Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 267

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 260←Archive 265Archive 266Archive 267Archive 268Archive 269

Making RfA a calmer environment

I have a suggestion I've been mulling over for a little while. At the moment, RfA is an election, much as we go to great lengths to pretend it's not a vote; only the closest RfAs aren't decided purely on the numbers. Personally, I think RfA would serve its function better if it actually was a discussion. My suggestion is for a process similar to the old RfC on user conduct.

Instead of voting support or oppose, editors would be invited to create a section giving their view, which would be something along the lines of "I've worked with the candidate at <venue> for a long time, here are some diffs of them doing admin-esque work and keeping cool under fire"/"the candidate single-handedly took Wikipedia to featured article status, here are some diffs of them responding calmly to criticism of their work and resolving their differences with another editor without resorting to four-letter words or admin noticeboards", or "I'm concerned that the candidate has never added sourced prose to the encyclopaedia"/"the candidate handled this dispute poorly [with diffs] and I'm concerned about how they would handle such things as an admin"/"the candidate does not have a long enough track record to know whether they'll be a good admin". These would ideally not be too numerous and come from editors who know the candidate or (for cases like the last example) have extensively evaluated their contributions. Other editors would then endorse these comments as they saw fit; editors who don't want to create their own section but take issue with an existing one could use the talk page or we could have a dedicated section for threaded discussion. Questions could be asked as now. This would give us an indication of whether the concerns outweigh the supports. The discussion would run for a week and then a bureaucrat would assess whether or not there was a consensus based on the endorsements of the positive/negative opinions.

I would hope this would take some of the heat out of RfA that can make it so unpleasant for candidates, eliminate the need to "badger" opposers because editors can just not endorse an opinion they disagree with, and allow for at least as much scrutiny of the candidate (if not more, because it reduces the background noise) as now. I'm sure the details could be thrashed out through discussion, but is this something worth pursuing? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Most discussions are basically votes anyways, and this one formalizes that reality for a good reason, which is that there is no real applicable PAG on what makes a good leader. Bureauacrats are more knowledgeable on matters of our internal policies, but they aren't smarter or better judges of character. On the other hand, people as a group definitely are better judges than any given person. The current non-existence of formal recall criteria would stop the second a crat struck down an 80/20 RFA on "strength of argument" grounds. Mach61 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The best bureaucrats don't draw attention to the fact that they are bureaucrats. Generally, I believe people will not be receptive to the idea of tasking a bureaucrat to subjectively assess the outcome of a non-unanimous discussion-centric RfA unless there is an absolute need to do so. In fact, I'm not even certain that they ought to be reviewing ones in which it appears that there's a strong majority in favor of promoting an admin, even if the outcome looks clear. Mach61 is right; as soon as you have a bureaucrat making a wise and considered decision to decline a numerically strongly-favored candidate due to not seeing a need for the tools, the process goes up in smoke. Supervoting with the best of intentions can and does happen, on nearly all levels, otherwise it wouldn't be bluelinked. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
There was one experiment with this a long time ago, Wikipedia:RFA as RFC/Werdna. I would hope that any new experiment focuses on strengths as well as weaknesses. In any case, the advantage of such a system is that we could discuss issues ("this candidate doesn't do enough BEFORE research", "this candidate is an excellent content contributor") instead of discussing votes. (My personal suggestion would be to have a discussion of issues together with a pure vote, a bit inspired by ArbCom elections. Voting wouldn't need to be secret (just like it wasn't in some Arbcom elections) but more cleanly separated from the discussion). —Kusma (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
For reference, here are a few links to discussions on two-phase RfAs. It hasn't garnered a lot of feedback in any of those discussions. Some have been concerned about extending the length of the request period to accommodate a period of discussion without voting followed by a one-week voting period (during which discussion can continue), to allow for those who only edit once a week to vote. isaacl (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
The most recent major discussion of a two-phase process was of course Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals § Closed: 8B Admin elections (apologies for not starting with this link). The anonymous election portion of the proposal, though, generally overshadowed the two-phase portion in discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
We may not need need to extent the period by that much if we include a non-voting discussion period up front. I would think a proposal of say 3 days discussion + 5 days (!)voting is workable. That should ensure the same number of people can have their say, even more, even if fewer people (!)vote. Extending the (!)voting bit to the old 7 days would only be a courtesy to voters, not really improve the quality of discussion and ultimate decision. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Has converting RfA to a straight vote been proposed recently (and not as elections, such as proposal 8B in 2021)? I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks that an oppose vote is less personal than "oppose because of (list of things that were done wrong)"...
I'm thinking of something where we generally keep the existing format, but supports/opposes are reduced to just a signature. We revive the old-school discussion section for comments and discussion, and we get rid of "general comments" and "neutral". (In order words, rename "general comments" to "discussion" and remove neutrals.) The cut-off becomes 65%, with no discretionary zone; inevitably a straight vote will bring out those who oppose just because. Maxim (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd support this Mach61 (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Maxim the idea that there should just be less discussion was rejected in the first part of the 2021 review. That's the most recent discussion I'm aware of that is beyond the circular discussions we sometimes get on this page where it has been discussed more recently. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I do not like the straight vote because it does not give an opportunity for candidates to know why people are opposing, and without that feedback it makes it more difficult to improve and be ready for the next run. Instead, I would prefer that replies to oppose votes be banned on the RfA page, and discussions about the points brought up by editors can happen on the RfA's talk page (note: I said discussion about the points, not arguing or personally attacking the person who expressed the concerns.) Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't that just fragment the discussion? If you prevent me from replying to an oppose vote, I will use my support rationale to make my point, not a less visible place for threaded discussion. I am happy to ban responses to oppose votes, but then the oppose rationales should not be in the voting section. —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma: For my proposal above, banning replies in the oppose section does not stop someone from starting a discussion on the talk page, which would not fragment the conversation. Instead, I think talk page discussions would remove the personal nature of responding to a comment, and discussion would focus on the points or diffs that were raised. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure when or at what page badgering of opposes occurs will make much of a difference; the underlying issue is !voters can't oppose on trust, and moving where or when badgering is placed won't fix that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't discount discussions such as the one you started. Maxim, separating discussion from voting is a frequent suggestion, but not one that has gained consensus support amongst those who like to discuss these matters (and not enough to trigger an independent RfC in recent years; it was raised during brainstorming in the 2021 review and proposed in the 2015 review). isaacl (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

General thoughts about younger admins?

Wikipedia:Age and adminship states that there have been numerous discussions on age and adminship, while referencing a WT:RFA thread from 2008. This dicussion is about the concept of 12 year olds being admins (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nousernamesleft is an example of that, apparently this used to be a more commonplace occurence). I was wondering if there have been more recent discussions about this topic since then? I can see an older teen possibly being a successful RfA candidate. However, I strongly suspect most voters would prefer admins be adults and that this would likely be a less controversial opinion than it was at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The number of talented young people in the movement, quite frankly, amazes me. I keep meeting them at conferences. Software developers that just graduated high school that program better than me. Admins who ran when they were under 18 and passed. My advice to young folks who want to RFA would be: keep your age a secret. Then nobody can prejudge you negatively based on it :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I've never thought that age should make any difference, other than roles that require more contentious topics (oversighter, check user etc). Realistically there is no requirement for a user to denote their age. Maturity is what we look for. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that part of the attraction of involvement in Wikipedia to many is that it doesn't matter who you are, in general you will be judged by what you do. Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
There was a shocking amount of ageism in leeky's first RfA. -- asilvering (talk) 04:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I stand by my words and position; name calling won't change that, since I see it as child protection, not ageism. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I asked a variety of functionaries about this not too long ago and was surprised that all indicated an openness to even young teens. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates says "Wikipedia has several very young successful admins; it also has various older people who behave like children." See Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump for real-life examples. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the enforcement of COPPA to the extent required by law, candidates should not feel the need to disclose their age and should not be required to answer any such optional questions on that basis. As Novem Linguae said, it is best to not give people a reason to oppose on that basis. I wish I could share the idealism of Lee and Wehwalt in that people on Wikipedia are more apt to judge by actions instead of by status, but in all the years I've been here, I can say firmly that this is not a commonly-held belief, although I too align myself in believing that maturity is more important than age for an administrator. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I didn't even think about the possibility of actually asking a candidate how old they are, I was thinking more about self-disclosure. I think it would be inappropriate at best to ask how old someone is. I understand why someone would rather not say how old they are (preventing assumptions about their behaviour, privacy, general safety, etc) but I also don't think that diminishes the experience of those who do wish to be open about themselves and their experiences. I've always been fairly open about the fact that I created my account when I was 16, for example. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I would advise under-18s not to share their age. Lots of under-18s have better temperament and self-awareness than most adult admins, but won't be supported by adults who have the preconceived judgement that they are "a child". I was under 16 when I joined and I think 80% of what I did wrong was due to the site's learning curve or my own limitations and would have been no better had I been 10 years older. I believe I can often detect when a volunteer is young, but mostly based on humour/socialising/interests rather than any inherent difference in knowledge or skills. We need a diversity of volunteers and under-18s are a part of that. I don't expect to ever support a 12-year-old RfA candidate (or think I ever have done before), but it's old enough to be a grandmaster. I wouldn't rule it out if the candidate showed good temperament, ability to create content and had some experience of the more hostile areas of the site. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
In general, yes, there are likely to be concerns. One may extrapolate various areas of concern from the Child Protect policy and the referenced Advice page there - there are going to be some number of editors concerned about exposing younger editors to various things and concerned about younger editors exposing themselves. And of course, various editors and admins are going to have various experiences offline, online and here, which are likely to inform their concerns (not only as children, or as parents, but also as professionals who deal with children, their development or psychological issues, etc.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I think there are no requirements of being an administrator as long as he/she gets enough experience. However, for some professionals dealing with private data like Checkuser or oversight, 18+ is a requirement to sign the agreement, because of some reasons like Child protection or something like that. But being solely an admin is not likely to be a issue like that. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 11:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
No one said anything about any requirement. What admins are exposed to varies from admin to admin. And the realty is still as I said. No point in being fooled. It has and will matter, regardless of whether any individual thinks it should. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Im not near as active as I used to be on the project, but i actually ran for an RFA when I was approximately a Sophomore in High School ( I'm 30 now), and I believe I would have had a good shot at passing had I not absolutely whiffed on a CSD question. There was one oppose because the user determined I was under 18. (Rightfully so, but I never said it).
I can tell you from my experience at that time, that I wasnt so much interested in being an admin because of what I could do to help the encyclopedia. It was the sense of having that trust from the community and admittedly, a sense of power. Which as a teenager, was obviously exciting. I'm not saying all teenagers are like that, but I can tell you speaking from my experience that I don't know how good of an admin I would have been.I likely would have stayed in my lane of blocking vandals and CSD deletions, but I don't know if I would have had the social maturity to understand and hold conversations on nuanced topics. Maybe some older teenagers could, but I couldnt until I was much older.--Church Talk 03:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Opposing for reasons other than actually opposing

I've been thinking about this a bit in recent RfAs...some opposes are not because the voter actually opposes the candidacy but to make sure a candidate sees and deals with feedback. Then a pile-on occurs. In the most recent case, a candidate withdraws with what could arguably be seen as a likely pass. Valereee (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that this characterization applies to Tails or Paine as the two most recent RfAs to withdraw. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, BK49, can you clarify? It looked like TWx withdrew because of a late-in-the-day pile-on? One opposer mentioned not actually opposing at their talk. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. One person did not actually intend his oppose. I believe most, if not all, of the remaining 34 opposes did actually oppose. I think this, in part, given the number of people who were switching from support to oppose. Those are not some abstract opposes. There were growing numbers of concerns that made an impact on that candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
One person affirmed it. Valereee (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
If somebody has constructive feedback but does not actually oppose, they should place their !vote in 'Neutral' rather than 'Oppose'. GiantSnowman 15:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
This statement is so patently obvious that any instance of someone doing otherwise must be a mistake rather than a trend. – bradv 15:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
I wish it was that obvious, but other editors have noticed it enough to start this thread about it... GiantSnowman 15:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
There is literally 1 documented instance of this and the insinuation that it's true for others. I challenge the idea that there is a trend based on such a paucity of data and have presented counter data. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Or perhaps, if they want to support and provide feedback, they should ... support and provide feedback?? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 RfAs in review

As of now, we have 12 successful RfAs and (maybe the 13th one) in 31 December, one lower than the last year. However, we have something to consider:

  • The new inactivity policy, enacted on 1 January 2023. We don't know if it has some changes to the admin workload, but many legacy admins have been desysopped this year due to the new activity rule.
  • This year had two cratchats (MB: 173/80/15, not promoted in the first days of the year and Pppery: 195/71/9 on August), but most RfAs were uncontroversial, with 2 RFX300s (313/1/2) and (315/3/0), however every RfAs have at least 1 opposes.

And we don't know what 2024 will bring in terms of adminship. (If a RfA nominates today, it would end on 1 January 2024) Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 04:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Following the institution of the new inactivity policy, more than half of all admins are now active. That had not been the case for at least several years. The number of inactive admins has also been halved compared to the last few years. Dekimasuよ! 05:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the reality is that most admins do very little admin work. Here are the adminstats for the past 3 months. Obviously this table doesn't include items such as closing discussions or Main page tasks, but I still think it provides great insight into the current situation. We've got maybe 100 admins doing 95% of the work. -Fastily 09:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Time to raise it to 50 actions/year. They will have to at least review the latest versions of some of the PAGs to get to the number or risk getting something wrong and end up desysopped. Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Further restricting ourselves to fewer and fewer administrators is not going to help. As with the project as a whole, the long tail of users who might do less work one year and more work the next are still a valuable and important part of the community and creating more work for everyone else by removing their ability to help is pointless unless they're causing demonstrable problems. Sam Walton (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It is a little alarming to note that despite only having been an admin for about ⅔ of that time, and taking my time getting used to the tools, I still rank #171 on that list. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It is and it isn't. I was high up on these lists really quick because I deal with deletions. I'd argue I'm not top 10 in terms of active admin contributions, but my count of actions ends up being higher for that reason alone, and I'm right at the 3 month mark as of yesterday. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Or you are a fantastic new admin that absolutely crushes backlogs and does a ton of the heavy lifting, and we are lucky to have you :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that judging the work done by an administrator by the number of admin actions performed is just as useful as judging the work done by an editor by edit count. HouseBlastertalk 04:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Right, but my point is that the vast majority of admins do little to no admin work, and I'd be willing to bet that this is true for other admin-related tasks not tracked by the adminstats tool. But this isn't actually a cause for concern, given that sufficiently large size organizations/companies struggle to outperform the 80/20 rule anyways. I just don't like seeing alarmist posts about the alleged "lack of admins" and impending doom of Wikipedia because that's simply not what's happening here. -Fastily 11:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually it is, just very slowly. I've cautioned about this before. There's never going to be a moment when everything suddenly breaks, no "Ah ha!" moment, no blowing up of the Death Star moment that will be clear to everyone that we don't have enough admins. But, we are slowly moving towards that point and have been for a number of years. We've lost a net 828 administrators over the last 13 years. That's almost as many lost administrators as we currently have. The pool of administrators is slowly draining. For now, we're fine. But, that won't last forever. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
To what extent do you think increased automation can slow or mitigate this trend? —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I think automation has already been slowing and mitigating this trend and so the easiest to implement for the largest gains have, likely, already been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
That's hard to analyze. Looking at the data used for the subsection below, the number of bot admin functions in the 2018 was 69,042. In the last three months here in 2023, that number was 2,366,857; a whopping 34 times higher. But, the number of human admin functions only decreased by about 9k. I.e., the bot actions aren't having an immediately apparent effect on human admin work load. Though, it's possible to think of it as the bots are doing more than 2 million things humans would have had to do. Bottom line though; human admins are doing about 11% more work in 2023 than they were in 2018. That's the takeaway that worries me. Another one that worries me; the top ten most active admins accounted for 63% of admin actions. We could run this project with 15 highly active admins. But, finding them is a guessing game. Also of note; those top 10 most active admins? Even with Hey man im josh, the average time they've been an admin is more than 12 years. Outside of HMIJ, the shortest time is Liz, at over eight years. I.e., in the last eight years we've found exactly one highly active administrator who has remained on the project out of 119 successful RfAs from 2016 forward. We've lost 2 top 10 highly active admins in the last five years alone. I.e., we're not replacing highly active administrators fast enough either. There's trouble brewing in River City. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Interesting analysis, thanks for pulling the numbers! One thing to take into account is that some people who are not currently highly active may well become highly active if a current "busy" admin retires. For example, I'm sure I'd be doing more AfD closures if Liz so often hadn't got to them first. Not that it's a problem - but it means we likely have current admins who could step up their activity if needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The automation I'm talking about are not just bot actions. But also the way bots and scripts save admins time. So bots clerk noticeboards, so admins don't have to and can, presumably, spend some of that saved time into doing more actions. Same with scripts. And edit filters mean that a lot of stuff that would have required admin action in the past doesn't anymore. I don't see some obvious place where we could automate away admin effort nor any obvious place where there is a lot of admin time and a script could help make them more efficient. The best I can come up with is around AI helping to screen out frivolous requests, CSD, unblocks, etc. Perhaps there could be some work done to automate protection. But I don't see this as some great way to close that gap on its own. At least part, if not all, of the solution is we need more admins. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree fully with this, and I want to add that the places where an admin shortfall does/would have an impact are ones where a single logged action may require hours of reading and unlogged actions; SPI, CCI, AE, and so forth. These are also the venues that deal with our most insidious disruption. I'm not disputing the statistics above; Hammersoft's efforts paint a picture that matches my subjective impressions. I just want to emphasize that the areas not well captured by those statistics are critical ones. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Seven years earlier. I'm saying the same things now. Help! I think I'm caught in an infinite loop. Of note; 8 different editos in that discussion from 2016 are now inactive. So, how many of you responding in this thread will not be active in another 7 years? Ganesha? Hey Man I'm Josh? Sam Walton? Fastily? JrandWP? Barkeep? Vanamonde? Several of you, or maybe even all of you, aren't going to be around in 7 years. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
It is worth noting that of those 2,366,857 bot actions, 2,353,268 were blocks done by User:ST47ProxyBot. That leaves 13,589 non-ST47ProxyBot adminbot actions in the past three months. HouseBlastertalk 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Does investigating/closing noticeboard threads, mediating disputes, opening/commenting at/closing RfCs etc show up in these stats? For that matter, does closing an AfD as "keep" count? It seems somewhat biased towards being triggerhappy (closing an ANI thread with a block counts as "admin work" but closing it with no action needed doesn't, for example). jp×g🗯️ 09:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, statistics can be fickle things. Many admin actions don't show up... not protecting following a request at RFP is another example. Lectonar (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to count (like the 5 checks rule for Checkusers proposed in April this year, many opposed this because rejecting a Checkuser request does not count as a check). So admin actions should be counted as refusals of requests or other things, however. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 11:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Nearly all of the most time-consuming admin things I do don't show up as admin actions.
I'm also not all that concerned with someone who only has a few logged admin actions a year but is actually editing consistently enough that they're managing to keep up. When they do need to log an action, they're not doing it according to a fifteen-year-old tape. An admin who even a couple times a year correctly blocks a vandal they stumble across is a net positive. One who is so out of touch that they won't even back down when someone objects to an iffy admin move can cause hours of wasted time for other editors. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Admins doesn't need to be active with logged admin actions, they would need to get active consistently (maybe have some breaks, but most important of all, they would need to be aware of all new rules and community consensus) to remain accountable. So there are proposals about admin elections because the quality cannot be judged only by some metrics of accountability. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 02:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, one AE comment or close that results in no logged actions can take an hour or hours while clearing out AIV or CSD can take less than a minute per action. Galobtter (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator work; 2023 compared to 2018

I took a look at adminstats for the past three months (thanks Fastily!) and compared it with the same time period five years ago. We have just shy of 14% fewer active administrators. Of the top 25 most active administrators from 2018, we lost 6 (24%). In 2018, the top 20% most active admins did 87.6% of the work. In 2023, that's now up to 94.2%. Losing highly active administrators will now hurt more. In 2018, there were 214,915 administrator actions in the time period. In 2023, it declined somewhat to 206,044. Meanwhile, the number of edits made project wide per day has remained essentially static (days to generate 10 million edits changed by one day). It is not logically valid to conclude we are missing ~9k admin actions these last three months. However, the average number of admin actions per admin in 2023 is 11% higher than in 2018. I.e., the administrators we do have are having to do more work to keep up. Projecting forward; in five years we will have approximately 430 active administrators doing 197,000 admin actions (458 per active adminstrator). The top 20% most active administrators (which will number 86 administrators) will be doing well in excess of 95% of the work. Is the sky falling? Of course not. But, the situation is slowly getting worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to say I really appreciate this analysis Hammersoft. Our admin capacity has long felt like a boiling frog situation and this gives some numbers to that concept. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Bear with me as I try to get at what I'm wondering here...if I'm performing 11% more admin actions, but because of improvements in (process/tech/whatever kind of streamlining), I'm actually spending the same raw amount of time on those actions, how much actual more time am I spending? I still might have the same back-end not-visible work to do in many cases, of course. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Maybe. But there are other possibilities:
  • You may be spending more of your Wikipedia screen time on admin tasks and less on other activities.
  • With practice, you may be able to perform admin tasks faster
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the really interesting analysis here and above. I think in general when people worry about "not enough admins" it's more an expression of a general feeling of "not enough highly trustworthy longterm editors", which is not at all the same as not enough admins. But it is alarming that work dropped by departing highly active admins appears to be being picked up by other highly active admins, and that the success rate for replacing the top 10 appears to be hovering somewhere under 1%. -- asilvering (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

2 new RfAs in progress

And right now, there are 3 RfAs in progress, 2 would end in the new year. I hope that 2024 would be a better year in RfA events. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 02:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Badger hunting season

At my own RfA, I said this about badgering opposes:

Perhaps a better question is why we've decided that it is uncivilized to have a candidate respond directly to accusations, but it is highly civilized to have a dozen other people respond nebulously on their behalf. The circumstances behind an oppose vote, especially one based on something that happened a long time ago, are generally arcane and half-remembered even by their participants; why would bystanders be better-equipped to address them? I feel like they usually aren't, which is part of the reason people make up for quality with quantity, and we end up with giant walls of text below every oppose. I don't know how this could be formalized, but it seems to me that if you see an oppose that's so goofy you feel you absolutely must take action, it's probably better to channel your outrage into asking the candidate a somewhat open-ended question that lets them address it.

Anyway, rather than just pontificate on the issue, I am going to do something about it: the next time I see an oppose on an RfA, I'm going to go through and specifically ask the candidate an open-ended question about anything they'd like to say in response to it. My hope is that this will allow people to offer some response if the oppose is total chickenshit, or at least offer a different perspective, and in any case cut back on the need for white-knighting. Since I only get two questions, this may need some cooperation from other editors. Would anyone like to help with this? jp×g🗯️ 21:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is a general view that it's uncivilized to respond to commenters. I do think there is close scrutiny on the candidate's conversational approach, particularly if they seem overly defensive. I'll agree that isn't necessarily giving it due weight compared with the rest of the candidate's body of work. Unfortunately there isn't a good way around this without the community agreeing to delegate the evaluation of candidates to a smaller group. Personally I would like to see candidates decide on a case-by-case basis how to best convey their points, as this is what they will have to do as an administrators. I appreciate, though, why some would like to give candidates a more one-on-one interaction forum in which to discuss a given issue. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I do agree a lot of threads get drawn out by people speculating on how the candidate might respond, and we get towers of speculation that can blow up issues rapidly. It would often be more productive for everyone to wait for the candidate to make a statement before pre-emptively responding. It's difficult to manage without a moderator, though. isaacl (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I think you hit the nail on the head: people feel a need to defend someone who is unable to defend themselves (or, at least, for them to defend themselves is considered poor form). The person going through RfA knows their responses will be evaluated by !voters. They will not go nuclear over oppose we don't need more administrators, but they can respond to oppose user has not created sufficient content with links to the 15 FAs they wrote.
Count me in. HouseBlastertalk 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll absolutely be a part of that experiment. There's nothing technically wrong about the above plan, in my opinion, although I suppose one potential downside is that it then effectively forces candidates to respond to those points. And if they choose not to do so, either due to stress or simply not taking the inquiry seriously (or bad-faith reasons which don't require mentioning), that can be a bad look which can impact their future prospects. I think it'd be best to ask (or at least consider) first whether they want that sort of target-setting to be employed. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
In addition, if you couple the above scenario with some sort of moderation plan in that the candidate ought to respond to an oppose !vote first before pile-on refutation commences, that then creates a possibility in which oppose !votes can simply be unchecked if the candidate defers a response. I'm not yet decided on whether or not that's a bad thing. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:36, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should expand the very good essay WP:TYFYV to include a section about not dogpiling regular opposes, rather than just the serial "too many admins" types it was originally written for. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Taking the most recently closed request for administrative privileges as an example: Clovermoss responded directly to oppose statements in a matter-of-fact manner. I do not believe the responses were considered to be uncivilized. isaacl (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I will note I had a few concerned people reach out to me about how this went against social norms of RfA and that I shouldn't really do that and it might turn the tide of my RfA for the worse.
To be frank, I took opposes as general feedback about my editing and ability to be an admin. It felt somewhat irresponsible of me to completely ignore good faith concerns that I felt warranted some kind of response. In regards to what was more a difference of opinion (like Lightburst's oppose), I was minimal in my responses and mostly was just friendly reminding other people that it didn't need to be some strong back and forth. I didn't respond to Glen's for similar reasons. I took a similar approach with neutrals, too.
I do wonder where the social norms of candidates being "unable" to respond and/or defend themselves to opposers comes from. In most areas on-wiki, addressing good faith concerns is seen as a good course of action. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away and I'd rather speak for myself than have someone try to do that for me (especially if our perspectives on the situation differ). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
It is definitely not the convention, but I love that you did that. The way you moderated your own RfA showed a lot of strength of character, and demonstrated many of the skills that will be useful as an administrator. I think the usual advice is because we're looking for the candidate to show restraint and impartiality, but, from my perspective, your approach was even better. – bradv 03:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I do wonder where the social norms of candidates being "unable" to respond and/or defend themselves to opposers comes from. It is often perceived as badgering, which can annoy voters and create additional oppose votes. A look at old RFAs can probably find some examples of this. Even a nominator replying too much and with the wrong tone towards opposes can hurt the candidate in some cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The canonical example may be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/My76Strat; for some history see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-18/Investigative report. Folly Mox (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I've not seen anyone get upset with productive engagement, and it's a good demonstration of the candidate's communication and interpersonal skills. I appreciate some editors are concerned that a candidate may not be able to respond well, but I think it's a disservice to give blanket advice to all candidates not to reply. I agree that it's not productive to try to argue someone out of differences of opinion; as you said during your RfA, it's OK if people disagree. Ideally, responses will provide additional insight into the candidate's reasoning processes. isaacl (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Clovermoss, I think you did a service to future candidates by responding the way you did -- basically, with open-mindedness to the possibile validity of the criticisms rather than with defensiveness -- to show people that a candidate can respond to opposes without tanking the RfA as long as they do it well. Barkeep49 has been discussing for quite a while the value of pushing back on some of these conventions and assumptions. Valereee (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
There are many things that could be better about our processes - ANI is an abomination... but I digress. In RFA we could vote in private like Arbcom voting - There is minimal controversy and kerfuffle involved with private voting. How many food-fights have come from Arbcom voting? In regard to responding at RFA as our system is now, JPxG struck a balance. The badgering does not help anything. I would not change my vote based on public haranguing and I am put-off when comments are hatted and removed from the project page. But again with private voting none of this sideshow occurs. I think some folks look forward to the friction but it is not good for our candidate or our volunteer editors. Oppose voters get blocked all the time, I see Banks Irk was just blocked - I understand they were testy in the TW RFA but again with private voting, the editor is not harangued and is probably happily donating labor to the project instead of being blocked and stewing. My last point is about the MB RFA: with private voting would MB still be editing? Just like OK I lost, back to editing. Instead the RFA page is there for MB to review and read over and over. I know it is not exactly what is being discussed here, but all of the claims that RFA is toxic, RFA needs to be reformed, should the candidate respond? Should oppose voters be left alone? can all be solved with private voting. Lightburst (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Another thing is the refrain of WP:NOBIGDEAL at RFA. If it really is no big deal then we would grant it at perm. I opposed the Clovermoss RFA for the same reason they would have been denied the tools at perrms - they do not hand out tools to people who do not need them. I think these public declarations at RFA - e.g. Super Strong Unequivocal Support might be from editors who have their own RFA aspirations. Or who are afraid to publicly declare issues. If they voted privately they could vote their conscience. Lightburst (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Re the point about private voting, I think we really want to pretend this is a discussion instead of a vote, so making it a vote straight up would be bad. Like many above, I find Clovermoss's replies in her RfA to be quite nice, since it shows us that having a more discussion styled RfA is possible. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@0xDeadbeef: The feedback that I got from multiple editors was that it is a vote. I will find a link for you. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Basically multiple editors in this thread said that it is a straight vote. Only @Wugapodes: thought that it was not a vote. Read the comments of HJ Mitchell who said ... it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus... Vanamonde, Serial Number 54129, @Mandruss:, @RickinBaltimore: all agreed that it is a vote. Lightburst (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Must admit I was a bit surprised by Mitchell's (and it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus). If it's not discussion, how do you post diffs to support your position? How do you present arguments that might sway others? Doesn't it become a popularity contest? (That's not all bad; if a majority dislikes you, you probably won't be very effective as an admin.) But his comment was supported by two and countered by zero, and I'm not so smart about these matters, so I went with it. If it's not about discussion, then don't discuss; seems a no-brainer. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it mostly appears like a vote, but do we want it that way? IMO discussions are helpful unless they aren't (a useless statement I know) and we'd not want it turn into straight up voting. And that is why I sort of prefers Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 267#Making RfA a calmer environment over making it SecurePoll (besides, it might not work well technically) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Although it plainly is a vote (we give rationales for our votes, but the only thing that matters in the end is the support %; woe betide a 'crat who tries to close an RfA as unsuccessful at 76% or successful at 65%), I'd like to see it become much more of a discussion. Ideally, it would be like the best job interviews—a discussion with the candidate. If voting is necessary or desired, we could split the process in two. That's kind of what I was getting at with my "making RfA a calmer environment thread" but nobody was really interested, which was disappointing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree that RfA is de facto a vote, but an RfA has been closed successful at even 64%. Galobtter (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
After a 'crat chat. Could you imagine the uproar if a lone bureaucrat had closed it as successful without a 'crat chat? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean, my position is not exactly idiosyncratic. The RfA page says verbatim: "This discussion process is not a vote". A thread at AN that ran for a few days is a much weaker consensus than the weeks long, widely advertised, and well attended RfCs that actually determine our RfA process. If an RfC were to come to a different conclusion, I'd change my tune, but despite many peoples' best efforts, no RfC has yet. Until such an RfC, I don't find arguments that boil down to "we should do X because RFA is a vote" compelling; wanting it to be a vote doesn't make it a vote, and confusing the two makes me generally suspicious of whether the rest of the argument treats opinion as fact in the same way. — Wug·a·po·des 06:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
A voting process with a numeric hand-count for success or failure is by definition a vote, no matter how many wishful-thinking "not a vote" claims people make or where they get away with injecting them. That the cut-off is a discretionary range, with 'crats having a limited form of veto power, does not change this, and is not unique among voting systems. Lots of delusions are entertained by masses of people, but this does not magically make them reflective of reality.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Very many (all?) of our consensus-building processes apply numerical assessments, but only after assessing the weight of the opinions of participants, including sometimes discounting or discarding a few based on validity rather than eligibility. That's radically different from a straight vote as it is usually understood - that is, purely numerical. I don't really care what nomenclature we use; the critical point is that it isn't only the numerical breakdown of opinions that matters, but their substance as well. RFA hews closer to a straight vote because there are fewer clear-cut reasons to discount opinions than at, say, AfD; but as long as discounts are applied, it doesn't fit the definition of a vote as I understand it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Lightburst. Firstly, it's probably worth remembering that we may have agreed with Harry, but for different reasons :) my reasoning is, somewhat simplistically, that at the moment, we have a hybrid vote/discussion, and while wanting to be both, it ends up being successfully neither. As both a vote and a discussion, it's polluted. I'm sure this is a perennial, but the best thing might be clear demarcation, Arbcom-esque: four days, say, of actual discussion, which is closed and followed by a plain voting period (although not necessarily a private ballot). Crats would still have a role (indeed, possibly even a greater one) in tying the two results together at closure.
My personal view of the current situation—and circling back to my agreement with Harry's it is a vote, RfA is about numbers, not discussion or consensus—is that it's effectively a vote until it becomes too close to close. Taken to extremes, in fact, it could be argued that the only true element of discussion is also the rarest: the crat chat. Personally, I can't define, for example, something as a discussion just because it contains diffs and links, in the way that I wouldn't call something a vote just because it did not. ——Serial 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
On a lighter note, should we have a discussion or a vote before deciding how many millions of words we can expound on whether RfA is a discussion or a vote[FBDB]  ;) ——Serial 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: This comes to mind. But I love your idea of four days of discussion. Just like a in a general election there is no campaigning near the polls. Lightburst (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Two-phase RfAs have been discussed a number of times; the most recent discussion on this talk page was in November. It hasn't garnered a lot of feedback over the years, as I discussed in the previous thread. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The topic was discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues § B. Not enough like a discussion (should be less like a vote) and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues § C. Too much discussion (should be more like a vote), with neither view attaining consensus support. The 2021 review did find significant support for anonymous voting (some even think consensus-level, though the closers disagreed). So the day that the counting-heads portion of the discussion is done via anonymous vote may come to pass, once the required infrastructure is ready. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
And it will be discussed many times more but we'll probably have the same old RfA in 2043. The "RfA is dying" threads are just too much fun to let something like a solution get in the way! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the trend line is there for an anonymous vote, and once that comes in, a two-phase RfA will be a natural element to incorporate. I think the bigger problem is finding volunteers willing to take on thankless tasks that may eat up all their allocated Wikipedia time, preventing them from doing more fun tasks. Given the increasingly shortened length of active tenures for more recent editors, this also means volunteering a larger percentage of their editing lifespan on Wikipedia to drudgery while being a target for antagonism. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
The feedback that I got from multiple editors was that it is a vote. In my opinion, it's a vote if it's outside the crat chat range of 64.0[1]-75.9%[2]. It's an RFC-like discussion where a panel of closers downweights and discards !votes if it's in the crat chat range of 64.0-75.9%. The panel of closers, of course, is the bureaucrats. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: I think some like the bloodsport - I see them popping corn when an RFA starts. There are things we do here that I am pretty sure are unique to WP. Like having volunteers flog each other and vote on punishments for each other. Or making volunteers declare and defend their votes for admins. Imagine if you had to do the same at the ballot box in real life. lol FYI: I also want to correct a mistake above: Banks Irk was blocked for an oversight issue. I am just guessing that he got on the radar for his testy responses in the RFA but he was not blocked for his angular vote or testy responses. Also Happy New Year to everyone on the board. Lightburst (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Hi Lightburst. I think you said something interesting a few days ago. I hope you don't mind the wait. Anyways, this is what I thought was interesting: Another thing is the refrain of WP:NOBIGDEAL at RFA. If it really is no big deal then we would grant it at perm. I opposed the Clovermoss RFA for the same reason they would have been denied the tools at perrms - they do not hand out tools to people who do not need them. I know your intention here was that RfA is not at all analogous to PERM but as someone whose actually been an admin for a little over a week now I do have some thoughts on that. I'm not sure how comparable my experience with gaining and losing user rights is... but adminship really doesn't feel like anything super special on top of everything else. There's guides for the new perm, there's a bit of a difference in terms of what I can do... but overall my approach hasn't been that different to what I was like when I recieved other user rights. Obviously there's the potential for harm (that's why user rights like autopatrolled can get taken away if they're abused). So I wouldn't say I think that adminship is no big deal per se because that potential of harm is exponentially larger. To be frank, I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this train of thought but I figured it'd be useful to pitch my input here.

Also, I believe there is a difference between no need for the tools and some need for the tools. I didn't say I wasn't going to be performing any admin actions whatsoever and just wanted to be an admin to be an admin. I did give some potential areas where I figured I could help out easily enough in my RfA. I was wondering if you had any thoughts about what I say at my RfA criteria in regards to editcountitis? The reason I'm bringing it up is because you didn't explicitly refute my central argument there when I linked to it, although I figured we disagreed on something since you didn't change your mind. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

One major difference I perceive is that many admin actions receive little or no oversight, and for deletion it isn't possible for a non-admin to check one's work. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure there are a lot of parts of adminship that are very similar to using non-admin rights. But being able to unilaterally decide if an editor should or should not be able to edit here is very different feeling from using any non-admin right. Galobtter (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I mentioned that in my RfA and I still feel that way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat

Food for thought

Below I will reproduce, in its entirety, a successful RfA, without comment:

Zippy

  • 21 Jul 2003 Zippy: I've been contributing as a registered user since August 2002 (and as unregistered since June 2002), including both new entries and edits of existing ones. My net identity goes back for more than a decade, with a record of helpful participation on Slashdot and Usenet. I believe in a light touch in moderation except in the case of obvious vandalism (Goatse, bots). My main interest in adminship is in correcting and contributing to protected pages when I spot problems (typos, errors, unclear language).
    • Solid contributor who I don't recall has ever made a non-NPOV edit or has been the instigator of any edit war. I fully support Zippy as Admin. Do I hear a second so that we can make it so! --mav 19:43 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Seems to be in a weird time zone, so I don't recognize the name, but checked a few random edits, didn't find anything wrong. Is the sole contributor to at least a couple of short, properly wikified, articles. כסיף Cyp 11:59 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Much to think about. jp×g🗯️ 03:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Every time I feel inclined to oppose an RfA on grounds of lack of experience, I recall my RfA, where I'd been active for <12 mths, with ~5k edits, knew tbh next to nothing about deletion policy (where I've ended up working), got asked no questions and got next to no opposition. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
For better or worse, Wikipedia is a different community now. For example, the editor in question created an article with their second edit, and it looked like this. Pretty sparse, and without citations, but of course there was no doubt from anyone familiar with the subject that it met English Wikipedia's standard for having an article. A lot of low-hanging fruit was available. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed; I'm not sure what we're supposed to take away from this. For example, in 2003, there were ≈8K editors; now there are hundreds of thousands.[1] In 2003, there were around 100-200K articles; now there are over 6 million.[2] The manual of style in 2003 looked like this. What's most fun to me is the idea of Usenet as a character reference; if I could have done that twenty years ago, I'd be the Final Arbiter of Taste and Justice by now. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The second support was from someone who had checked "a few random edits", I wonder what proportion of current voters actually check the candidate's edits as opposed to just reading the RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 07:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I do look at some of a candidate's edits. I think it'd be unusual for a !voter to not do that, at least on some sort of cursory level? I also look at their talk page for signs of good communication and decent civility. I get that everyone has different opinions on what makes a good admin (this is mine) but I think my thought process has a decent chunk of overlap with the general community. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
{|TakesOffSillyHat|serious= "I certainly do. I joke about only looking into user's histories for plant articles, but in truth I'm looking into what kind of interactions they have. Especially if they are dealing more or less fairly with the disruptive editing of various types. Dipping in here and there to get an idea of what they have been doing recently. Now back to your regularly scheduled nonsense."|}
After all I only want either true heroes or villains who follow the code. Can't have someone who'll start bricking up the secret escape tunnel on your evil lair before the fight begins or takes unsporting shots at the hero. And we need plenty of new Supers even if they accidentally vaporize a little public property by accident when getting the hang of the vast powers that come with being an newbie editor WikiSuper. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
  • While yes, the community has changed a lot, so has the type of work and the overall workload of both the editing and the administrator communities. Back in the day, almost nobody was blocked; then again, there were far fewer vandals. Back then, VPNs and other similar proxy servers didn't exist (or if they did, they couldn't be bothered with Wikipedia), so we didn't have adminbots blocking huge IP ranges associated with them, which we do now. Back then, almost nothing was deleted, and revision deletion didn't exist; today, both of those happen hundreds if not thousands of times a day. Back then, AGF was an absolute cornerstone of the project, to the point that people were considered quirky rather than exhibiting problem behaviour; today, we've had an additional 20 years of the reality of the internet that has made us much more realistic and less tolerant of problem behaviours. Back then, it was perfectly fine to have multiple accounts, and the way that those accounts were used had a lot of variation: some had "real" accounts and joke accounts; some had separate accounts for multiple topic areas; some used one account from home and another from work; and quite often those accounts weren't even linked. Today, people have to list every account they have or have ever had simply to be considered for any advanced permission, including adminship (likely with good reason). Back then, the entire editing community probably knew of any other editor who had more than 1000 edits, and so could make a reasonable RFA vote; today, the community wouldn't even consider a candidate with less than 5000 edits except if they had a very specialized skill that required adminship. It's not just the community that's changed. It is the needs of the project, the internet as a whole, and the world in which we operate. The OP illustrates a perfectly reasonable RFA for the period in which it occurred. It is reality that it couldn't happen that way today; but then again, when that RFA took place, everyone editing here was 20 years younger, and a significant number hadn't even been born yet. There's no such thing as the good old days. Risker (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    I wasn't there at the time either, but I agree with the general gist of the above comment, from what I've read. Just some links though: on 7 July 2003, Wikipedia (in all languages) was the 1,441st most popular site on the Internet, in stark contrast to its very well-assured position in the top ten these days. The next day, on 8 July 2003, it reached 140,000 articles, as opposed to the nearly seven million we have today. Here's the deletion log for the entire month of 2003; the block log doesn't go back that far but here's the blocking policy (for regular users)from around that time and the one for vandals ... in those days, if you blocked an IP address, it would affect *everyone* on it, including admins ... this wouldn't change for another three years). Open proxies actually were a concern by February 2004, when Jimbo Wales said "In general, I like living in a world with anonymous proxies. I wish them well. There are many valid uses for them. But, writing on Wikipedia is not one of the valid uses." (Here's the complete thread). Back in July 2003 we didn't even have an Arbitration Committee, nor did we have a page about sockpuppetry. Certainly different times! Graham87 (talk) 11:16/11:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    The problem here is that our current rate of granting admin rights extremely low and that creates a feedback loop: RfA becomes more selective, old admins become less willing to nominate someone for RfA, people becomes more critical of newcomers. There WAS the good old days, and Wikipedia has become unkind to new editors, new blood, and new talents. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    When people speak of the good old days of RFA, I'm reminded of my RFA standards page, which stands unchanged for fifteen years. Would someone today pass RFA with what I have listed there? No. Has Wikipedia changed, as described by Risker above? Yes. Has RFA changed in a properly commensurate way? You'll get different answers from different people, but if you ask me, the answer is no, the curve at RFA has been steeper. Useight (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    An observation: The cases that involve admins or admin-candidates with conduct unbecoming surely are not to be representative of the majority of the admin corps who do great work. Yet it may be that jarring spectacles such as the Eostrix RfA where an LTA was almost given the tools (but for sharp-eyed CUs) may leave a lasting impression of how weighty and awesome a process that RfA can be. It concerns me that the presence of such cases may indeed prompt !voting editors to err on the side of caution. That could contribute to the steeper curve, among other reasons, another one being a greater concern for maintaining editorial integrity within an encyclopedic landscape that is rapidly shifting due to the impacts of AI and LLMs. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
    Any of you watch The Traitors (or any of its other international versions)? The "faithful" in that show trying to oust "traitors" based on vibes feels a lot like trying to identify the next Eostrix or Icewhiz based on an interaction you had with them once. Eostrix was identified with tools that probably should have been applied before their RFA went live (though obviously I get that catching them was a case of luck as well), not by vibes being "off". FOARP (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    Every time in the last ten years when I asked someone whether they'd like to be nominated, they said no. In the good old days, people often just nominated without asking first... —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Just to say that Zippy is still an admin 20 years later, with a few edits in 2023, though his last was in September. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/en.wikipedia.org/contributing/editors/normal%7Cline%7Call%7C~total%7Cmonthly
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia%27s_growth

dynamic polish ip now at second RfA

Anyone object to simply removing those questions? Valereee (talk) 11:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Their first question has a blatantly obvious answer, and barring some episode were their brain was removed, Sdkb would answer it correctly. The second question isn't articulated properly. It lacks specificity. In fact, so much so that in my opinion the question is meaningless. Sdkb would have to flesh out a number of possible scenarios that would apply before being able to answer. More importantly, the question is pretty blatantly coming from a person who is a long term abuser. Not surprisingly, the only edit done by the IP tripped the edit filter [1]. The questions do nothing to add to the RfA, as they are rather meaningless. The IP is likely an LTA. Answering the questions is feeding the troll. I strongly lean 'remove'. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this is about [2]. This process should not involve having to answer WP:POINTy/WP:SOAPBOXy questions from anonymouses who have nothing to lose from trolling. --Joy (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
And they've been removed by Acalamari. Good move. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of general sanctions at the village pump

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Community sanctions: rethinking civility enforcement at RfA. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion there. — xaosflux Talk 20:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

2024 requests for adminship review

You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time. Thank you to everyone who has guided and helped me.

Hello everyone. I just wanted to make a note and say that I am very thankful to every single person who has seen my work, supported, guided, and helped me over the last 13 years since I have been here on Wikipedia. I have learned a lot here, but there is still a lot to learn and experience here on Wikipedia as an editor. Wikipedia has given me tremendous knowledge, and I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time and till my last breath. I will run for RfA one day when I am ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That's good to know. Deb (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your acknowledgment Deb. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

2 days of discussion-only for the next 5 RFAs

Per Proposal 3B of 2024 RFA Review that was recently closed as successful, the first 2 days will be discussion-only for the next five RfAs that are not closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW or to RfAs opened in the next six months – whichever happens first. Soni (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As we implement, I'll reiterate my comment from the proposal discussion:

In order to encourage editors to run, I'd like to see this implemented in a way that allows those who sense that the !voting phase may not go as well as they'd hoped to bow out gracefully after the discussion phase with as little stigma attached as possible. One way to get at that would be to require candidates to affirmatively assent to proceed to the !voting phase as the discussion phase nears its end; if they do not, the default course of action would be to end the RfA with a neutral (not red) background and a note like This is an archived request for adminship that did not proceed beyond the discussion phase.

Cheers, Sdkb talk 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
If the start of providing support/oppose statements is initiated manually, say by adding (or making visible) the appropriate sections in the request, then I think it would be best for the person doing this to first check with the candidate, and hold off either way until the candidate responds. I wouldn't want a request to be withdrawn by default just because the requestor became unexpectedly unavailable for a period of time. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, RfA candidates normally try to be very available during their run, but stuff can always come up, and I wouldn't want unexpected unavailability to have that effect either. But if we say they have to respond one way or another, what happens if they don't and the two-day mark passes? The way I envision it, we'd allow a grace period of, say, a week, where someone whose RfA stopped after the discussion phase (I want language other than "withdrawn," which has some stigma) could decide to re-open it for the !voting phase without having to go through another discussion phase. Sdkb talk 22:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
A week to hear a response seems reasonable. However in the interest of not delaying a trial, I think proceeding with the current default approach is simplest for now: once the RfA process begins, it continues until the candidate withdraws or the outcome is determined. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That comment is fine, but implementation of it is not specified in the RFC closing, only a prohibition on numbered votes for 48 hours. Of course, the candidate is welcome to withdraw their candidacy at any time. — xaosflux Talk 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
affirmatively assent. Since that wasn't in the RFC, and would open up the possibility of delaying the RFA !voting opening without intending it to, perhaps we should just keep it as auto open. I also don't personally see a stigma with the word withdraw. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think auto-open is the correct method. - Enos733 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Instead of the next 5 RFAs, how about we say "the first five RFAs in April and May of 2024". That way, candidates who don't want to be part of an experiment know when the experiment is going to end. Oh, and if nobody runs during that period, we should consider this a failed experiment. Risker (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Risker People can just wait 6 months now Mach61 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    What I am suggesting is shortening the period. Two months should be sufficient. If there are no candidates during that period, then it should be dead in the water. If there are five or more candidates during that period, then that indicates candidates prefer this proposed method. A six month experiment is far too long; we need new admins, and if people aren't running because they think the experiment is unhelpful, then we're making the problem worse, not better. I'll just note that the biggest concern that has been expressed about RFA has been the quality and nature of discussion about the candidates, not the voting itself. Six months of preventing voting to emphasize what many consider to be RFA's worst feature could kill RFA entirely. Let's go with a much shorter experiment. Risker (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) And I'm just wondering how an RFA could be closed as WP:SNOW before voting starts. Risker (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    The proposed length of the experiment was made clear in the proposal, which found consensus. We may need about 5 RfAs to figure out whether or not the experiment worked, and hopefully we'll get that sooner than 6 months. If the experiment goes horribly, we could always decide by consensus to end it early. Sdkb talk 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yep, it gained consensus amongst RFA regulars (I've read the decision). They didn't build in an escape clause. When redesigning such a major program, there is a very significant chance that things will go sideways in a way that is not anticipated by such a black-and-white, either/or method of decision. Frankly, if there aren't potential candidates jumping at the chance to test out this new process in the next two months, then we're doing ourselves harm. If nobody gets as far as a successful/unsuccessful result (i.e., withdraws, or NOTNOW or SNOW is invoked, or nobody runs at all), the experiment is a failure; the whole purpose is to attract more quality candidates who can pass an RFA. RFA is hard, in much the same way that building a good article or a featured list is hard. So I suggest the escape clause, because we can't afford to go six months without a successful RFA. Two months is bad enough. Risker (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    There were five RfAs in January and February of this year and six in November and December of last, so I think there's a good chance that the trial will be over in two months anyway. If it turns out to be so unpopular that nobody runs, then I'd say the implicit "escape clause" is that we just decide, in the usual way, to scrap the idea early. But it seems odd to be talking about doing so just a day after the RfC was closed. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
    The RFC was very well attended. It had 80 participants and was T:CENT-listed and had a watchlist notice. I'd be most comfortable sticking to the RFC's wording, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Voting limited to Extended Confirmed users

Per Proposal 14 of RFA Review 2024 being closed as successful, voting in RFA is now limited to only editors with Extended Confirmed user-right. Other users and IPs can still participate in the rest of RFA. Soni (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Soni what is the #of RFA/time limit for this? — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe this is an experiment. Best I can read the proposal and close, it seems to be a change for RFA as an entire process. Soni (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

question

Can i apply for administrator simply because of the score on my wikipediholism? [April Fools!] Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Sebbers10, but be carefulof the tools or you will certainly be a jerk. [April Fools!] Toadette (April Fools Day!) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Understood [April Fools!] Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal as a consequence of RFA2024

So Proposal 14 of WP:RFA2024 passed that states that voting is restricted to extended confirmed users, but another proposal passed, albeit on trial basis, that voting starts after 48hr from the opening of an RfA. To *enforce* this, I am proposing that RfAs be ECPed after 2d and forward any potential discussion/questions from non EC users to the talk page, also on trial basis because of the secomd proposal. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably this and any other suggestions should be discussed at WP:RFA2024#Phase II rather than here. Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@ToadetteEdit the "voting" restriction is not a restriction on "discussing", only creating numbered !votes. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination limited to Extended Confirmed users

Per Proposal 25 of RFA Review 2024 being closed as successful, nominees are required to have Extended Confirmed user-right. Soni (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 9b of RFA2024

Per Proposal 9b of RFA 2024 passing, any claims of specific policy violation during an RFA should be backed by links or can be removed. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relatedly, this closes all the proposals in RFA2024. Some proposals will go through a Phase II process of refining and editing, but the first set of changes are all done. You can find all of them at the RFA2024 page. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Toadette RFA

Are we allowed to ask questions now? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 13:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ixtal, confirmed. ——Serial Number 54129 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Question that I uhhh don't know where to put ... where would we give feedback about the RFA process test proposal thing - given that the discussion phase is new. Is this a one and done attempt? Turini2 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I think here is the best place to do so (assuming you mean feedback on "Is this trial working?").
WT:RFA2024 also exists, but it's mostly focused on the procedure and specific implementation discussions (More like "When should Phase 2 for this proposal happen?") Soni (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I do mean "Is this trial working?" - I'll start a new little section. Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFA page main table colors

If this could be addressed ASAP it would smooth things over I think. At the moment, it's showing red because it has zero supports. Can this be changed to a so-far unused colour (blue, perhaps?) so that one glance at the table does not imply that there are no votes due to a lack of support, but rather because the 'neutral' discussion period is taking place. The blue can be turned off, I guess, in a couple of days? ——Serial Number 54129 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that this change would take place at Module:RFX report, which tracks these sorts of things. Not an unreasonable request, will see about doing something unless someone beats me to it or vociferously objects. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done, I've just changed it to show   if the % is 0. Will probably need an "if S/O/N = 0/0/0 then blue" check at some point but this should get us through for now. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it looks much gentler on the eye Primefac, thanks. The scary old 'Red-for-danger' might be fair in a tanking RfA, but not when no !votes have even been cast yet, was my thinking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for this. If we keep using this "discussion-first" approach, I think it would be helpful to also add some kind of hover text or something that says "the voting period has not yet begun" (or whatever), to make the meaning clearer. -- asilvering (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Should remain blue even if N is 1+ but S and O is still 0, I think ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with tweaks; as I said above this was just a short-term solution because it required no major code changes and I could sort it out in minutes. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Bureacrats exist

Guys what the hell is going on with closing/reverting/untranscluding the Toadette RFA by non-bureaucrats. Stop making a mess of this and just let the B's figure out it, please. Don't just throw another ball to the jester and see if he stops juggling. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 18:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The community has been empowered since forever to snow/notnow close RfAs. Of the last 5 that were snow/notnow closed, none were done by a bureaucrat. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Why don't people run at RfA?

There are many reasons I was hesitant to ever run at RfA and I just know that when I was a non-admin that I would've read the above discussion with dismay. It's one of the many examples of RfA being a free for all when anything goes and even basic courtesy can fall to the wayside. I encourage non-admins to share why they don't run because nothing is ever going to change if that perspective is never shared publicly. Maybe my hunch is all kinds of wrong but I have faith in it. I think people need to see who we're losing with the process being the way it stands today. We don't need things to be this way and the risks far outweigh the benefits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would guess that Tamzin's and Vami's RfAs lost us a dozen potential candidates each. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Heck, I ran way back in 2008 (back when it was supposedly easier), and I was hesitant at the time. I managed in the space of a week to be told I was too bold in discussing policy, that my content (which included a Good article and an FA collaboration) wasn't good enough, that I was hot-headed, and that (weirdly) I made fun of another editor. Oh, and I got misgendered in the very first oppose, by someone who used to have a dick pic on his userpage. Still managed to pass, and was elected to Arbcom a few months later. I've never been sure if that was a reward or a punishment. There's no such thing as the good old days; they were pretty bad, too. Risker (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
At least in the old days, there was some safety in numbers. When I transcluded my RfA, there were 15 open RfAs and 2 open RfBs. RfAs should not be something rare and special. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Who's idea was that anyway? (Nice to see Keeper76 again!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I've had my nominators and first three answers ready for a while now but I'm honestly not too sure myself why I keep hesitating. I'm not worried about the result; regardless of the result, it won't change what I like best which is writing articles. I suppose it's just hard to look into the lion's den and jump in. I think a factor is that the incivility just adds to the stress level of an already stressful process; stray neutral votes don't need to be endlessly battered, and to use the recent RFA as an example, opposes should be honest but shouldn't be downright mean. Curbon7 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I've slept on it and think I figured it out. As below, it is the idea that held by some that candidates must be infallible and thus minor non-issues become blown out of proportion. Obviously I'm not talking about bad readings of policy or very bad behavior, but moreso just having made a mistake and growing from it and understanding why it was a mistake but then that mistake still being held over your head at RFA. Curbon7 (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying this isn't a realistic fear (it absolutely is), but just as a counter-example: at my RfA, a couple of deletion mistakes that I had honestly forgotten about were brought up and brought in the first few neutrals/opposes. I simply responded that I agreed that they were mistakes and said what I'd learned from them, and subsequently the opposes stopped and a lot of supporters explicitly pointed to acknowledging mistakes as a reason for their support. So I think the community is not only tolerant of mistakes but actively wants to see them and see how the candidate responds. There is a perception—probably quite an accurate one—that it's very hard to hold admins accountable for their mistakes, so people are worried about somebody who looks like they might be prone to digging in their heels.
That said, something I often see users struggling not just at RfA but also lower-stakes venues like PERM is that some mistakes cast a longer shadow than others. Candidates get frustrated about something being discussed because "that was two years ago!" (especially since most admin candidates these days are relatively new to the project), while the opposers are thinking "hmm, if they did that only the year before last..." – we're quicker to forgive ourselves than to forgive others.
Incidentally my experience also questions the wisdom of the unwritten rule, "don't respond at RfA". I only broke it because SoWhy explicitly asked me to respond; had he not done that, I think it's very possible that my silence could have turned those small mistakes into substantial opposition. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Since you asked...
  • I can't think of a compelling reason why I need the tools.
  • I'm unaware of areas that may need support where I would be well-positioned to provide that support.
  • I can't think of a way being an admin will make my life easier or more enjoyable.
  • I can think of ways that being an admin would make my life harder and less enjoyable.
  • I ran once already and, yes, I made a stupid mistake, but it was a stupid mistake that harmed nobody while just making me look like someone who got a bit too excited about the whole thing (I told a few editors I was close to at the time that I was running). When something that objectively minor was enough to torpedo my last RfA, do I want to take the chance that editors might find something else to beat me over the head for? Once bitten, twice shy...
  • I think of my editing as something I can do fairly casually and that I somewhat enjoy while hopefully making the project better for other people. Becoming an admin seems like something that would adversely impact that experience.
  • Because I've been here for years and never been blocked and because the people who do regularly interact with me are already aware of my merits and flaws and seem to think I'm doing a competent enough job doing what I'm doing, and, as such, I feel as though if the project values what I have to offer then they can come to me and incentivize me to give more rather than putting it on me to put myself through a potentially hellish gauntlet that may in the end only affect me adversely. In other words, I'm past the point where I feel a need to audition for WP and think WP can audition for me if they want my services.
  • Because, as the last point illustrates, I'm a selfish and cynical SOB who doesn't feel he can be bothered to take on a lot of work for what he perceives to be minimal self-improvement.
I think that covers it? But as another point of frustration, I've been told that there are editors out there who will oppose a candidate who's made a point of expressing interest in being an admin, because, I suppose, clearly those who seek power can't be trusted to wield it responsibly. I don't have the time or inclination to bother with that kind of cynical logic. DonIago (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that covers it. Levivich (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I've been told that there are editors out there who will oppose a candidate who's made a point of expressing interest in being an admin, because, I suppose, clearly those who seek power can't be trusted to wield it responsibly. I don't have the time or inclination to bother with that kind of cynical logic.
This has bothered me for a bit as well. It feels like a real Catch-22, apply for the tools but without telling anyone you're interested in them, or you might fail from just saying "I would like to help" out loud. I kinda get where that cynicism started from (a desire to weed out the expressively unqualified candidates), but imho it would be far more productive if our community focused on admin mentorship and ways to improve "excited editor to experienced admin candidate" pipeline than just do what we currently do. Soni (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I have never seen a RfA candidate who failed solely on this basis, and I would be extremely surprised to see one. Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I have not done an extensive deep dive of RFAs to tell which ones had "They said they want to be admin" moving the needle enough. I just think it moving the needle at all is a concerning Catch-22. And at least anecdotally, it's made me shy away from stating "Maybe I want to be an admin" even when I would have actively considered it. Why give people another reason to oppose? It seems easier to go about my usual editing ways and only discuss if I'm confident of the outcome. Soni (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding my concern. I have the "I might want to be an admin someday" button on my userpage, and there has definitely been some conversation around the notion that that might in some peoples' eyes be a reason to oppose me, and that made me particularly angry because it felt like setting people up to fail. "Here's this button you can use to show that you're interested in being an admin...but what it's really doing is showing people that you should never become an admin." If it's reasonably likely that the mere act of expressing that level of interest in being an admin may result in gathering opposition, then it seems like a real disservice to aspiring editors to have the button in the first place. DonIago (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think immature editors who engage in WP:HATCOLLECT behaviors and see adminship as some kind of high status where they can boss everyone around have historically shouted the loudest about wanting to become admins, and this has created a slight stigma towards folks that declare their admin intentions. The correct way to handle this, in my opinion, is to just accept that the community is sensitive to this and to not go over the top about it. Try to only mention admin aspirations at WP:ORCP (which is also a great place to find a nominator, btw) and via email to potential nominators, and I doubt there will be any problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll grant that my concerns about the mere act of adding the button may be unfounded, but it did come up in the past, so it felt germane to mention it here. I'd hope that anyone who objected to a candidate solely on that basis would be largely dismissed. DonIago (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
My guess is that almost all successful candidates nowadays spend a few long afternoons obsessively reading through every RfA run in the last n years, and piece together the expectations that people have, chief among them how to undertake a gigantic unpleasant effort to obtain a thing, while carefully never implying that you actually want the thing or think it would be good. Frankly, I think that the actual instances of WP:HATCOLLECTING are pretty rare, pretty obvious, and the problem with them is almost never the hats but rather the fact that the person's a fool who uses them to do bad things. jp×g🗯️ 07:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
There's some irony to the fact that people who just want to help the project have to: a) engage in a ton of research and implicitly become a political strategist, b) put themselves under a massive magnifying glass where they may be subjected to skewed critique that they may be further critiqued for if they engage with it, and c) make a point of acting as though it's no big deal. Even presidential candidates get to respond to criticism and tell their friends that they're running for office. DonIago (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about that irony, and yes, it's unreasonable and unfair. Actually, I'm someone who has come over time to feel negatively about that user box, so go figure. I don't mean about you personally having it, but more generally. I've had experience with newish (and typically young) editors, who tend to be focused on The Rules and not very tuned in to the nuances of how people interact, and there's a trend for them to use that box. I think that gives some mileage to that perception of hat collecting. But there's something, that for me, and I'm guessing for numerous other editors too, can make that concern go away, even when displaying that user box. Just develop a track record of demonstrating sensitivity and mature judgment, and that concern will go away, user box notwithstanding. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Sensitivity? I dunno, that sounds kinda...touchy-feely... :p DonIago (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm very much of the belief that caring is a strength and not a weakness. A truly informed decision cannot ever really be made without at least listening to what your heart has to say on that matter and considering it rationally. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I hope it was clear that I was joking (hence my :p), but to avoid any ambiguity...while I don't really tend to consider myself a people-person, especially with people I don't know, in that particular instance I was absolutely joking. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's stopped any RFA from succeeding, but I do think our attitude towards it prevents us from getting editors on a training path towards adminship. We again and again repeat how adminship is something that should not be aspired to and then are surprised that so few are applying. We shoo away those that show even a modicum of interest early on in their careers (such as those that have the Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday userbox). We need to start telling new editors the opposite. Aspiring for adminship is a good thing. Not always and not for all reasons. But I don't see any benefit in telling someone with a year or two of experience, that shows genuine interest in being here and contributing to sharing free, high quality information with others that they should hide any and all public mentions of desiring adminship. It would be helpful even to have such a way of tracking editors willing to take up additional responsibilities in the maintenance of our wiki. I used to have the userbox and now don't plan on ever really being an admin. Not because I stopped wishing to help out the wiki behind the scenes in the future, but rather because I found it highly rewarding to just do what I was told was a better alternative at my experience level some years ago and don't see myself moving from my comfy corner, i.e. participating in WP:ANRFC, WP:DRN, and content creation initiatives like the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest (pls sign up). While I probably would have found myself here without the userbox, it helped spur those conversations which were very helpful to my growth. Many such cases. And I think the community should start seeing the userbox in that way. Not always as a flag of overconfidence and hat-seeking but rather as sometimes an indication one wants to do more to help out (which is how i see it) and therefore an opportunity for us to help guide the growth of that editor. JPxG's analysis of the irony in how we treat candidates is something I furthermore agree with. — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 05:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I have a hard time getting my head around the concept that having the power to stop people from editing (which is what admins do, whether they're deleting a page, protecting a page, or sanctioning a user) is something that people should aspire to. The kind of person who says, "you know what I really want to do? I want to stop other people from editing," is the kind of person I don't want to have that power. So the whole don't-aspire-to-it thing makes sense to me. Levivich (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one. Valereee (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
A well-known truism. I forget the name of it but there was a movie back in the day where an AI supercomputer picked the US President and the computer's first selection criteria was "does not want to be President." Levivich (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Btw I don't mean to put words in Ixtal's or anyone else's mouth, but I have a theory that when people say "aspire to be an admin" what they really mean is "aspire to pass RFA," in other words, aspire to win the approval of hundreds of editors. This is borne out by comments (not by Ixtal) along the lines of "I have a vague suspicion about the candidate but they can easily dispel it by [doing things that win my approval]." This makes for an unhealthy--some might say "toxic"--community dynamic, where new members are expected to win the approval of existing members, and those who do are rewarded with extra privileges and social capital. It's a way for veterans to exercise power over newcomers, to enforce groupthink, and so on. Levivich (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
OMG we're a country club. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
No, we're not. Admins are generally fairly supportive of admin candidates; the most picky voters are typically the highly experienced non-admins. My theory is that both groups compare the candidate to themselves (at least subconsciously): a cartoon picture is that the admins think "hey, this person is at least as good as I was when I became an admin, support", while the non-admins think "hey, this person is only half as qualified as I am and I am not sure I should be an admin, oppose". —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Not to be cynical, but isn't there some reality to that philosophy? If you want to pass RfA, you at minimum need to not tell anyone you're in the running (at least, not anyplace where anyone will see it) other than through approved channels, and not act too excited by the propsect of becoming an admin. You need to check your own behavior leading up to your nomination, which could extend as far as withholding opinions altogether in scenarios where you might have been able to effect positive change but not in a way that everyone expressing an opinion on your nomination would agreee with. You absolutely don't want to have done anything that might have gotten you blocked, no matter how justified or understandable your words or deeds at the time might have been in the vast majority of circumstances. You need to endeavor to act like a perfect human being even though human beings are innately flawed.
TL;DR I think there's a reasonable argument that people who want to become admins must also be aware of and are likely at least unconsciously modifying their public-facing behaviors. One wonders whether at least some of the admins who subsequently lost the bit for problematic behaviors were simply people who were ultimately showing the true colors of themselves that they'd suppressed while endeavoring to gain the bit. "If you want to be an admin, you better be willing to kiss hands and shake some babies." DonIago (talk) 02:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I can give one of the reasons why, and it's a significant one for qualified candidates who have been here for a significant amount of time. First: what it's not: not fear that someone will be incivil, or just say something stupidly obnoxious. Those things happen, but can easily be dealt with. It's that, if you've been around for a while and have accumulated the kind of experience in navigating difficult disputes that can make for a good admin, you've probably also made mistakes a few times. Not disqualifying things, but mistakes. Human beings make mistakes. And those potential candidates know that, if they run, someone will dredge those things up and treat them like they are A Big Deal. Even if they aren't. Because whether something is or is not a big deal is subjective, and it's easy to frame something as more damning that it, objectively, is. And the culture of RfA is that other editors will find reasons to agree with that oppose, and pile on. It's not a question of a false accusation: the thing really happened, and a diff can be provided. And it's something that, by itself, is flawed in some way. So it's not the kind of oppose that we can make a rule against. And when otherwise well-qualified candidates think about that, they decide, why should I put myself through that? We lose out on good admins for that reason. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
For former functionaries who Peter principled out and were subsequently forced to resign the tools by doxxing, this goes about 5x. I can't think of any reason I would want to risk having my work phone number and address posted to Wikipediocracy again just so I can help close PRODs and AFDs like I used to do before ArbCom. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jclemens: I'm sorry that happened to you. That must have been awful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) but can easily be dealt with – maybe for you, but I find it a lot more difficult to deal with accusations from other Wikipedians than from random trolls. I think it's part of why it hurts so much that you think I resemble a banned sockmaster. It's not something one can just easily get over. My biggest fear at RfA as a non-admin was that it would turn into a bloodbath where people I cared for and respected told me they didn't trust me. I care about Wikipedia far too much to have said fears come true. I didn't want to feel like the one place where I feel I can do something and belong doesn't want me. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Clovermoss, I guess I can see why you would put what I've said in the category of "something stupidly obnoxious" , but I don't in fact think what I've said to you "can be easily dealt with". As I've told you, I really don't want you to feel bad. But in the conversation you linked to (and I guess you want to draw attention to), I referred to a comment I saw you make a long while back. That's exactly what I'm talking about above: it's painful for RfA candidates to have something dredged up from the past, and not by random trolls, and turned into what you call a bloodbath. (Your RfA passed; just think how much worse it would feel if you had not passed.) So you are actually agreeing with what I pointed out as the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
My RfA may have passed but I don't think I was crazy for having said fears in the first place. A non-issue can suddenly turn into a big deal at RfA or it may be ignored entirely. It can feel like you're walking into an arena where the way you're treated depends heavily on how forgiving or unforgiving people decide to be that day. I can easily envision an alternative RfA where things went much worse. I had nightmares about the process before I ran and it was a huge reason I was very adamant in declining whenever people approached me about it.
As for saying you don't want me to feel bad... that doesn't take those accusations back. I wish I had never come to you with that photograph and tried to convince you that I could be trusted. It clouds every interaction I've had with you since and I try to avoid direct replies whenever I see you because of that. It hurts and I don't think it's my fault for finding it hurtful. The only thing that's really helped is telling myself that you think I look like some other human being on the planet and that there's nothing I can ever tell you that will prove my innocence. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
A non-issue can suddenly turn into a big deal at RfA. That's my point, for the purposes of the discussion here, about why qualified candidates decline to go to RfA. No, you weren't crazy for having fears, and anyone thinking about RfA who reads what you say here will be more reluctant after reading it. If you want to turn this around, as a thought experiment, if – very hypothetically – I were ever to run for an RfA, you might very well point out that this clouds every interaction you have with me, and other editors might side with that, and why would I want to put myself through that? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Situations like these were not what I envisioned when I was talking about a non-issue turning into a big deal. It's not like this happened a decade ago and I'm just refusing to move on, it happened last month and you haven't backed down and said it was wrong of you to make such a comparison. You haven't acknowledged it as a mistake. My opinion of you was actually quite high until that point. My whole argument is that words have a power that we can never take back.
I'm not a vengeful sort of person. I've granted user rights to at least one of the people who opposed my RfA. If you ran tomorrow, I'd likely place myself in neutral or not say anything at all unless I found out you had a habit of making hurtful accusations towards other people. But enough about me. As I said, this stuff hurts. I'd really rather just go back to avoiding you. The only reason I engaged was to refute your central argument that qualified people who've been around awhile don't run because they're worried about incivility, as this was my main fear as a non-admin. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not to say that my thoughts on the matter override yours because your experience is just as valid. I just wished to offer an alternative perspective to express that such a feeling is not universal and that it's important to be mindful of that when making generalizations about RfA.
In regards to mistakes, my talk page is always open if you ever wish to offer an apology. Or just in general. While the above does definitely cloud my interactions with you and make it hard to discuss things (it's hard to be on equal footing with someone when they think you could be lying about who you are), I do have the hope that maybe, just maybe, you'll see my perspective on this and change your mind someday. As I say in my RfA criteria, I'm not unforgiving of mistakes in someone's past. It does help if they're actually acknowledged as mistakes and that steps have been taken to show that said person has changed since then. One of my broader concerns in regards to RfA is that while we're rightly paranoid about socks, the damage done to those who edit here in good faith doesn't actually discourage said socks (while it can kill the joy that others have about the project). Even if people are doing everything right and are otherwise an ideal candidate... they can be worried that that in itself is a cause for suspicion and not want to put themselves through that. I don't blame anyone who feels that way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
They actually did apologize here. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
That's not quite the apology I'm looking for. What I hope for one day is an apology where they say that they wrong to ever make such a comparison in the first place and for insisting on it. It might not ever happen. But I hope that one day they might realize that you can't make these sorts of accusations without hurting the person on the other side of the screen, even if one says they don't want them to feel bad. I can't exactly defend myself against apparently resembling someone they think to be a banned sockmaster. At its core, it's suggesting that I'm lying about who I am. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
While acknowledging that it was 90% likely the similarities at the root of their concern was a coincidence, and that they shouldn't have posted the comment they did during RfA, they also publicly went into greater detail about their concerns. I appreciate the desire to be transparent was well-intentioned. To me, nonetheless, it feels like the reason for apologizing was overshadowed by expanding on the original comment. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Or put yourself through vague aspersions and then someone threatening to oppose because of someone else's actions. I can't understand why anyone might think the process toxic. Luckily, someone is working on removing that kind of toxicity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
You left a few things out: [3], [4], and your own use of language here: [5]. Actually, this illustrates what I mean about how someone can frame something by focusing on some negative things while leaving other relevant information out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Since it was asked.... My reasons for not running, in order:

  1. In my case I fully expect that some would say that I don't need the tools. What I think they would mean is that I would not use the tools often enough to warrant the risk in giving them to me. I don't know what the risk would be, as I don't expect that people would think me too untrustworthy to risk granting the tools. Maybe it would just be increasing the general security risk of giving rights to more and more users, including ones who wouldn't use them frequently.
  2. The cost in time of preparing for RFA, and monitoring the RFA for a week to answer questions etc. I would rather spend the time doing other things in Wikimedia projects, things I consider more useful (even though there is the occasional additional useful thing I could do if I had the tools).
  3. Even some people who have sailed successfully though RFA say the experience was unpleasant [6], or stressful and emotionally draining [7].
  4. While, many years ago, I used to get frustrated about being unable to do some even quite straightforward things that required the tools, I have become practised at ignoring the needs. (And the most frustrating cases – moving a page over a redirect – sometimes no longer require the tools). Nurg (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

In my case, its because I feel that past incidents (some from over 10 years ago) will get a lot of focus on tiny details and that will be used as a justification for !voting no to me, with my other various contributions and achievements being overlooked. Plus, given I am currently serving a TBAN for what I would primarily use the tools for, I see no reason to go for it when I am currently barred from using them. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi C of E, without delving into your particular incidents; My experience is that those raking up old incidents get ignored unless what they are demonstrating is an attitude problem that likely persists. While experience issues are less of a problem. So some diffs that demonstrate you weren't ready for adminship 12 months ago are unlikely to derail an RFA, especially if you have uncontentiously been active in the same area since. But at the other extreme, if you disagree with a policy such as notability or civility and would use the tools in that area, then RFA is not really for you. ϢereSpielChequers 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

For me i haven't run primarily because i don't currently find myself needing the tools; i am a gnome and no more, and would doubtless be a gnomic admin, but i'm not sure the appetite for such is there in the community. To be fair, though, i have thought several times in the past week or so, and quite deeply, about putting myself forward now, at this specific time, because i think that someone who is a little closer to the average candidate in terms of tenure and counts should be willing to try out the new system which recently put a candidate through a terrible mangle; i'm not afraid of the process ~ i believe that in the main our community is reasonable and self-regulating, so past events are, as WSC says above, generally ignored unless they are symptomatic of a current issue ~ it's just my potentially bland answer to the "why" question. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 15:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@LindsayH: For what it's worth, I said this in my RfA: As for the not much need, many hands make less work. I'd like to think that the cumulative impact of people doing a little where they can makes a difference. I genuinely do believe that and enough people didn't see an issue with that to support me. If you're not afraid of the process, I'd encourage you to take the leap if you think you're ready. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that at least a few don't run, not out of fear of RFA as much as they simply don't want the hassle of being an admin. With each passing year, the policies get more complicated, the hassles seem to grow, and it less attractive to those of us that already have the bit. I think this is why many burn out, or fade away. Well qualified potential candidates see that and think that being an admin simply isn't enjoyable, and often, they are correct. I don't know many admins who do it for the "fun", they have other reasons, typically altruistic, but it certainly isn't for the "fun". I've talked to several that said they enjoy editing and don't want to ruin the experience of being an editor to admin, even though I thought they would make excellent admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    There is definitely no fun to be an admin (certainly not an active admin). Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Administration of this site is done and is meant to be done by just about most Users, so yeah, it's a matter of the extra candle being worth the wick, as they say, and that is somewhat individual, and sometimes serendipitous, for each different candidate. (You can also copy this response in your mind to the next section). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Why do people run at RfA

I think there's enough apparent reasons why people do not RfA, when the question we should be asking is why some people do run for RfA when there is a unique type of risk that comes with being a candidate. In my case the answer would probably be naïveté along with a few other small personal factors. I'd elaborate on my thoughts more but I feel uncomfortable sharing them right now on-wiki, so my email is open if anyone is curious. The Night Watch (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I did so because just about all of my reports to AIV or UAA were being processed, as well as just about all of the ~1,000 CSD tags I'd add a month, and I felt like I was putting a burden on admins when I had a success rate high enough to indicate I had enough of an idea what I was doing. Soooo, I figured, might as well throw my hat in the ring and cut out the middle man, help out the admins in areas where it's clear they needed a bit of help. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Sort of the reverse of Doblago:
  • I am in frequent need of admin assistance for things like page deletion, complicated moves and page protection;
  • Being able to do this would make my life easier and more enjoyable, as in some cases I have to stop what I am doing and wait for assistance;
  • I frequent areas that need support that I would be well-positioned to provide, like DYK;
  • Because I am not an admin, there is a reluctance to use the tools that I do have, like template editor and page mover, to help others because I lack a mandate to do so; so it would help other people
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll assume you meant Doniago. :p No offense taken!
What you've kind of pointed out here goes back to my point that I don't know the areas that need support where I might be a valuable asset. As an example, I'm reasonably sure I could be helpful to some extent at AIV or RFPP, but I also think there are probably other editors who are more active at those places than I am, and when you factor in the other concerns I mentioned, I'm back to putting myself through a very stressful experience for minimal gain for myself (yes, I'm being selfish, after a fashion).
I think part of the problem, and this probably factors into the "unbundling" topic, is that even if I swore up and down at RfA that I only wanted the tools to help out in those two areas and that I would never help out in any other capacity, there would probably be those editors who didn't trust me to keep that word, or who would oppose me on grounds ultimately unrelated to those two functions, and since there's no technical way I'm aware of to ensure that any admin actions I took were a direct response to situations at those areas, there's no safeguards either. Even if I, just once, saw a crisis going on and used my admin tools to intervene, there would likely be editors who would raise hell over my having broken my word.
The best solution I can think of to this would be some kind of admin mentorship/training, where new admins had the option (or requirement?) of having another admin keeping tabs on and "vouching" for them. But how many admins out there would be willing and able to make that kind of commitment? There are admins I've had positive interactions with, but I don't really feel there's a single admin I've built the kind of bond with where I'd ask them to consider taking on that kind of responsibility for supporting me. DonIago (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, nobody ever sticks to promises like that, and there's no real practical way of making them do so. It's stupid to even expect it under the current RfA system: a successful candidate will (hopefully) only ever have on RfA, so we can't reasonably ask them not to do some specific thing for the rest of their life.
Unfortunately I think it is a real problem and a significant proportion of the desysops I've been involved in could be traced back, at least in part, to admins that jumped out of their comfort zone too quickly after RfA; especially those that got the bit for technical competence and then tried to deal with complex user conduct issues. My favourite unbundling proposal was one that suggested separating the 'technical' aspects of adminship (anti-vandalism, patrolling) from the 'social' ones (closing discussions, dispute resolution. But until something like that happens, I think it's necessary to look for admin candidates that at least have the potential to be 'all rounders' (as most long-term admins end up being). – Joe (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
If candidates are going to inevitably be judged evaluated on their ability to be 'all-rounders', then perhaps it should be made more explicitly clear in what areas admins may find themselves behaving in an admin capacity, assuming there isn't a list of that nature already posted somewhere? Just an idea. I surely don't know all of the areas where admins interact, and as such, using my prior example, if I ran for adminship on the premise that I only intended to focus my efforts at AIV and RFPP, I'd be caught entirely off-guard if someone asked how I intended to respond to a hypothetical scenario relating to closing an RfC. DonIago (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the counters your overall argument here, but there actually is at least one person who has stuck to their promise to stay in one very specific area as an admin and they've done nothing else for 15 years. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth. I think it's an interesting historical RfA that would need a miracle to pass in the current environment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I was about to say that I ran because I didn't think or read too much (into all the guides, past RfAs, and all the writings around that) and just did it. And then.. I read your comment fully before replying and just realized that you said naïveté too.
So probably, on the other hand, people who don't run at RfA are probably people who know the process fair too well. I had no idea what this comment meant at my RfA until made the reference again somewhere else. I did not know to the full extent of RfA as people publicly judging everything you ever did until that point, did not think about how not having an admin nominator would affect my chances, failed to produce a nom statement that talked about actual areas that I was experienced in, didn't reply to opposes when I really wanted to acknowledge my mistakes because I thought replying is absolutely frowned upon, etc.
If I had more clue on what it entailed then, I probably wouldn't have made those mistakes, but it would have looked a lot scarier too. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 10:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I ran because a regular nominator, someone I trusted, asked me to. Up until then I'm not sure I'd ever even considered it. Anyone who's ever worked at help desk knows I can break any template, and frankly if I hadn't had an experienced nominator who offered to transclude, it would have probably been embarrassing. I also was very concerned about timing, but the dates had been chosen for fairly important personal reasons, so even while all that was happening I didn't regret even that choice, much less the choice to run. It was a pretty rough and unpleasant and at times horrifying RfA, but I have a pretty thick skin, and a bit like childbirth, once it was over the pain was gone, for me. One thing I'd highly recommend: do not self-nominate. It's never the better choice, in my experience. Valereee (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I decided to throw my hat in the ring because I felt I could lend a hand in a few admin areas and the feedback I got at ORCP was very encouraging. For a time, I was concerned about not being an expert in a single admin-y area and not spending as much time in the backrooms as many other RfA candidates who may become "all-rounders". Fortunately, though, I had seen some RfAs succeed on the premise of "competent in their indicated areas and aware of their limits in others", and so in part I aspired to that. It's very easy to fall into the trap of feigning competence and pretending to be someone you're not to "check all the boxes" for RfA, so in a way, a little bit of naïveté could be a good thing. That said, I was somewhat hesitant until I got through the initial round of questions, though I still periodically wonder if one slightly different answer may have resulted in a very different outcome. Complex/Rational 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I eventually decided to accept Vanamonde93's nomination so I could stop putting additional strain on processes that I could just handle myself, and to speed the turn-around time on halting some of the vile shit I was seeing. I had never intended to go the admin route, as one might guess from my early arbcom and ctop editing which obviously came back to bite me a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Your RfA was brutal. I didn't start having nightmares about RfA until after yours took place, actually. I'm still kind of in disbelief I actually did it because I was so certain I didn't want to ever risk putting myself through that. I still don't entirely get why I did other than doing it on a whim after receiving AWOL and not sleeping on it. This isn't to imply I didn't give the issue serious consideration as I had thought about it for quite some time... You have to when you're constantly rejecting people who ask you about it. But there wasn't some sudden lightbulb moment where I suddenly felt like my desire to help the community outweighed the possible personal cost. If I had slept on that decision, I think I wouldn't have ran. It's been interesting learning how to do a few extra things. I still don't quite feel like a "real admin" yet though. I was a regular editor for five years and a few months of a different role doesn't necessarily change that mindset. Maybe I'll reflect on this differently once more time has passed.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I ran because I wanted to help with various backlogs, particularly DYK. Having the extra tools has been helpful in many areas of the site, even if I do not specifically help in a particular task. While I was stressed during my RfA, in hindsight I realised I felt that way because of my own need to have random Internet people like me. My admin status has had 0 effect on my ability to write articles, which is (or should be) my first priority. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I ran because it seemed like a natural next step for someone spending a lot of time here. Two of my friends quit the 'pedia after a bad RFA, so I delayed running for quite some time so that I'd hopefully be qualified enough to have a drama-free RFA. This approach paid off and my RFA went smoothly, but I was ready for the worst. After getting the tools, I thought I'd do more backlog crushing like Josh does, but lately I have been doing more technical admin stuff such as editing gadgets. It's hard to tell which niche an admin candidate will end up in. It is nice though to have access to the entire toolkit, and the freedom to help out wherever, and the freedom to move around if I get bored in a certain area. That part of bundling everything together is good, and probably helps keep people around longer since there's a lot of variety. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I ran as a natural extension of why I started editing in 2006, a belief that Wikipedia could become an equalizer, a powerful tool for education in underfunded and underserved parts of the world. In 2013, after 18k edits and several years of experience, I felt I was ready to do more towards that goal. I knew the work wasn't glamorous, but I felt my judgement was better than my prose, so mopping would be a good use of my time. I do think that on a global scale, education is the key to reducing poverty, war and crime, although I don't expect to see drastic changes in my lifetime. My contributions towards that goal are insignificant, but combined with like-minded people, each doing a little bit of work, and given enough time, we could make a difference. I get disillusioned with the state of affairs here, with the spam, the trivia, the nationalist battles, but then I remember we have great core articles on animals, plants, history, chemistry, astronomy, culture and more, so I guess it is worth putting up with the fluff and hassles to get the really useful articles that can have an impact on global education. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Very simply, I ran as a consequence of observing, over my first three years here, that the parts of editing that I enjoyed, namely content writing, were made possible by people doing maintenance work; and that there was always a need for more people to do said maintenance work for it to be sustainable. I do genuinely believe you cannot separate the content and maintenance sides of the encyclopedia; neither has meaning without the other. I didn't especially expect to enjoy the things I could do with the extra tools, and that's broadly held true - though shutting down intentional disruption can sometimes be satisfying - but per Dennis, above, I draw comfort from the thought that I have helped preserver good work others have done, just as other editors have cared for content I wrote. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • My story is a bit like Dennis's story, above: at the time running for adminship (a long time ago) was just a consequence of staying on-board long enough; running for adminship really was "no big deal". I consider myself a bit of a gnomy admin anyway. but what happened to me over time was that I found the things adminny which make me feel at least content with my work. I am aware that I will never be a great content writer, so I stick to gnome working to the day. Of course there are ups and downs (the Fram affair left me kind of disillusioned, and I relinquished my mop for a time in consequence), but in all these years I never stopped feeling in awe about the immense repository of knowledge we all have created here, each according to their gifts. Lectonar (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_267&oldid=1229219140"