if you've done well, then there will generally be enough support votes that you can delay answering questions until you get the time. Mz7 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of points which I feel are being missed here: A seven day RfA has served us well for all its years - I see no need to change that and no changes of that kind will encourage more potential candidates to come forward. I know the WT:RfA crowd won't agree with me, but the question section is heavily abused; there are those who argue it's legitimate to subject the candidates to stress and nonsense questions, but IMO RfA is not an obstacle course at a British army boot camp - what inappropriate questions do is foster bad faith from the get go. Most relevant questions are posed in the first day or two, later questions are often the junk ones made up by users who think it's cool to be silly. Finally, and most important, answering user questions is totally optional. To vote oppose because a candidate declines to pander to the whim of a trollish questioner should be enough for a formal warning for disruption of a serious process. Wikipedia might be written by unpaid volunteers and token owned by a group of salaried non-experts in San Francisco, but the world's No.5 web site (more correctly, the world's largest knowledge base using an electronic platform) is serious stuff, and shouldn't to be treated like a game. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Separate discussion from polling?

Copied from Special:PermanentLink/928097395#General comments to continue in an even more general manner

• Do we have to have people arguing with every oppose? It creates such a poor atmosphere that Oppose !voters gets attacked in every RfC and Support !voters who post trite supports ("No big deal", "Why not?", etc) never get questioned over it (and I've seen people who do question those !votes get attacked for doing so). It's not about "having a discussion" in the RfC - these are people who just get attacked for having a different opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hi SchroCat: in a clerking capacity, I reviewed the four responses to the four oppose comments currently placed: I’m having trouble viewing them as “attacking” the participants - RfAs are still a discussion at the basic level and these counter-arguments are delivered in a calm manner (save for the word “ridiculous”, which does add a bit of heat) and mostly speak to the arguments being made, not the participants. I understand that it can be somewhat uncomfortable (and effect a chill) to have to defend one’s position (or for one’s position to be questioned) in this context, but this is the consensus process as it exists at RfA today. Speaking generally (and this should maybe move to WT:RFA), but I wonder if this “uncomfortableness” would be lessened if we attempted to separate the polling from the discussion, so specific arguments or reasons in support or opposition to the candidate would be cataloged and discussed individually in sections, and then the polling could be done separately with only brief remarks referring the “Oppose due to oppose reasons 2,4,5; reasons 3,6 are irrelevant to me; moral support due to support reasons 1,7” and no threaded discussion would occur in that section. What do you think? –xeno^talk 11:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I certainly think that comments and !votes should be separated. We have people putting in a support vote, then attacking the rationale of the opposers - it's a bad look and will keep people away from contributing. I've seen people being berated for questioning the more trite support !votes, and yet a thought-out oppose (whether others agree with it or not) will automatically come under fire. Look above, a couple of people think the edit levels are not good enough to support the candidate: we don't need three people to jump on them and tell them they are wrong - they are no more right or wrong than the supporters who do not think it a problem. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I have previously suggested separating discussion for counter-arguments, to avoid repetitive conversation threads, and so certainly support this approach. This will make the conversation more effective and depersonalize discussion, thereby making it less confrontational. It would also be more conducive to building up a consolidated list of pros and cons, which can provide a concise recap for anyone looking to join the conversation or review what has gone on since they last participated. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  As one of the four opposers, I definitely don't feel attacked by having a point challenged. It's a reasonable difference of opinion. – Teratix ₵ 11:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) While you yourself may not feel it, there is already an attacking air for anyone who feels they do not want to support this candidate, but does not want ot be attacked for doing so. - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support !votes are (and should be) challenged if they are felt to be wrong. Here's one example and here's a challenge I made. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Initial opposes at an RfA regularly recieve pushback that early supports, some of which could be challenged here, don't. It's one of the ways I've identified that help make RfA right now favorable to the candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  There are currently six supports that show insufficient or trite rationales. I know that if I press all six of those to given some decent rationale, I'll be pulled up for harassment or badgering (I've seen it happen to others when they have tried to get people to explain). One of the reasons RfA can turn into a bear pit from time to time isn't people attacking the rationales of the support votes, but those attacking the rationales of the opposes. No-one wants to see time wasting opposes or abuse of candidates, but if any opposers are going to have their opinions trashed at each and every RfC, then it will inevitably turn sour from time to time. -SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  While the default position is 'promote', I've previously commented in bureaucrat discussions that bare supports (and the like) will typically carry less weight in close call situations. –xeno^talk 14:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Why count them at all? If people are unable to leave even a basic rationale, then it's not a discussion or a consensus-weighing process, but a straight vote, which is not what this is supposed to be about. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I typically don’t heckle opposes, but I think when the initial criticism is something as ridiculous as saying someone who has over two years of experience and has never dipped below active editor status in that time does not have enough experience or that their activity is inconsistent, that does need to be pointed out lest we have a meme effect. To xeno’s point on the word ridiculous: it’s a fair description of the view that over two years is not enough time. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Tony, that's your opinion (and I think I agree that two years is sufficient), but just because someone else has a different opinion, it doesn't need people to pile in and argue the opposite. Telling them they have the "wrong" opinion seems wong. Surely they are allowed to have their opinion without people sniping at them? Or should we allo mass sniping and criticism of all votes based on all opinions? The 'crats are sufficiently proficient in weighing up whether it is a viable Oppose or not - it doesn't need everyone else souring the atmosphere. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Personally, I’d make RfA a straight vote so we didn’t have to worry about any of this. I think that would be substantially more fair to everyone and would lower the temperature in the room significantly. The community has for reasons beyond me decided that it thinks RfA should be a discussion, which means that opposes tend to draw discussion if people disagree with them. I think people should be prepared to defend their view if challenged, but those challenging them also should know when to stop.

  Since my standard support is probably one of the 6 you mention above, in fairness I’ll expand: I don’t have much experience with Dreamy Jazz, but I’ve seen them around enough to realize they have a basic understanding of how the project works, know they’re typically pretty competent, and have never seen them behaving rudely to others or in a way that I think they will abuse the tools. If someone meets those standards, I’m fine supporting (though I typically do it in a much shorter fashion.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I wasn't necessarily thinking of yours (although it is more borderline than some others), but numbers 5, 7 and 49 are meaningless in the "discussion" sense and are just straight votes (rather than !votes). Maybe going for a straight vote is the way forward. Maybe 3 days of discussion followed by three days of straight votes would be an idea, or possibly separating the !voes from a discussion on the same page. Either way, the badgering of each opposer while the supporters leave no rationale is not conducive to a free and open discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree with separating the !votes and discussion on them, as they get significantly more eyesight and means that opposition to the oppose reasoning is actually seen by anyone (not just those careful at reading everything before !voting) see it. If needs be an in-page link (similar to the ones to the talk page we do for big threaded discussions) could be put in, but that's a 2nd preference. I am happy to concede that the lack of challenging of unsupported support votes can be viewed as unfair, and I'd be perfectly happy if they were also viewed as open to discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not allowing any "discussion"(/badgering/comments/harrassing/whatever) at all after the initial comment? Any ridiculous statements, insults or trolling can be moderated, so why have the interaction at all? - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think at present the discussion in the oppose section gets more attention anyway. Consolidating discussion would avoid covering the same arguments in multiple threads. The way these discussions are repeated across many people's stated opinions magnifies them in the readers' minds (including the candidate's). isaacl (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Separating the !votes and the discussion would lead to even more drive-by participation as !voters would feel even less need to explain their position. After all, nobody is going to double-check that each !voter also posted in a separate discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Given there are some supports that give no rationale at present and a heap of others that barely register as a fill sentence, it looks like we're already in that position. - SchroCat (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  And I've said I'd be happy to have support voters need to justify themselves, if that was the "cost" to allow threaded consideration of oppose !votes. More active clerking would be fine. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  Commenters would still enter their opinion with a concise summary, just as is typically done now, which is easily distinguishable from a bare support or oppose. Further discussion about the points made would be separated. This way the conversation about a given argument can be held once, in one location, instead of being spread out in many people's comments. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  There are some mockups RfAs at Special:PrefixIndex/User:MBisanz/Qs/RfACandidate. Maybe someone could reformat one into the format being discussed. –xeno^talk 23:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

• Separating discussion and voting is fine only if the votes themselves do not contain a rationale. Very often the comment you make while supporting/opposing/neutraling has the effect of campaigning for others to join you in your opinion (even if that is not the intention). Nonsense rationales ("too many deleted edits, user clearly does not understand notability") should not be allowed to stand. Either disallow rationales or allow them to be challenged. (I deliberately use straight votes when I don't want to influence others, and so I am one of the main offenders in the "voting without a rationale" category). —Kusma (t·c) 20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
• Well, I oppose all of the possible changes proposed here (and feel free to reply to me!). As I see it, over time, the most frequent concern expressed by editors about RfA is that potential good candidates are reluctant to run because of the harshness of the process. The last thing we should be doing is to make it harder to support and easier to oppose. (And the second-last is to make it less of a discussion and more of a vote.) When I support, I almost always make an effort to provide a rationale for supporting, and I do wish more supporting editors would do so. I do find a lot of the "canned" support rationales lazy and annoying. But I don't think it's something we should legislate. I support the current practice of the 'crats to give less weight to comments without rationales in close cases, and that really is the bottom line. When I'm supporting and I think there are serious flaws with some of the oppose comments, I find that a lower-drama way to respond is to refrain from commenting in the oppose section, and instead explain why those opposes are flawed in my own support comment. (And I trust the 'crats to see it there.) One thing I could support would be to have some kind of notice added to the top of RfA pages, that points out explicitly that !votes without clear rationales are likely to be given less weight. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  I don't see having a separate section for extended discussion doing either of those things: writing an initial support opinion would be the same as now, and writing an oppose opinion won't get any easier. It would make RfA more of a discussion by actually holding a group conversation on specific topics, rather than individual threads with individual commenters. isaacl (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am opposed for two reasons. To begin with, I agree with Trypto that making opposes easier doesn't make RfA less toxic for candidates and that should be our focus. I'm not seeing any argument from people that consensus has changed in the last six months when we had an RfC close with a consensus of consenus processes rather than more vote like. And to me this idea makes it much more vote like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  For example, Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2012 separated initial statements by each commenter from subsequent discussion. I think it worked quite well in letting everyone state their positions upfront, without having to wade through interleaved discussion threads, while still fostering lots of discussion. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• A lot of the time, the opposition comes down to a single isolated issue. For WP:Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4, it was a couple of ECP requests. For WP:Requests for adminship/Valereee it was running the same as WP:FRAMGATE. For WP:Requests for adminship/RexxS, it was saying "don't fuck about" once. For WP:Requests for adminship/EvergreenFir it was reporting Eric five years ago for something. These attract pile-on votes that make it sound like an ongoing problem. It's therefore no real surprise, particularly when an RfA is running at 85%+ support, that people will be naturally attracted towards weak counterarguments and refute them. The reason you don't see the reverse - ie: initial opposes and little support, is because it's now technically much harder to get into that situation in the first place. But we used to have WP:NOTNOW RfAs that closed on (0/10/2) where nobody cared about the opposition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestion, SchroCat, and for all the thought here. But I don’t agree with the proposed changes to our current system. First, let’s make it clear what kind of RfA’s we are talking about. It’s usually the cases where there are many support !votes and only a few oppose ones. In those cases, the oppose !voters, especially the first few, tend to get argued with. Sometimes it can come across as pile-on or badgering by the candidate’s supporters, and that’s unfortunate. Sometimes it turns into an extended argument, which is then properly clerked to the talk page. But I don’t agree with any of the proposed solutions, especially separating the responses from the !vote. Many opposes NEED to be responded to; they may contain a misstatement of fact, or the !voter’s unique interpretation of an action that most people do not find to be problematic. If opposes are left in place unchallenged, something like that could be taken at face value and turned into a quite unjustified meme. I think we should keep our current system, especially now that some bureaucrats (thank you, xeno!) are monitoring the discussions and clerking when necessary. I oppose a straight !vote without comment; many people put research and thought into their position and argument. And I disagree with the suggestion that support and oppose reasons could be somehow catalogued, numbered, and referred to by number. The reasons given are way too varied and complex to be catalogued. If someone wants to reference a particular argument, they simply say “support/oppose per so-and-so”. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What we have seen here (and it's not uncommon in almost any RfA you look at) is that someone has an opinion on the number of edits they think an editor should have, or that they're asked for a block to help take a break. It's an opinion, a judgement: there is nothing wrong or right in what they have said, because it's their opinion only. Why, in that case, have people been lining up to argue with them, telling they are wrong to hold such opinions. That's wrong as it creates a rather unpleasant atmosphere to others who may want to oppose but don't want to get dragged into a long argument. It's also wrong when support voters who give either absolutely zero rationale or rather trite reasons ("why not" or "NOBIGDEAL") do not face any questioning at all - or worse, when someone does ask them for a rationale, they are told to stop being disruptive or harassing supporters. It's a skewed and unlevel playing field that allows more passive-aggressive behaviour than anywhere outside ANI. - SchroCat (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    SchroCat, I don't agree with your analysis of the situation. But even if I did, I'm not sure that would merit changing our system. You seem to be arguing that we need an environment where opposers feel more comfortable. I think it's to our benefit as a project that people don't feel that they can just toss off thoughtless opposes - we should all be forced to be careful before tossing off a criticism of another editor. What you are suggesting doesn't seem to me like it will change what you see as passive-agressive behavior (and again I don't agree with this characterization) it's just that rather than being aimed at people who want to oppose it'll be aimed at candidates. That doesn't strike me, on balance, as a positive change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    I certainly don't want people to think I'm tossing anything off anything! ( I think the term may mean something different where you are to me!)

    Yes, I certainly want an environment where opposers feel more comfortable, just as they should be, as long as they are making a good faith oppose based on a thought out rationale. Opposers should feel just as comfortable in posting their vote as supporters do. We already have a different threshold to how support and oppose votes are treated (an oppose without a rationale is ignored; a support without a rationale is only ignored if it is a close call) and we have a situation where supporters are given a free ride at little or no rationale where they are not questioned, yet most people opposing will be badgered despite having already given a rationale. Why would you want anyone to be uncomfortable voting at RfA? What we have - and what you are defending - is treating people differently just because they may see the threshold of adminship differently to you. It's a shoddy system we have at the moment, but I guess the usual inertia to change will mean we will retain a second rate process. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    Yes it does mean something different. Sorry for the colloquial expression there. "Why would you want anyone to be uncomfortable voting at RfA?" Because RfA isn't a vote and so if someone thinks it is they should be uncomfortable. It is, according to our most recent discussion, a consensus building process. Unlike most forms of consensus, RfA requires a substantial consensus so there is already an extra importance attached to opposers. A minority can prevent someone from becoming a sysop. I think this a good thing - protections of minority viewpoints from tyranny of the majority is important. However, it does, for me, mean (because I also operate from the premise that we could use more sysops, and editors in general) that leveling this structural imbalance slightly by placing a higher "cost" to opposing than supporting is alright. Especially because in this instance the issue under consideration is a person at the other end of the keyboard who deserves to be treated with respect. A system that makes it easier to say nice things rather than potentially hurtful things (even if done respectfully and with evidence) again is a system whose bias I am ok with. I understand that you feel differently and hopefully have been respectful myself in this discussion. I would suggest, however, that if you're interested in improving RfA that changing your mindset of "it's a vote" to "it's a consensus building exercise" might help you become more likely to overcome the status quo bias that permeates any efforts at change on Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) I know people keep claiming it's a discussion, but that's obviously farcial, given the number of support votes (not !votes) at each RfA. (And it's not my mindset that I think of it as a "vote": I have just got bored with typing "!vote" so many times in this thread; RfA has been a clusterfuck for so long, and while there have been a couple of improvements, it still a second rate process with which there is too much inertia to change). I disagree with much of what you have written about desiring a structural inbalance against opposers: !voters of all types should be treated the same, and the supporters should not attack the opinions of others. People's opinions differ, but no-one berates the supporters for some rationales that can be seen as "ridiculous" or "insane" (as some of the opposers have been characterised in the current RfA). - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    I agree people should be treated with respect. This includes people voting oppose. I agree it's not great for their reasoning to be called ridiculous or insane. And the reason I keep saying it's a discussion is because we had an RfC six months ago that closed with that consensus. Disagreeing with that consensus is fine of course and I respect your efforts to change that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    I think you need to read the full thread: I am not necessarily saying that we should stop this being a discussion. That is one suggestion that someone else has made that deserves wider examination. Other possibilities also include splitting the discussion from the !voting, or any other method that stops opposers being harassed as a matter of course, while the supporters can leave no rationale and still be counted as a full vote. - SchroCat (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    I think we know where each other stand on the bigger topic and we've had a spirited hopefully productive discussion. I am curious about one thing though. If someone left in response to an oppose I think you need to read the full page would that be harassing in your mind? Despite my having read this full thread I don't think of it as such but am curious your thinking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

    We already have a different threshold to how support and oppose votes are treated Yes, we do: Oppose !votes carry three times as much weight as Support votes, thanks to our 75% threshold. Is it any wonder that Oppose !votes are taken seriously, and sometimes argued with? One Oppose !vote cancels out three !Supports. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    It's 65% and one this year was lower than that. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    Fine. One oppose cancels out TWO support !votes in terms of leaving an avenue open via the bureaucrat discretion zone. One oppose cancels out three supports in terms of passing directly. My point remains: Oppose !votes carry more weight than supports do. You said that opposes have a different threshold; I absolutely agree, but for a different reason. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    I've been stalked, harrassed and trolled by more than one admin. I've been badly blocked more than once. The thought of a higher threshold for tyro admins comes as something of a bonus to ensure that we do not hand out powerful tools to those who are not fit to use them. I am not happy with an unequal system that gives licence for passive-aggressive bullying of people for well thought out opinions. It also means we continue to retain a second rate infrastructure for running the place. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

    Letting commenters make an initial, concise statement laying out their reasoning, with further discussion occurring in a separate section, doesn't change the discussion into a vote. It just allows discussion to be consolidated. I'm confident that the bureaucrats will read the entire discussion and still be able to suitably evaluate each person's opinion. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Numbers of roughs ..."

• Secret ballot There's currently a general election in the UK in which the issues are being discussed and then the voters will get their say. This is done by secret ballot and there are rules to prevent partisans from interfering with this (see Maintaining order for some guidelines). When this was not done, bribery and intimidation of voters was quite common. RfA currently has this character whereas the voting procedure for arbcom elections seems much more respectable. I cast my arbcom votes recently, going through the ballot to tick the support and oppose boxes and this was quite fuss-free. I did a bit of browsing of candidate statements and other background, where I wasn't sure, and so was reasonably well-informed. Perhaps there was some noisy discussion somewhere but I'm not interested in having people tell me how to vote as I have a mind of my own and that's the point of the process – to establish a broad consensus and representation. This is best done with secret ballot as all civilised places do. Andrew D. (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Would it be practical to run SecurePoll on RfAs, given the relative lack of them compared to the past? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

xaosflux would probably be able to answer that. –xeno^talk 13:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

A practical process would be to do them in batches so that the voting form and mechanisms would resemble the arbcom one, with a selection of candidates. If this were done monthly, or quarterly, then there would be a regular cycle and process which might encourage people to come forward. My impression of the current process is that the business of preparing nomination statements is quite intimidating because each one is isolated. If candidates were grouped in bundles then you'd get economies of scale and safety in numbers. The assessment process might also be fairer as candidates would be compared with each other rather than being judged against an idealised, abstract standard. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, Xeno, and Andrew Davidson: - doing it on votewiki (like the way we do arbcom) would not be practical unless we changed RfA's to be like ArbCom elections, mainly occurring very rarely (maybe twice a year?) The votewiki server currently requires WMF staff to deal with, and has issues running more than one election (globally) simultaneously (I think this is mostly due to information disclosure and encryption systems). I suppose we could run 'local' securepolls but there would be a few limitations issues:

(a) encryption issues may mean that the "secret" votes are only "private" (i.e. sysadmins may be able to access the data),

(b) dealing with the "private information" disclosures: election administrators (which could be limited) can view USER::IP ADDRESS::USER AGENT correlations in secrepoll for all voters, unlike with the checkuser tool - viewing this information is not logged - so you would have to assume that election administrators would certainly have this disclosed to them, such disclosure may alter the people likely to vote (I suspect sockpuppetts would be less likely to vote, but privacy minded editors may also be disuaded).

(c) We would need a system for dealing with election administation, a group of users would need to be the "election administrators" and would need to be trained and available to run the elections.

(d) extension spport for SecurePoll would need to be looked at - if something went wrong in the middle of an election with the software, there may be noone that could assist with repairs.

Of these I would see "C" as the biggest community issue to deal with, follwed by D, B, then A. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

"Economies of scale and safety in numbers"

"If candidates were grouped in bundles then you'd get economies of scale and safety in numbers." That's exactly why I ran Kosack and Valereee's RfAs together, and why I snuck EvergreenFir's in while two others were going. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

And in fact it did feel less exposed to be running an RfA at the same time as someone else. I think three or more at a time would be ideal from the candidates' standpoint. --valereee (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The idea of running a bunch of RfAs together at specific points in the year rather than "on demand" is an interesting one that we should spend more time discussing, perhaps in a different discussion. Even if we keep the current format and don't use SecurePoll, I think it can certainly make some candidates more willing to run if they know a bunch of other people will run at the same time. Mz7 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Running editors in flights is already being experimented with (though you might not have noticed); AA88, Bradv, and Chetsford earlier this year were the flight in question. (I just missed it though I was offered; busy in real life that week.) --Izno (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hrm. While I see the problem with people stating an opinion and suddenly a ton of verbiage falls on their heads it is kind of important to know why someone is taking a certain stance. Not all opinions are equally well grounded and sometimes you need to know which ones to consider convincing and which ones not. And unlike a real world election where either one candidate - or party - or the other wins, the number of administrators isn't fixed and thus not an either-or proposition, you don't need to compare one candidate to another. I don't agree with using real life elections as a comparator, either; a real life election can have life-or-death consequences while the outcome of any given RfA only affects a website, and not all that strongly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Mm, RfA is supposed to be a discussion in the system we have set up, and when you oppose a proposal in a discussion, I do believe you should expect to defend your position reasonably from counterarguments (after all, you are presenting them a counterargument). I also don't see it as unfair that oppose votes are responded to more frequently than support votes; someone who makes a proposal is more likely to respond to comments disagreeing with them than comments agreeing with them simply because that is how constructive discussions tend to work (as opposed to "echochambers" and whatnot). In some sense you can view an oppose vote as a response to all of the support votes.
  I would agree that the "badgering" line is crossed perhaps when a single editor starts responding to many opposes in a redundant way (i.e. like a broken record) or when multiple editors pile on against a single oppose redundantly, repeating what each other say instead of adding something meaningful. It is also inappropriate to make comments about the person, and not the comment itself—that would be a true "attack" on the opposers, in my understanding of the term. However, in general I would disagree with discouraging responses to oppose votes placed directly underneath the oppose vote in question. Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree with your comments on the nature of a discussion, but I don't feel that spawning off discussion threads below each initial comment is a necessary condition for having this discussion. To me it's a tragedy of the commons situation: it may be easier for the commenter and the respondent to branch off a conversation directly below the initial comment. But it's much harder for everyone else to follow multiple repetitive threads, which is a barrier for reaching a group consensus. isaacl (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Any secret poll method would still bring to the front that the oppose reasons are mainly needed so editors find out whether there is a reason they too need to !vote oppose. Counter-arguments to those opposes, while perhaps intended to convince them not to oppose, are again mainly critical because they persuade those viewing the original opposes. Too many RfA participants would not read both the opposes and then always check the comments for follow-ups. Threaded discussion guarantees that the most people will see the most consideration of concerns and rebuttals to those concerns. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• But that means we are still left with Oppposer being harassed, which creates a negative atmosphere that deters others with good view AND does nothing to deter the more pointless Support !votes that explain nothing and that should be ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Over 1500 editors have voted in the current arbcom elections. They managed to do so without needing to know exactly how anyone else voted. Nosebagbear was among the voters participating in that secret poll. It not only works, it works far better than RfA in generating a high turnout – an order of magnitude better. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  Is it the secret ballot or is it the fact that we spam every talk page (in addition to the watchlist notice we do for RfA)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  That, and I am not sure if it actually results in better performance. My impression from Arbcom re-election rates is that RfA is a better vetting system than an Arbcom election, which might imply that anonymity reduces the quality of vetting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Andrew Davidson: - that's a major apples and oranges approach, as we only have 1 ARBCOM election a year, it takes place over a huge length of time, it's not just watchlist noted but drops a message on every voters' talk page and, while I'd rather vote in all RfAs than the ARBCOM elections, I'd say that the ARBCOM elections outweigh any given single RfA. I'm inclined to agree with @Jo-Jo Eumerus: as to vetting quality. Just reading the responses was exhausting, and I waived further checks for 2/3 since I already knew them to be well or poorly suited. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to me (without delving for stats but based on having participated on over 400 RfA over the last decade) that those who complain longest and loudest about the badgering of oppose votes, are those who make oppose votes that might well be susceptible to complaints about their vote, and most evidently, have a distinct aversion to the corps of admins in general or even to the entire concept of adminship. Sometimes, looking back at their history, they might have had many run-ins with admins, but bad blocks or good ones, there must have been a reason for getting blocked. Such blocks are often due to civility/PAS/harassment issues as opposed to vandalism, socking, CIR, and general disruption. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• Or it could be that you like to badger anyone who doesn't think in the manner that you want. Here you are casting aspersions on those who oppose without addressing the reason, and in fact you are assuming bad faith on their part. It's a very passive-aggressive manner of attacking someone while attempting to present your own position as valid and as taking the high road. Sorry that it failed for you. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice try Jack. Looks to me like a case of 'if the cap fits...' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I often disagree with Jack's !votes, but he is right that you are casting aspersions here. It's unbecoming and, given that this thread had been dormant for over a week, completely unnecessary. Lepricavark (talk) 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Couple of weeks past

Do you have a number of new candidates on the go, or they just invisible. Two new candidates please. scope_creep^Talk 12:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Were it were that easy! I'm sure some of our scouts are doing their good work behind the scenes as we speak. –xeno^talk 13:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

This comment has stuck with me not because it's wrong but because it's right. While it's great that there are regular "scouts" I think it would be healthier if a wider swath of our community saw "finding good admin" as part of their responsibility. Leaving a nice note on someone's talk page can, overtime, hopefully help people know that others see them as sysop materials and start to envision themselves that way too. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Should nice notes prove ineffective, try formal warnings =). –xeno^talk 00:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

How many have left in the last two weeks  :) ——SN54129 14:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Based on this, we've lost 9 administrators this month. The number of active administrators however remains steady around 500. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Never fear, I’m still available if things get desperate. [1] EEng 16:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is buying a couple of rounds for a potential candidate to provide dutch courage a legitimate grant application? Nosebagbear (talk) 14:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

How did someone who makes such unthinkingly free use of a grotesquely offensive ethnic stereotype ever pass RfA? EEng 23:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

For the record that was facetious. EEng 22:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you all happy now? 0;-D (P.S. Yes, xeno was correct.) -- MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• I suspect there are several others doing more scouting than I am, but I've asked probably close to 20 candidates over the last year or so; most have said "no"; a few have said "maybe later". Less than a quarter of those I've "found" (in many cases, others found them first) have actually run in the last year (including present nominations). More people looking would certainly be a good thing, because in my experience some of the best candidates are those who beaver away in corners of Wikipedia without drawing much attention to themselves, and are therefore hard to find. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  Exactly right, Vanamonde. It's also true that "others found them first" is a common situation. Good admin prospects are often approached about RfA multiple times, sometimes over a period of years, before someone or something overcomes their hesitation and persuades them to go for it. That was certainly the situation with me. And it's commonly the case with people I approach, that I am not the first to suggest it to them. I have pages and pages listing people I wondered about, what I found, and whether I followed up with them. About a quarter of the people on my list eventually become admins - sometimes on my nomination, usually not. Moral: if you see a potential candidate, and your preliminary research on them is good, go ahead and ask. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Research on RfAs - Looking for help

Please see this request over at WP:VPM. A group of European academics are researching the RfA processs on English Wikipedia and are seeking people willing to be interviewed in order to provide background information to help them evaluate the data they've collected thus far. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• For anyone interested, I found it a worthwhile set of questions - there's one set for former candidates and one set for voters (distinct, so I was asked both). Don't know if they're still seeking new respondents, but if they are, I think they'd be interested in those with different criteria for support/oppose. Also, I'm not sure how aware the researchers are of 'Crat Chats, so if there's a Bureaucrat with some time, that would probably be helpful. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

From my Skype call with one of the researchers on Monday, my feeling was there was not the same level of awareness of the broader discussions that occur around RFA that we have (e.g. ORFA) and and even less on our other processes, but more interest in the social/community rationale and motives for participating in a !vote. I think my own reticence and current moral dilemma as to the appropriateness of offering a !vote on some other RfA candidates whilst my own one is ongoing was of great interest to the researcher. (Guess I ought to declare the small payment received for participating, too.) Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I was interested to see whether any of our current candidates would do it (didn't want to seem intrusive by asking at a stressful time), and yes, you're definitely right as to their focus. He did seem interested when I explained a couple of related areas - I think it's more they focused on what they were aware of when they started out (though perhaps asking someone to run them through might have been more efficient before kicking off). I look forward to reading the results. As a note, I had them donate my payment to the WMF. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Who's next?

Now that Money emoji is now an admin and QEDK is preparing to nominate a future one, who's next? SportingFlyer? Levivich? MarkH21? Indignant Flamingo? Lee Vilenski? Britishfinance? Anyone? ミラP 02:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Check out this long RFA lineage:

1. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Menchi (self-nominated)
2. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jwrosenzweig
3. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hcheney
4. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality
5. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zoney
6. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ludraman
7. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ferkelparade
8. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sjakkalle
9. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fang Aili
10. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ginkgo100
11. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Balloonman
12. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elen of the Roads
13. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dennis Brown
14. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anna Frodesiak
15. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samwalton9
16. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/NinjaRobotPirate
17. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/QEDK
18. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cabayi ?

Ping @Menchi, Jwrosenzweig, Hcheney, Neutrality, Zoney, Ludraman, Ferkelparade, Sjakkalle, Fang Aili, Ginkgo100, Balloonman, Elen of the Roads, Dennis Brown, Dennis Brown, Anna Frodesiak, Samwalton9, NinjaRobotPirate, QEDK, and Cabayi: to let them know they are a member of an honourable lineage we must all preserve. Cabayi, if you succeed, can you nominate any of those five people for adminship? BTW There's also another route involving Kudpung and HJ Mitchell. ミラP 03:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Another active bureaucrat probably wouldn't be a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

While this is an open wiki and people can check the contributions of other users, I think it's fairly rude to announce someone's RfA before a nomination statement has even been placed. People time their transclusion of RfAs and sometimes plan them out a few months in advance. You've just announced that someone will be undergoing an RfA on one of the most watched talk pages in project space and taken away from them the opportunity to choose how they announce to the community that they're running for adminship.

They're obviously not going to object to it, but I think it's worth pointing out that this is sort of an understood behavioural norm for how we deal with RfAs, and it's a courtesy that I think we should keep extending to RfA candidates. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Is it canvassing?

I recognise it's not ok to WP:CANVASS other editors to vote at one's own RFA, though using the {{RfX-notice}} on one's Userpage is of course fine.

But it struck me recently that it ought to be acceptable for any candidate who had previously held an WP:ORFA to inform all those editors who had taken the trouble to comment at that ORFA that a full RFA is now up and running. Providing the notification went to every participating editor, I wouldn't see this as canvassing - merely alerting them to the follow-up at the real thing. Having invested time and effort into assessing the candidate at an optional RFA, it seems almost courteous to those editors that they to be informed that the candidate was now standing at a proper RFA. Any thoughts on this? Nick Moyes (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)  

Meh. This strikes me as kinda moot. Editors that participate at ORFA tend to show up at RfAs. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

In theory, this is an interesting question, and a reasonable POV. In practice, I was going to say exactly what AO says. Also, and possibly more importantly, no matter what kind of a consensus you might develop here, I'd imagine the goal of someone with an active RFA is not to so much to avoid violating CANVASS, but to avoid even the remote possibility that some editor is going to think they're violating CANVASS, and oppose for it. Not worth the risk. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

^^^^ Very good point. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Since there aren't many requests for adminship, I believe any commenters on optional RfA candidate polls will readily find RfAs of interest, and so there's no need for any special notification. isaacl (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

And if someone truly wants to be notified they can add the redlinked RfA page to their watchlist. Thay way, when the page is created (and the RfA begins) it shows up on their watchlist. Or just watchlist WP:RFA itself, which is what I do. Or, they could just wait for the standard RfA notice on the watchlist. There aren't a lot of RFAs, and I'm fairly certain that ORFA commenters are typically RfA regulars if they're providing advice there. Just my five cents, though. I don't have two cents to spare. Clovermoss (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be vote-stacking pure and simple. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all. I can see that it would be an unwise approach to take, or to advise another to take. Worth asking, though. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson's elementary school question

John M Wolfson has asked the exact same question about elementary school articles in the last 13 RfAs. I don't see the point in asking it any more because it compeltely fails as a skills test when all an RfA candidate has to do is look at any RfA from the last three months for a comprehensive answer. If we're going to make a new defacto default question, it should at least be like the first three where we expect drastically different answers from different candidates. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I suggest raising your concern with the editor who is posing the question. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with isaacl that this would have been better on my talk page, you raise a fair enough point. I'll think of a new question when the next RfA rolls around. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Concurring with Ahecht, I sometimes wonder if there is a real need to always ask a question on every RfA. If I recall correctly, just for example, I've only asked questions about 6 times on all the 400+ RfA on which I have participated. Those questions were motivated specifically by something that stood out in the candidate's history or RfA comments. Without any disrespect or criticism to John M Wolfson or Isaacl whatsover, I think this is indeed a topic worthy of discussion here at WT:RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, anyone is welcome to discuss the general issue of whether or not participants should be discouraged from asking questions at every request for administrative privileges. (The original question seemed tailored to a specific user, but in any case it's been settled.) isaacl (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Successful RfAs following clouds

I'm looking for successful RfAs that were for admins who were either (a) desysoped by Arbcom (b) resigned under a cloud, preferably but not necessarily arbitration-related. I can thinking of a few that sort of meet this criterion, namely:

• SarekOfVulcan 4 (resigned under a cloud after arbitration case)
• Carnildo 3 (2006!, and after being desysoped)
• Floquenbeam 2 (neither a or b but sort of close).

I'm hoping if other seeing this can remember any cases like these off the top of their heads, we could probably quickly get a (reasonably) definitive list. Many thanks in advance! Maxim_(talk) 18:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PeterSymonds 2 ? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 6 (desysopped for cause and eventually resysopped after multiple goes) and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MZMcBride 3 (desysopped again) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Geni Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Geni_4 - after Arbcom Leaky caldron (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Crzrussian Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Crzrussian_2 - following a recall Leaky caldron (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• PeterSymonds Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/PeterSymonds_2 Leaky caldron (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'm glad we agree, Leaky caldron. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Ah! - didn't see that there ;) Leaky caldron (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• You can argue about the "under a cloud" status on my RFA, since I resigned after Arbcom chose not to remove my bit, but I just wanted to point out SarekOfVulcan 3, which failed, before 4 was successful. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
• Rootology Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rootology but all of them were over 10 years ago.Only SarekOfVulcan in 2015 and Floquenbeam 2 in 2019 are recent in the last 10 years and these are the only "under a cloud" cases.No one removed by Arbcom has been able to get his bit back in the last 10 years since Jan 2010.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Please note SarekOfVulcan was not technically under a cloud as she had resigned only after the case was closed and Floquenbeam resigned during the Fram issue which is a different beast not a normal sitution.Do not see a normal case since Jan 2010Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I can understand the catalyst for Maxim starting this thread. Thus at the risk of being slightly off topic to the OP, perhaps the community could start looking at the alternatives available to Arbcom or desysoping in general. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Unless you have been in private discussion how can you understand what the catalyst is? Maxim has not given any purpose to his inquiry, nor has he been asked (here) what he wanted the details for. It looks like a simple request for information. Maybe we should seek Maxim's input before potentially going off at a tangent? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

relisting RfAs

Why cant we relist RfAs? —usernamekiran (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

They are already stressful enough and look more like an endurance exercise--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can prolong them but it's rarely done (only for exceptional circumstances, really). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

XfDs are sometimes relisted because there's not enough participants to establish consensus, or some new material comes to light that needs further evaluation. But these days just about every RfA gets over 150 responses - there's a large sample, and some degree of engagement with almost every relevant piece of history. I think if something truly exceptional came to light in the last 24 hours it would be a different story, but the vast majority of the time there's no need. MarginalCost (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Is RFA always this complex?

So, I looked at Money emoji's RFA, and it seems really complicated, what with the bureaucrat chat (which the talk page for is quite crazy, by the way) and such. Is RFA always this complex? I've only been on Wikipedia a month, so keep that in mind. Thanks, King of Scorpions 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This was certainly one of the more complex ones. Several voters and bureaucrats have expressed that this was the most difficult borderline case they've come across. Most RfAs end without a bureaucrat chat. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so not every RFA will be this insane. [sighs in relief...] King of Scorpions 22:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@King of Scorpions: in the very early days, RfAs were very simple. As long as candidate wasnt a tool, they used to get the toolbox. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year is an interesting place to start. In 2007, there were 920 RfAs, and 408 were successful. The bar(s) for becoming an admin kept on increasing. RfAs from 2018 are quite reflecting. You should skim through them to get a general idea. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, No. This is kind of an extreme case; I'm not sure if an RFA has been this close before? 2018 had a lot of chaotic rfas (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GreenMeansGo, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood), and things mostly mellowed out in 2019 (Only really crazy ones were Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fram 2, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GRuban. Hopefully I didn't jinx it for 2020! Money emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 00:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

RFA results are a trough shaped curve. They usually end in a very clear success or fail, close calls are rare. This is one of the closest that I can remember, not just in the discretionary zone but in the middle of it with the crats splitting fifty fifty. It doesn't even help to weight the "weak" votes as in my assessment they split in the same ratio among Supporters and Opposers. What i hope it leaves as a legacy for future RFAs is that it is reasonably civil, with the opposers mostly saying not yet or not without more content contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• @King of Scorpions: - these are the stats from the beginning of 2018, nicked off the top of my RfA Criteria:

RfAs are tough, numbers of applications remain low - 7 (5 successful) as of 24/02 in 2020, 31 in 2019 (22 successful) and 16 in 2018 (10 successful). Yet, amongst those that pass, the consensus percent remains extremely high.

• 95% or above: 21/37 (57%)
• 90%-94%: 6/37 (16%)
• 85%-89%: 3/37 (8.1%)
• 80%-84%: 2/37 (5.4%)
• 70%-79%: 4/37 (10.8%)
• 69% or below: 1/37 (2.7%)

Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• King of Scorpions, RfA is, or can be, the dirtiest fight on the whole of Wikipedia - more so because it's the one place where users can get away with breaking every code of decency that Wikipedia pretends to uphold. If you think I'm over reacting, our very own founder once said that RFA is 'a horrible and broken process'. The comments by the others above are fairly accurate, but only because in more recent times with the introduction or WP:ORCP and WP:RFAADVICE, for example, those who don't stand a chance at all are discouraged from transcluding rather than blindly leading themselves like lambs to the slaughter. Yes, RfA does what it says on the can, but by goodness, it still has more jagged edges around the lid than an empty tin of baked beans. Plenty of recent examples. I started the greatest in-depth examination of it at WP:RFA2011 nearly a decade ago, while WereSpielChequers has been closely monitoring it even longer. You may also wish to read this before I take it down, and this trilogy in The Signpost may bring you up to speed: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been here for very long, only about a month, but I've noticed that at RFA, the almost always voters drag up something the candidate did years ago that is no longer relevant. Why??? At least even Wikipedia's founder realizes that RFA is messed up... King of Scorpions 16:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees that it is "broken". There have been beneficial changes in recent years such as increasing community awareness via watch list messaging to increase the participation level, and the direct moderation of discussion badgering - usually of opposes !votes - by moving extended discussion to the talk page. There is far more heat than light emanating from regurgitating the history of RfA. Time - and folks - have moved on. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What Leaky said. It may have been broken when Jimbo made that remark many years ago, but today the process works about as well as any process that this community could create. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, and even at the peak of "RfA is broken"-fever, I used to make the case that, despite its faults, the process still managed to strike a very high success rate; for as many perfectly competent admins as have ever served on this site, there have been exceptionally few people who absolutely should not have gotten the tools, but did. Our collective intuition has always been pretty good. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question if RfA is/was broken, the concern isn't that the process is (was) letting unqualified editors become administrators, but (a) that it is turning down editors unnecessarily, and (b) the process is unduly confrontational and thus overly onerous. isaacl (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is a slog, and some editors have certainly gotten a raw deal in the past. That said, I think some of this is intrinsic to vetting procedures in general. Where things stand now, I'd personally judge it very rare that qualified candidates get rejected for spurious reasons. We have relaxed statistical thresholds for promotion, a crop of in-touch 'crats who seem somewhat less conservative than their longer-serving peers, and, perhaps most significantly, ongoing efforts to demystify expectations for candidates. It's a much more transparent and predictable process than it once was. This isn't to suggest that there isn't still ample room for improvement, perhaps even a wholesale overhaul, but instead to acknowledge the progress we have made. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We need to move on, look forward and embrace changes. I have. We don't need to constantly keep harking back to self-proclaimed seminal pieces of work from 10 years ago. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes sometimes quite old issues get raised at RFA. But they usually don't get traction unless others can be convinced that they are still relevant. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

It also kind of depends on what your definition of recent is. From what I can tell, when it comes to RfA, edits from 6 months to a year ago can be considered recent. I agree that older stuff isn't usually brought up unless people think it's relevant. Clovermoss (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly I'd consider 6 months, and generally 12 months, within an acceptable range for consideration. Pretty much anything older than 2 years seems to be rejected by 98% of the community these days, and stuff between 1-2 years usually seems to vary on type - competence-related content isn't of concern, whereas behavioural evidence is still considered (e.g. in GRuban's). Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I forget the name of the law, but: relevance = ⁠seriousness of issue/age of issue⁠. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not everyone agrees that it's broken, but every RfA is a unique and certainly a unique experience for every candidate. We've all embraced the changes, such as they have been. As I've said many times, it does what it says on the can and there is no need to constantly find reasons to keep harking on about those who did a lot, or caused a lot, of research to be done much of which is still very valid today. What is happening nowadays is that there is far more extensive drama being held on the talk page which in times past merely hosted the candidates editing stats. Arguments on the front page were never much more nor much less than they are today. Also nowadays, the general comments section is often little more than discussions and general comments and banter that would perhaps be better held at WT:RfA. Just my opinions - nothing to get uptight about. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

RFB's

From a technical standpoint, does an RFB work the same way as an RFA? Just wondering. Thanks, King of Scorpions 17:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but the requirements for a consensus are higher. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

[reads WP:Bureaucrats] Wow. Eighty-five-ish percent? That's a pretty high standard. King of Scorpions 18:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And that's after it was lowered. Useight (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions. Please take this advice in the spirit it is intended. You have been around a month. It is early, extremely early, to be taking more than just a passing interest in functionary work. Do not get caught in the trap that many new editors fall into about aspiring to, and getting involved too early in, this stuff. Concentrate for 12 months solely on effective article content. Forget the "I would like to be an Admin" userbox. Used too early you are branded "hat collector". Take advice from your mentor. Leaky caldron (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would go further and say a five year period of contributing regularly to the encyclopaedia should be mandatory before even thinking about RFA. We have too many admins already who are either too young or too inexperienced. Giano (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Giano: I think, as of now, the average tenure is 5 years. Any other editors we see, with longer activity period, are from the old batch. New batch doesnt seem to last longer than 3-4 years. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Taking an interest in the RfA/RfB process isn't the same thing as taking an interest in actually running. I comment here occasionally and I have no interest whatsoever in running. King of Scorpions strikes me as the type who's just curious and trying to get more involved with in Wikipedia in general. Clovermoss (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have no interest in running. You actually summed it up very well, Clovermoss. Plus, I know that if I were to run, I'd get slaughtered... King of Scorpions 21:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not have an interest in running or even RfA in general, did not think I will go for it until Melanie asked me last month (for context, I was first asked to run in 2016-17). Running and being interested are mutually exclusive and might not even have a correlation to an eventual RfA (even if interest in running is the causation for RfA). --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't see any issue with @King of Scorpions: asking questions about the various processes as an onlooker and editor. Very strictly speaking, I think there is one other structural difference - there isn't a 2-question limit for RfBs (though that isn't an incentive for anyone to go asking a bunch just to point it out!) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, have we ever before had 5 requests open at once?

(Just in case one of the 5 gets closed before anyone reads this, here's a permanent link showing what it looks like now.) Airbornemihir (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Per WT:Requests for adminship/Archive 254#4 RfAs?!, the last time we had 5 RFAs was January 2017. --Izno (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ten or 13 years ago it would have been pretty normal. Ubi sunt? Johnbod (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In January 2017, we had seven RfAs open at once! Mz7 (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

And to think we were all fretting a week ago! Nosebagbear (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That's nothing. One time on 13 November 2007 there were 23, of which all but one were successful. :) J947 ^(c), at 00:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps most surprising to me, 14 of those editors are still admins. I would have expected a lower retention rate. Dekimasuよ! 04:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, quite a classic season round then, including Malleus/Eric Corbett's doomed first go a bit later. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Izno, Johnbod, Mz7, J947, Dekimasu, and Airbornemihir: 5 RFAs in a month was great. Can we do it again next month? Pretty please? Remember, I still have the list. Anyone but Izno, Mz7, and Dekimasu wanna do RFA? ミラP 19:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: I'd never pass though. :) J947 ^(c), at 19:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, all. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: You're welcome. I was wondering if you or Johnbod could pass an RFA. ミラP 21:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: haha, I emailed you in response to this. Cheers! Airbornemihir (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Airbornemihir: Thanks. I received it and I read the whole thing, especially the Ho Yinsen part. ミラP 15:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate, MelanieN, Amorymeltzer, Ritchie333, Vanamonde93, The Rambling Man, Izno, Mz7, and Dekimasu: and other admins, anyone wanna nominate five more candidates for next week once the RFAs we already have end? ミラP 01:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many people who could probably pass if they decided to run. But someone would have to convince them to run first. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a few people in mind, but none want to run now because of fear they will get too much opposition. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The more things change ... after someone offered to nominate me, I put it off for some months for the same reason. WilyD 12:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The most common reason for declining a nomination is the benefit of having the tools does not outweigh the cross-examination held during the RfA. Other reasons are a lack of AfDs matching consensus (whether or not they talked a good argument in them), patches of inactivity, a lack of interest in anti-vandalism or sockpuppetry areas, or some other blind spot that gets amplified and piled on opposed with. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Whatever happened to admin mentorship? Isn't that worth reviving? Nick Moyes (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that WP:Admin coaching? If so, itt's been moribund for over a decade. ——SN54129 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So... ...that's something worth looking at again, then, isn't it? Or maybe WP:WringingOnesHands might be an alternative? Nick Moyes (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What that tells me is that there hasn't been an appetite to resurrect it in ten years. So probably not ——SN54129 14:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd imagine that's happened before on April 1st... Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Well spotted Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Phew, folks get worn out (?) Anyone fancy doing a quick Spearmans on number of open requests vs number of !No votes? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)