Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 18:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 23:31:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Idea: Add a smaller version of SQL/RfX Report to RfAs

In one current RfA there are about 80 !votes, while in another there are about 140. I've seen these discrepancies before. There's no way to tell exactly why these instances occur, but I imagine part of is that some editors go to an RfA because they know the candidate or are involved around issues pertaining to the candidate rather than go to an RfA because they've looked at User:SQL/RfX Report. In fact, some editors may not know that User:SQL/RfX Report exists. I propose that we add to the RfA template a smaller version of User:SQL/RfX Report that would list only the RfA candidate column (but maybe renamed Other RfA candidates) and either the Ending (UTC) or the Time left column. It could be automatically listed in the same place we put "RfAs for this user:" or listed at the bottom of RfAs. Doing so would allow editors aware of only particular RfAs to be aware of concurrent RfAs. Kingturtle = (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I think a way to get even more exposure would be to link the User:SQL/RfX Report from the Wikipedia:Community portal page. -- œ^™ 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that the level of involvment in an RFA (the interest) has to do with the number of page watchers a paticular user has, combined with the points turtle mentions above- Just a hypothesis and as said no way to really tell. As for the proposal I dont think it would hurt. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean how many centijimbos? ;P -- œ^™ 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess thats the scale. :) Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just have the User:SQL/RfX Report placed at the top of every watchlist by default, with an option to hide it ? --Kudpung (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think RfA is something that many users will be interested in. I mean, participation is good, but most users simply don't care about RfA. In addition, I don't know if a bunch of new users looking to "get involved" and seeing RfA is a good thing—they often (in my observations) misunderstand the process or vote based on the "trend" instead of actually looking through contribution histories. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right to the extent that Kudpung's suggestion of putting it at the top of every watchlist is a bit overboard, since the average person with a watchlist probably doesn't care. But if notices were placed at venues more commonly visited by editors with a greater interest in community issues, then I think that would be a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

One feeling i get about the whole watchlist theory is that, a user's page (in this case a candidtae for RFA) is added to a watchlist becuase another user has an established interest in that user. Where the if the SQL/RFx report is added to the watchlists it might not necessarily establish interest in a user participating in discussion at RFA for a candidate. However if anyone loves statistics, Id love to see a graph or something showing the participation in individual RFAs versus the amount of users the candidate has watching their user page (has this information, or simmilar info, been compiled before in the past?). Obviously theres other factors involved but it might look pretty interesting. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it is best to keep the watchlist as free as possible of announcements. Also, placing it in the watchlist would be more like a recruiting tool, and recruiting is not what we need. I think we just need a way to better spread the word to those already interested in engaging in RfXs. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Those already interested in RfXs are likely to have it watchlisted (or they might check manually). I like the idea of reaching people beyond the current clique of RfX !voters, but don't want it to be spammy... that's a tough balancing act. bobrayner (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've said this many times before: I think it would solve a lot of problems if more admins would take the initiative to participate in RfA and and support the process that got them the bit by regularly !voting. I'm not saying that all admins are more responsible than any of the run-of-the-mill one-time !voters, but it is to be hoped (and I think they are) that most of them are pretty good role models, and lead by example. Kudpung (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite so sure about that. If new admins are elected by other admins, there's a risk of creating a self-perpetuating group. I'd much prefer to see more participation by experienced editors who are not admins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sure about that; it's a terrible idea. Malleus Fatuorum 01:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, BHG, you're getting very close to the things I'm not allowed to spell out here, but which have a lot to do with a famous statement by Malleus that is quoted on my user page.Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding users

<-I've thought for a long time that the one thing that could do most to improve RfA would be greater participation by longstanding users. --Dweller (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps a "currently running" item in the signpost would help. ϢereSpielChequers 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea, particularly if it's not substed, so it reflects the current runners at time of viewing, rather than when the Signpost was published. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following this idea at all. Given that The Signpost is distributed on Tuesdays, why wouldn't any honest and rational person delay their nomination until a Monday? Unless of course they hoped to fly under the radar, in which case they might choose to wait for a day. Malleus Fatuorum 21:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Presumably that's why Dweller suggested not substing the info. Of course you'd still have the phenomena that presumably the readership is skewed towards the publication date, and some will decide to start their RFA busy and others to end it with a rush. But both RFA and Signpost are on a 7 day cycle so I don't see a great problem ϢereSpielChequers 21:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's by now well established that the early pattern of voting in an RfA determines its outcome; how many are affected by a last-minute deluge of votes? In the grander scheme of things though I agree with you. Compared to everything else that's wrong with RfA it's hardly a problem that some are advertised and others aren't. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As an FYI, The Signpost published today has a link to Giantsnowman's RFA in the features and admins section. The editor-in-chief noted that dynamically changing content is generally avoided (so they would prefer not to transclude). –xeno^talk 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

<-IMHO, the Lear's Fool RfA was significantly affected by a last-minute deluge of !votes (actually, post-last minute, as they came after the originally-scheduled close) and some at least of those !voters were probably prompted to go there by the "advertising" of the RfA being discussed at BN. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The best of all possible worlds?

Those who persist in believing that RfA is the best of all possible worlds might like to reflect on how often this kind of thing happens. As should those who persistently nominate candidates who are certain to fail. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In my experience (and here I know what of I speak), much the same could be said of the real world. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you about RfA, though.) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think certain to fail may be your opinion, as the nom (HJ Mitchel) and those who supported did not feel that way. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Tryptofish: In the real world people are paid for their work, and so are hardly likely to walk off in a huff after being turned down for a promotion.

Reply to Tofuwitch11: Anyone who had been paying attention would have known that this RfA was doomed before it even began. That the supporters and the nominator failed to see that speaks volumes. Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Malleus, albeit really off-topic: That's true, which makes it all the more painful when the person has to live with disappointment. Conversely, one can always walk away, whether temporarily or permanently, from Wikipedia, with no loss of income, heck, maybe even a gain. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess what I'm getting at is, if one asks to be judged, don't be surprised if you are judged. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your "real world" analogy falls short on so many different levels. When you attend a job interview you're not being "judged", and you aren't told either during or after the interview that the reason you failed to get the job is that you're a childish, immature piece of shit. Malleus Fatuorum 01:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of your opinion, (you did not even vote in that RFA) if people were not so rude in their opposes, saying "Easy Oppose Sorry, but this is one of the easiest opposes that I've encountered." The strike out of the "sorry" is completely unnecessary. If people did not say things like that, maybe this would not happen so often (users "retire" after RFA). Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tofutwitch11, I'm not sure who you are addressing that to, but I agree with you about that. And Malleus, I think you just showed me that you know less about the real world than I do. And with that, I will, temporarily, walk away! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you really believe that I know less about the real world than you do then I suggest that you consider seeking psychiatric help immediately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we try to have some respect for each other around here? That's part of the reason so many people leave here is because of the constant fighting and "I'm better than you" comments and attitude. Frankly, telling someone they need "psychiatruc help" is certainly uncalled for and simply rude. As mentioned, it's no wonder people are walking away from here. Lets try to be nice, if that is even possible. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can't take it then don't dish it out. Malleus Fatuorum 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason to vote in any RfAs until something changes here; wikipedia will continue to get the administrators it deserves. Why is it so hard to produce a job description, instead of the tediously banal supports based on "I see no problems", or the even more tedious "no big deal"? Dishonesty or incompetence? Malleus Fatuorum 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If there's a problem with someone's editing that causes you to oppose then you can explain what you find problematic and why it's a dealbreaker. If there aren't any red flags then there's not a lot more you can say. That is why so many opposes go into great length and why so many supports are short and bland, or at least part of the reason. Reyk _YO! 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with a candidate's editing are swept under the carpet, under the guise of "no big deal". That opposers are required to write PhD theses while supporters are allowed to say "why not?" says all that needs to be said. Malleus Fatuorum 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

So which would you prefer? That supporters should also have to write PhD theses, or that opposers should be able to just go "oppose- nope" without being asked to elaborate? The former as I've explained is unworkable because if there are no problems with a candidate's editing there's nothing to be said but "no problems here". The latter isn't going to work either; I'll explain why. Let's say someone's up for RfA that I have worked with extensively, I've always been impressed with their demeanour and clue levels without being aware of any misbehaviour. Of course I would support them. If some other editor opposes them, of course I would want to know why. Perhaps I've missed something. If so, I would want to know and modify my vote accordingly. The reverse doesn't really apply as much. If I oppose someone I'm not likely to be as perturbed by subsequent supports; maybe they've missed something or they don't put as much weight on my concern as I do. Either way, no biggie. I would, however, be interested in hearing from people who might argue that I've been unfair in my oppose or have made a mistake. Finally there's the fact that you need ~75% support, which makes an oppose about three times as much a big deal as a support and therefore an oppose attracts three times as much scrutiny. So yeah, intense scrutiny for oppose votes and less scrutiny for support votes is pretty much natural and inevitable. If this is a symptom of RfA being broken it's a benign one. I for one am more concerned about trick questions with no correct answer from people who have already made up their minds to oppose. Reyk _YO! 03:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer a rational and logical approach, starting with a job description for the role of administrator that voters can either agree or disagree that the candidate meets. That's not an original idea of mine but one floated by User:SandyGeorgia. Right now all we have is "I like him" vs "I hate him", and those who hate him have to write an essay that his supporters will do their best to rubbish. Hardly healthy. Malleus Fatuorum 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To have left the "sorry" would have been disingenous to say "sorry" as I then admitted that I was actively watching wt:rfa for this RfA. My Oppose clearly indicates that *I* am not completely impartial when it comes to GW---and I intended it that way so that my !vote could be assessed with that bias. I have no problem with opposing him, I think he would be a miserable admin... but I have to agree with MF. The fact that the major issue of opposition was still on the users talk page indicates that the nom didn't really review the candidate before making the nom. Anybody familiar with RfA (and this nom is)should have realized that that incident would have doomed the RfA. Having a favorable opinion and good experience with a candidate should not be the sole basis upon making a nom. The nominator should check the noms history to see if the candidate as any skeletons in the closet that might garner opposes whether real or imagined. Thus, I was really surprised to see the RfA.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have said before that nominators have a responsibility to their candidates, but there are some who just chalk them up as trophies. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's extraordinarily true. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 02:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. How awful. I've not participated in an RfA before and I didn't expect that this one would end like that. I certainly didn't intend to distress Giftiger and, whilst I wouldn't change my oppose to support, I would word it more carefully. I regret that I may have caused him any distress. In future I will be much more attentive to the tone and manner of my comments. Lovetinkle (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Three thoughts, none of which are a reflection on GW or anyone else, because they largely go against accepted WP practice:

• A job description or outcomes-focused selection criteria for admins, as suggested above, would be good. It would help focus the minds of RfA !voters, both supporters and opposes. The GA and FA criteria would be good examples. The criteria need not be prescriptive. I'd envisage broad criteria that most of us could agree on, like (a) ability to deal with stressful situations while maintaining civility; (b) knowledge and understanding of policies and guidelines; (c) capability to use administrative tools in a variety of areas. The parts of the project that use criteria to guide discussion tend to work a lot better than RfA.
• Self-noms are good. If you want to be able to delete people's work and block people, it is appropriate to put yourself forward for the job. No nominator can ever know how many skeletons are in your closet. (Disclosure: I've made the occasional offer to nom someone myself, although my own approach was to go it alone)
• Watchlisting ANI is bad enough for the health of an admin, let alone a non-admin. I agree with NW's comment in GW's RfA.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a set of standard criteria would help a lot. If someone did subsequently make an argument which didn't meet the criteria it would be more likely to be challenged and bureaucrats would be more confident in dismissing it. Over time it would probably result in a reduction in the number of bad arguments. Processes on Wikipedia which are devoted to determining whether the subject meets some defined set of criteria, such as deletion discussions, don't have the same problems as RfA. Even if it isn't possible to come up with such criteria it may still be possible to come to a consensus that certain types of reasoning aren't valid. Hut 8.5 09:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a job/person description would look, but it couldn't do any harm to try drafting one. (Even if we couldn't agree a standard, a few competing ones could serve a purpose a bit like the Arbcom election voting guides.) But really, I wish we could get some kind of informal discussion before RFA (Editor Review) as a matter of routine; this was discussed here but the discussion ran into the ground. Rd232 ^talk 10:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't take part in the RFA in question, but would agree that having a good faith editor leave is one of the worst outcomes one can get from an RFA, almost as bad as promoting a candidate who becomes a bad admin (though we've had at least one RFA where the candidate was rightly blocked by the end of it and such RFAs do serve a grim but useful purpose). Agreeing a set of criteria that candidates are expected to meet is a perennial suggestion, and while I still strongly support it I'm realistic enough not to expect this to fly. A minimum criteria before candidates are allowed to self-nominate is also a perennial suggestion, but we've been close to consensus in the past. In the last two years we've had scores of candidates burned who could have been gently dissuaded from running if we at least had a 1500 edit requirement for self noms. I think there are a few other criteria that we could probably all agree would prevent a successful run. I'm not suggesting that we go as high as my own criteria for nomination, but is there anyone here who would seriously consider supporting a candidate who had less than 1500 edits, less than 6 months editing experience, or a block log that wasn't clean for the last 12 months? ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem with a job description is that no one can agree on what an admin has to have. Some expect 2 years and 10,000 edits, with at least 1 FA. Others are happy with about a year, or 5,000 edits with no significant article work. We have Wikipedia:Administrators, which clearly says "Wikipedia has no official requirements you must meet to become a Wikipedia administrator. Anyone can apply regardless of their Wikipedia experience ... however ... considerable experience is usually expected. Each editor will personally assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way..." This is the issue - on one RFA, we may have an abnormal number of "tough" voters, and on another a high number of "why not" voters. It is never, ever consistent. Not everyone votes on every RFA, which makes each one unique, and not fair.

What we have is a popularity contest to become an admin. An editor, like Ironholds, for example, recent passed his RFA with well over 100 supports. Most RFAs which pass have less than 60 or so. This is not necessarily bad (I supported IH, fwiw), but it means if you are well-known, you're more likely to get more votes. This is also unfair.

No one will ever agree to a set standard of criteria, and besides, if we implemented it, what would be the point in voting? A bureaucrat would just have to check they met them, and if they did, promote them. I've concluded the only solution is to appoint an RFA committee who will appoint admins. A group of, say, a dozen editors, changed every 6 months perhaps, would be the only ones to vote on candidates. Other people could of course offer information and opinions, but like Arbcom, the committee would be the only ones to get a vote. Furthermore, if we find the committee has made an error, they should be able to easily reverse it.

Obviously, we'd need a way to appoint this committee, which would undoubtedly be by a vote, but I don't see any other way about this. AD 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, but there is a difference between a "job description" and the "skill set required for the role";

• Real World Job Description - "to be able to make up customers order of foodstufs in an accurately and timely fashion"
• Real World Skill sets required - "to be able to work under pressure, to be able to cook fries and to not sneeze on the food"

The job description for an admin does not exist; (WP:ADMIN for example is more about the technical capabilities of the tools). The skill sets required has seen, as noted, endless debate (edit count, tenure, type of ediitng etc.) and we are still, and indeed never likely to, come to a consensus on what it is. In the real world analogy candidates for a job without the right capabilities will not even get an interview in the first place. On WP you can self request the "interview for the admin job role" anytime you like. That's a crucial difference. The nice thing in WP world is that you can't lie on your CV of course. Pedro :  Chat  12:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin capability criteria

(Largely re WSC and AD) Criteria expressed as minimum standards certainly won't fly with the community. But what about generic capability statements against which RfA voters can assess contributions and answers to questions. For example, as a rough start, a candidate could be assessed against the following:

1. Sound judgement and experience relevant to the broad range of administrative tools.
2. Adequate knowledge of policies and guidelines relevant to the use of those tools.
3. Ability to use administrative tools without involvement, bias or improper purpose.
4. Ability to manage stressful situations.
5. Civil behaviour and the ability to avoid unnecessary escalation of conflict.

All very bland, but it can help focus discussion. For example, "too many automated edits" is an oppose that would need to be with reference to the criteria to carry any real weight. On the other hand "Support. Good editor." would be similarly unhelpful.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bland perhaps, but a major improvement over what exists now, which is of course nothing. And if it helps to curb or reduce the value of those "Support, I like him" votes as well then so much the better. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the basic requirement for being an admin is "trusted." While this is a difficult thing to quantify, this can be as simple as "won't delete the Main Page" or as difficult as "Lack of experience in Admin-related areas" and is strictly a matter of opinion by those bothering to state one. The biggest wiki-based problem I see on a meta level at RfA is that it works in complete opposition to most other actions we take. WP usually works on the basis of that which exists, exists for a reason, and those who seek change have the burden of proof in support of change (WP:BRD, WP:AfD, et al)). RfA is one of the few places where the underlying premise is that change is the default position - i.e. "User:so-and-so is trustworthy and should be made an admin" and those opposed to the change are subject to the burden of evidence. While I completely support the idea of content creation as a necessary requirement for Admins (nobody should be trusted with the delete button unless they have created content!), I also understand that there is no general definition that will ever meet all needs. As we become more specialized, the role has definitely become too large for the generality in the current definition of the role, both software-based and community defined. There are a great number of editors that I would trust to edit protected pages for reasons like grammar, punctuation, and even NPOV (aka gnomes) who I still do not wish to have access to the delete button. Protected templates are a great example. There are editors with incredible experience in that kind of wiki programming who should be able to edit even our most highly visible templates without concern. Currently, they need to have access to the delete and block functions in order to do that. While they show competence in a specific (and highly needed) area, I do not know that the level of trust necessarily carries over into other admin areas. I believe that splitting the admin tools is an eventuality we must face, but until we get to that point, I don't know how we allow that much power to be concentrated into that few hands without continually running into legitimate opposition. We either need to allow many more users to be admins in order to reduce the amount of power/prestige of the position, or properly divide the tools in a manner that allows purely administrative functions to be separate from editorial ones. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think those are excellent criteria and really, demonstration of all those in a candidate encapsulates the notion of "trust". !Supports and !opposes can revolve around the evidence in a candidate's editing history which demonstrates or refutes each of those qualities and would help to focus discussion. There remains the vexed question of "not enough article work". To the extent that some of the content-auditing processes can be fairly brutal themselves, achieving audited content would demonstrate criteria 4 and 5. Beyond that I would be interested to know what those who insist on a certain level of article work feel is being demonstrated. Commitment to the encyclopedia? That can be done in many ways other than article writing. So what more is there? Franamax (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, at least, it is about empathy for those who actually create. It is demoralizing to have one's work nominated for deletion, let alone actually deleted. Those with access to the delete button must have "skin in the game" to completely understand the work involved in content creation, and that can never be demonstrated through gnomish, administrative, or especially deletion tagging work. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can grasp that. For my own part, I think I gained that empathy by realizing that I was just never going to be a great article writer, which gave me a ton of respect for those who are. I tried to compensate for that with copy-editing, adding sources and sentences - things that would qualify as gnomish work. That left me with nothing really solid to show as a demonstration of that empathy, but it was there nevertheless. I would think also that deletion tagging combined with rescue of new articles that could go either way would be a similar demonstration. I think it's important to try to bridge the gap between the "article writers" and the "doesn't matter" groups so that there can be demonstration of that empathy (which I agree is an important quality in an admin) without necessarily requiring GA's and FA's or X number of articles created. Franamax (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The "not enough article work" is indeed vexed, and I'm not sure there could ever be a one-size-fits-all solution to it. I know how much effort goes into writing GAs and FAs, and I understand that not everyone is confident that their writing is up to it, even though it may be. What I take exception to though are those admin candidates who proudly say that they have no interest in writing, all they want to do is whack vandals/delete articles/write abuse filters/whatever. My personal criterion is the relative number of edits to article space vs projects spaces like this one, or user talk pages, especially the candidate's own. I'm less concerned about the raw number of edits, although I do think that it would be common sense to state a clear lower limit ("if your first posting to wikipedia will be this RfA then it is unlikely to be successful"); ideally I like to see 50% or more of a candidate's edits to articles. Whether they're big edits or small ones they show an appreciation of what wikipedia is about: writing an encyclopedia, not policing one. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

With the usual caveats about gaming and numerical targets and editors who sandbox their new articles then copy rather than move them to mainspace, I personally agree with what you're saying. Is there a nice anodyne way of saying that so that it could be added to the criterion list above? "Commitment to content improvement"? Obviously this will always be avaluated subjectively, as will #3 above - but that's OK, so long as it can be discussed and elaborated on in a focussed way. I do like the idea of a "checklist" as both supporters and opposers can be questioned equally on how well they have assessed the candidate against the criteria. Franamax (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, such a list could help immensely with candidates who unknowingly walk into a situation they're not ready for, and nominators who should know better. It's an up-front notice that you will be evaluated on all these aspects, so you better be sure you have it all covered. Franamax (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "Demonstrated commitment to content improvement"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Personally I'd like to drop #5 from the list, else I'll never get that promotion.</joke>) Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with including that. The wording you suggest "demonstrated commitment" is good: as I read it, it doesn't require FAs or GAs or a minimum %ge of article space contributions, just a demonstrated understanding of why we're here. In my view it could include copyright cleanup work or article rescue. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

But you'd still be in there as one of the "NOT LIKE THIS" exemplars. ;) I really like this concept, hoping to see some more views on it... Franamax (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably. It could even be spelled out in the job description that "demonstrated commitment" includes things like copyright cleanup and so on. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about the "broad range of administrative tools" in #1. I certainly understand the rationale about this (no need for anyone to tell it to me!), but I note that there have been candidates who state that they are particularly interested in particular areas, not all, and I don't really think that there is community consensus that a successful candidate must have prior experience across the broad range. I remember plenty of !votes stating that candidates can learn other areas as they go along etc. Maybe delete "broad range of"? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe rethink the wisdom of handing out such a broad range of tools that in truth no administrator is properly qualified to use. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The wording of 1 is fudged a bit to recognise that no candidate will be experienced across the board: the question is whether we trust their competence to go outside their specialised areas when that inevitably happens. In the rare instances that a candidate asks for the tools to only do a narrow range of tasks and guarantees not to do others, supporters could invoke IAR (which is what they essentially do now).--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Switching over to a discussion of unbundling the tools will almost certainly doom this effort, although I tend to agree with you Malleus. For me, the criterion would be satisfied if, for instance, when asked about the spam blacklist the candidate said "here's basically what it does, I have no plans to ever touch it". It's fine for a candidate to indicate detailed knowledge of the areas they wish to act in most, but they should be examined on, especially, knowledge of blocking policy whether they indicate an interest in it or not. That is certainly the most sensitive of tools and if it stays part of the package, capability to use it needs to be assessed. Knowing how the MediaWiki space works - well, you should know what it is, and know enough to stay away from it unless you're really sure you want to change it. Again though, it will always be a subjective judgement on whether the candidate has sufficient familiarity with the available tools and spaces. If the candidate wants to work in general areas, they need to demonstrate knowledge of all those areas. If they want to work in one area, they need to demonstrate expertise in that area and give a convincing account of how well they know their limitations in other areas. Franamax (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand and agree. What I'm concerned about is I don't want to see someone using the current proposed wording to say "oppose, because the candidate hasn't done (fill in the blank with an obscure area of administrative work)". I just see it as wording that can and will be gamed back and forth. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Broad range" doesn't mean every single administrative tool, or even necessarily most of them. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thus, it's too vague. How many are enough to be broad? One? Two? Half? Most? All? What precisely does "broad" mean here? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Moot now, I'm glad to see the draft below has taken care of that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

"Working knowledge of the broad range of administrative tools and sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied"? E/C'd, I have to catch up. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've started a very rough working draft here. Please feel free to tool around with it, annotate it with comments, or whatever. I'm well aware that nothing substantive ever gets up on this talk page, but it's worth continuing to move things forward at least while there seem to be a few editors here who support the idea in principle. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this process is going in the right way. A good starting point from Mkativerata's fine post. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If it's any help there is a load of stuff I have been gathering here. Warning: there's a lot of it! Kudpung (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a lot of good material in there-- almost too much! I'd like to see some of the other "RFA regulars" put together a chart of their "hits and misses" like User:Kudpung/RfA criteria#How I voted, and compare percentages (how often did you support candidates that passed, and oppose candidates that didn't). Your point about the "quality of voting" has been my main concern, as well as the quality of candidates put forward by "regulars"-- how about a chart showing percentage where regulars agreed with the community consensus on those promoted and those not? I also saw a typo in there somewhere (to much instead of too much). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine is here, but it is slightly outdated. I can go back and add any recent ones I may have missed. And I could add percentages. Useight (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow down :)

Whoa ! I'm very sorry to see what happened to Giftiger; I didn't know him well, but I did have good experiences with him. But I'm very glad to see such productive work here! I've been watching the brainstorming, waiting to weigh in. I've got a lot to add, but don't want to interfere yet with the brainstorming process, except to say ... please, please, don't start putting up mockups and "voting" yet! That's a sure-fire way to not gain consensus before you launch an idea. Let more ideas come forward first! I don't think you're yet to a stage where you can put something in front of the community in an RFC (which *will* be needed eventually), or have had enough input, or have yet a product that the 'crats can use to judge if consensus is shown by !voters that a candidate meets criteria. No voting yet, and I think you've got a ways to go before you put forwards drafts. Has anyone reviewed, say, six months worth of RFAs to be sure you've covered all oppose rationales? Has anyone considered the idea that we have at FAC of "actionable" opposes vs. non-actionable? We would ask the 'crats to consider "actionable" opposes per the criteria-- are you sure you've got them all? Those are just some starter ideas, but moving too fast on a major reform like this is a sure way to help it fail. This is cool stuff! But slow down to assure success and get broader feedback and input. Go, Malleus-- I'm sorry that it took the unfortunate loss of Giftiger to motivate this, but like at FAC, if you have criteria, ill-prepared candidates hopefully won't be put forward. I see some pitfalls, but don't want to bring them forward while such good brainstorming is happening. An RFC will eventually be needed, and slow and steady wins the race. I hope this might eventually head the direction where the crats' job would be to judge if consensus is shown for promotion based on the criteria, so perhaps consider Template:FAC-instructions and WP:WIAFA in terms of whether you've covered any similarities that might be warranted here, and how the criteria might be grouped to reflect different kinds of editors. We do have some excellent, specialized "technical" admins who aren't content contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking for an hour or two about asking you to get involved Sandy, so feel free to pour a bit of your brain in too. :) What got me thinking about asking you for an opinion was the writer/gnome so-called "divide" and how to bridge that with some relatively objective criteria. As far as I'm concerned, you're ideas are eminently welcome - and no, this sure ain't ready for prime-time yet. :) Franamax (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No, y'all carry on ... I don't want to interfere with the good flow going here with my nitpicky, technical ideas. But before you start launching drafts and mock-ups, then I'll weigh in with some of the issues that I see from my experience as FAC delegate, which is a job similar to what we'd be asking the crats to do under the proposed new format. I just didn't want y'all to launch things until you've had a lot of feedback and input-- if people start Supporting, then others who have nitpicks will start Opposing. Carry on :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree - we're in workshop mode at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But it's just about the first time I've ever seen anything productive on this page; you've made a good start. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Remember that we'd be asking the 'crats to judge actionable opposes and throughly reviewed supports to show consensus that criteria is met. Review old RFAs, WP:ADMIN, FAC instructions, anything else helpful that will firm up the "actionable" part and move RFA away from a popularity vote. Using the example of FAC, if valid actionable opposes show that criteria isn't met, the delegate can close. Is that how we want the 'crats to operate? (It's how I'd like to see it, but what about the broader community? I'd like to see RFA focus on criteria being met instead of ILIKEHIM.) Glad to see so many fine minds working collaboratively on perhaps our first-ever chance at RFA reform ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My current thinking is that it would be a little different to FAC. The FA criteria are much more measurable: if you've used dodgy sources or have rubbish prose, it's identifiable without too much grey area. The RFA criteria would need to be a bit more fuzzy, and therefore subject to consensus on matters such as "does the editor demonstrate a commitment to content improvement". So I conceive of the criteria as guiding the consensus process rather than being bright-line standards against which the 'crat determines the outcome. Crats would, however, now have a greater responsibility to "weigh" votes because the community has set clear standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Though I agree with Mk on where the outcome could lie, I think the initial effort should just be to get an essay up and running that could be referenced in RFA discussions, as in "Oppose. Fails criterion #3 because of [this]" and "Support. Why not? / Have you considered the weaknesses in points #4 & 2?". As an organic thing it could grow and become part of the culture of RFA. As a top-down "let's vote on this today and it will become the rule", I'm less optimistic. Franamax (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I should unwatch, since it's too hard for me to sit on my fingers, which I really should do! No, Franamax, moving too fast on a major reform will tank it. Keep the good flow going, keep brainstorming and refining the concept, review everything, consider everything, and don't let Supports and Opposes take hold yet to stall the good discussion here. No premature launch :) What we've seen over and over at WT:FAC is that it's better to get everything out on the table first, with free-flowing discussion, before you start formalizing things heading towards an RFC-- that helps people feel more invested, and helps avoid pitfalls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, your input is more important than you think. However, your comments generally echo sentiments that I and others have echoed in long since archived parts of this page. if anything, however, out of the last few weeks, there seems to have crystalised a vague consensus that a major part of the mischief is the multiple pile-on, trick, and irrelevant so called 'optional' questions. The irony is, that those who discuss making RfA a less distasteful experience, appear to be sometimes the very ones who relish composing questions that are designed to faze even the most mop-deserving candidate into submission. Kudpung (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I really enjoyed the userpage you linked above, but I disagree on the question issue. I almost always find the questions helpful, and think (as you mention on your subpage) that the quality of !voting here is the biggest problem, which is why I'd like to see a move towards criteria-based Supports and Opposes. We are promoting admins based on votes from users who might not be a good representative sample of voters who know what qualities a good admin should have. (At FAC, if an article gets a lot of drive-by, marginal supports, from reviewers who have never before shown up at FAC, I can let the FAC run longer until reviewers knowledgeable about the criteria take a look-- and then they usually find problems. On the issue of "too many questions", the equivalent from my FAC experience is, never stifle a discussion, because we don't know where it might lead, and the best interest of the article is a process that gets everything out on the table-- the delegate, or the 'crats in this case, can decide what's useful, that is "actionable". That's their job :) I also enjoyed reviewing your RFA record. You're a !voter with clue-- evidence Ling.Nut. I never expected him to pass RFA, because he had recently engaged (too) passionately in a kerfuffle, but he would have been a good admin, and wouldn't have let his passion for the Project interfere with his use of the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More :) As FAC delegate, I can exercise some discretion that the 'crats don't have. I'd like to see them have more ability in that direction-- beyond the marginal percentage range. The FAC examples don't necessarily apply at RFA, but for example, some of the options I have: if a discussion is rambling and taking over the page, I can move it to talk, to allow the discussion to continue but "space" for other items to be reviewed. If a discussion becomes so jumbled, or new issues have come to light, or the article has been substantially changed while at FAC, so that whether the article meets criteria becomes obscured, I can restart the FAC, effectively "erasing" all previous declarations for a fresh look. I can let a FAC run as long as necessary to be sure an article meets criteria before it's promoted. I can ping topic experts to make sure those knowledgeable in the area have reviewed, and I can also ping non-topic reviewers to make sure the article is digestible for laypersons or those not familiar with the topic. If something is unaddressed, I can let the FAC run longer until it is. We have nothing equivalent to any of this at RFA, and yet, FAs can be demoted if I "goof", while admins are rarely desysopped-- we have a straight-up vote from editors who may know nothing about desirable qualities in admins. More importantly, at RFA, we're making decisions about Wiki's most valuable asset-- real people. They all deserve a fair hearing-- more important than an article at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your last two sentences sum it up perfectly. Kudpung (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)And not only that, but I suspect that at FAC who says what does matter. If a person with a proven tract record, firm understanding of the English language, history of making positive improvements at FAC makes a comment, that single persons comments could make or break and FAC---even if that comment came at the tail end of the FAC. Whereas at RFA, you generally have a good idea if the RfA is going to pass within a few hours of its opening. If it gets 20 supports and no opposes, there is almost no reason to dig into the character's history because the odds are that it will pass. Even if there is a legit reason to oppose, once the ball starts down the hill it is hard to change course.

At the same time, FAC's have an advantage that RFA candidates don't. An FAC can undergo a significant makeover in a short period of time. If somebody comes and says, "This clearly doesn't meet our expectations on how articles should be referenced." Somebody else could completely redo the references overnight and get that issue addressed. If somebody says, "John doesn't have any significant experience in content creation," that could take a few months to change.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really true. RFAs often change substantially if a real, serious issue is raised. People don't just vote and never come back (at least, most don't). You should always oppose if there is good reason to; just because it is going one way or the other, frequent supporters like myself are extremely willing to be persuaded otherwise with evidence. If you never say it, we'll never know.

Your first point goes back to my idea I suggested here, which has certainly been suggested before: elect an RFA committee - a group of experience, knowledgable and fair RFA voters who will be the only ones to approve or deny adminship. Sandy says that she generally takes experienced reviewers supports/opposes more seriously than a newbie to FAC, only because of the track record they have. It was pointed out in a recent RFA that many supporters were very new to the process, and may have just been piling on. We need to stop this from happening, and RFA needs to not be a popularity contest. Thus, a group of people with a good track record of voting for and nominating candidates would be a good idea, and they can of course hear from everyone else, but only they would get the final decision. AD 15:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I think our ideas are basically the same: we already have such a group (the crats). We just need to empower them with more criteria-based discretion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The bureaucrat group would be fine but there are many more knowledgable voters/nominators about who aren't bureaucrats (or even admins), so I'd prefer to elect a new committee, which we'd change every 6 months or year - also I'm not sure all the bureaucrats are up to scratch with RFA processes. I'm suggesting we remove all the voting, and allow only comments which the elected group can take into account. The committee would also do research themselves, and listen to what everyone else says. It would be a bit like arbcom, but for deciding adminship. AD 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very much in favour of it, especially if it means doing away with all the trick and stupid questions that have no other purpose but to faze and humiliate even the most mop deserving candidates. The result would be an increase in the number of mature, experienced candidates applying for office. Kudpung (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. We've already elected 'crats, we trust them to do this job, we don't need more bureaucracy (which always makes things worse and leads to paralysis), we don't need more elections (which will have the same pile-on problems that we now have at RFA), changing every six months leads to all kinds of problems, and if we attempt too much here, the reform attempt will tank. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to partially agree with Sandy here. Moving the selection process to another group will merely shift the problem to the selection of that group. I also disagree in that I feel there must be non-admins on any such panel in order for it to be a legitimate representation of the community (most of whom are not administrators). While it is completely within policy for a non-admin to become a crat, none are at this time. Shifting the debate from the selection of admins to the selection of the admin selection committee isn't the answer. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 18:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we elected them. Some in 2004. Some haven't even used the bcrat tools since then. I agree the proposal will tank if we add too much, but it's going to tank anyway because no one will agree on what is suitable criteria. I don't think yearly elections are too much hassle, and while we'd have to vote to elect them, it would remove the popularity contest aspect of being an admin.

You're suggesting we don't elect a committee because it would move the problems there; yet, at the same time, we'd be continuing the problems at RFA on a much more regular basis. The criteria would be vague enough for people to interpret their own way, and most people generally vote thoughtfully already. It's the minority who pile on to support their friends, or without examining hard enough, that are the problem. Creating criteria, which no one will agree on (how are we going to get these criteria, by a vote?), won't solve the problem. Rather, if we demand people vote with lengthy rationales to some criteria, we'll end up with people not bothering to vote at all, and that's a bad thing. AD 19:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Aiken drum, reading through these discussions, it strike me that you're being quite negative, which doesn't advance discussion in productive ways. In the brainstorming phase, negativity doesn't help: positive discussion does. And having uninformed people refrain from uninformed voting is not a bad thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it comes across that way; I'm only speaking from experience :) And yeah, I totally agree with you about uninformed voters - hence the need for a committee. AD 14:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't tackle major reform by doing too much at once. I suggest it would help if you stay focused on the matter at hand, which is criteria, and defer your other suggestions. Otherwise, this attempt is doomed to failure. Until/unless criteria are adopted and a problem is shown with the 'crats implementation of a new scheme, the idea of replacing the 'crats is dead in the water and a distraction here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but imo criteria isn't the way to go. I'll disengage for now. AD 14:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If criteria isn't the way to go, it will be defeated in an eventual RFC. I'm just asking that you let the proposal advance so it can be put forward to the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Range of experience

Sandy makes a good point about specialized admins who would not necessarily pass the criteria as written, and the developed essay needs to reflect that. I can think of two examples at least: I rarely get involved in RFAs but one where I !supported was an admin from de:wiki whose sole interest was in working on the global spam blacklist. In that case I had sufficient trust that I would overlook almost everything else, as it seemed a clear benefit to the project. And yet there were lots of !opposes for lack of content creation; and I won't use their name, just their initials of Newyorkbrad, whose articlespace edits stay remarkably low to this day, but (with the inevitable dissenters) I don't think anyone would wish to see excluded by these criteria. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the "broad range of tools"/specialised admin debate is unresolvable (and there are many degrees on the spectrum of that debate), so we should be wary of framing the criteria in a way that could be read to lean either way. On another point -- there's currently a really productive discussion going on in my userspace. I don't want to assert, or appear to assert, any kind of ownership over it, and it's an obscure forum for the discussion, so perhaps we should think about moving it to a suitable project page?--Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm uncomfortable about "Experience relevant to the range of administrative tools" as I fear some will interpret that as requiring experience relevant to the full range of admin tools. You also risk having people try and game the system by doing a bit of AIV work, a bit of UAA, some protection requests, some CSD noms etc. I'd prefer something more along the lines of "diverse editing, but a record of sticking with some areas beyond just doing the minimum for RFA". Based on my experience of RFAs over recent years I'd suggest you also might want to cover:

1. Tenure. I'm happy with 6 months, I think that consensus at RFA now expects 12, and some want more. I could live with either a criteria that said that you can't run with less than 6 months editing experience, or an "admin criteria" that said admins were expected to have twelve months experience. But would the minority who want to see rather more than twelve months be happy if their !votes were given little weight discarded unless they made a rationale as to why a specific candidate needed longer than the usual twelve months?
2. Edits. Arguably you could dispense with edit count if you had a bunch of other criteria, but in practice there is a threshold below which people simply won't consider a candidate (and for some that threshold is manual edits - automated don't count or can even count against you). There's also a trend to oppose based on percentage of automated edits. Oppose over X% automated may sometimes be code for "after discounting the 50% automated edits I don't see enough manual ones", but I've never understood the argument that a candidate is a lesser editor because as well as their 15,000 manual edits they have 45,000 Huggle ones. I think it is time that percentage automated was added to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions
3. Former accounts. There is an expectation at RFA that contradicts cleanstart. I recommend to my nominees that they make a statement such as Lear's Fool did. With candidates who have former accounts that they aren't prepared to publicly disclose things get more complex, but I would hope we would still be willing to support someone whose former account was given a clean bill of health by an Arb.
4. Age. This doesn't greatly bother me, though it does bother some and it is probably the true reason for some opposes. I can't see us agreeing how to handle requests from teenagers and adolescents, but I do think we need to be more open about this, if only so that editors who are female or over 18 realise that adminship is not as out of reach as they might think. ϢereSpielChequers 11:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, there are always exceptions to the rules, especially regarding edit counts and tenure. This is why it is important that the criteria are kept vague so there is some room for interpretation. AD 12:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps changing from "the broad range" to "a broad range" would clarify that while some variety of experience is expected, no candidate is truly expected to have experience in every facet of the project. To me, even specialist admin candidates should have some experience in other areas. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WSC, we seem to agree on most things so let's see how this pans out taking your points one-by-one:

1. The time frame is less important, I think the amount of editing is a more reliable criterion - although 4 edits per day over the last six years would be a bit hard to swallow!
2. Automated edits are not contributory chunks of prose or high level decision making. I would say that at least the ratio of auto-to-manual edits should be considered. However, if an editor has made, say, at least 10,000 serious manual edits, another 50,000 Twinkles or Huggles on top of that doesn't matter.
3. I'm always suspicious of former accounts. I have a nasty suspicious mind and tend to smell socks and skeletons in the closet. Yes we have some reformed vandals, socks, and plagiarists, but some have also taken a nose dive from the highest echelons of Wiki responsibility.
4. Age does matter. I've been subject to incivility and PA because of my age, and it was generally by defrocked, teenage admins.

That said, if anyone is interested, I have an accumulation of personal notes and analysis about RfA criteria and outcomes here. Warning: there's a lot of it, but FWIW you're all welcome to it. --Kudpung (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

As predicted, we are already disagreeing about the criteria. Which is why we need to elect people whose opinions are usually well-respected at RFA to do the job for us, and stop RFA from being a popularity contest. AD 15:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought about RFA in general: [1] --Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Dilbert. Very difficult to beat. Unless you're Gary Larson. Useight (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor point: at last check, the "broad range" language has been replaced by language that I think is less problematic.

More importantly, I think WSC's suggestions shine a light on something interesting about RfAs. I strongly prefer Mkativerata's approach, because it gets to the idea of trust based on capabilities. Although there's something attractively efficient about an almost algorithmic system of checking off a series of numbers, such a checklist is likely doomed to never have broad consensus: my "enough experience" may differ quantitatively from yours, even if we broadly agree qualitatively. And that may point to why some nominations fail, when the nominator feels the candidate passes a personal checklist, only to find other editors (rightly or wrongly) disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

WSC, I think some of your points can be covered by individual !voters, with reference to the compact list of criteria Mk has set out. For instance Tenure and Edits: "Oppose. You haven't spent enough time here for me to evaluate your suitability under criteria #4 (stressful situations).", "Oppose. Insufficient number of edits in project space to evaluate against criteria #1 (where and how tools should be applied)". Age would (aside from legal concerns some express) involve the stressful situations criteria, as this is often where younger editors have problems (and don't assume I'm only talking about under-20's ;). Former accounts - well, that's a difficult one to pin to any of these criteria, and maybe so it should be. The point of this is to get the !voters taking a more structured approach to both supports and opposes, as in "I don't have a good feeling here, but how exactly can I quantify it?". That may get people digging around more into edit histories to support their feelings, or perhaps even changing their mind when they find their discomfort isn't supported by the record. Everyone will still be entitled to their own subjective assessments, it just gives a framework to work within. And of course someone can always declare IAC (ignore all criteria) and just say what they think, though at some point in the future they may find that such !votes carry less weight. Franamax (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection if you can persuade the community to look at the candidate and their edits rather than set arbitrary thresholds on edit count and tenure. I'm just being clear as to what my perception is of some of the current expectations of the RFA community. That's why currently I have two sets of criteria that I operate by; a support criteria that involves assessing the candidate, avoiding certain red flags and deciding whether they'd make a good admin, And a nomination criteria that looks at people who I'd be willing to support and whether they have the edits tenure and so forth needed to get through RFA. As for some of the other issues: Maturity matters to all of us and age matters to some, of course bad history matters, the question is how old does the bad history need to be before you are willing to overlook it, and what are the unforgivable things? ϢereSpielChequers 04:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

That's where the 'newbie' (ca. 2,000 - 6,000 edits and user for 6 months) candidates score well, they haven't been around long enough to have anything much worth a good scandal. The good gnomes and plodders with tens of thousands of good edits, good allround participation, clue, perhaps a PhD stashed secretly under their belt, and and a few decent creations, all get torn to shreds for an occasional snarky remark or a wrongly tagged CSD. There's hardly an experienced active admin around now who still doesn't make the odd mistake, and many of them who fuel a bit of drama didn't even have to jump through today's hoops. Kudpung (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

With no current admins having started editing in 2010 I think I can confidently say that it is a long time since someone with 6 months tenure made admin, And I'm pretty sure that candidates with 2,000 - 3,500 edits score badly as well with perhaps one candidate in the last two years succeeding with fewer than 3,000 edits. But on the positive side, I don't think that the RFA crowd expect a perfect edit history, if as an opposer you point out errors that the candidate has made they need to be recent and either substantial or repeated errors for your oppose to sway the RFA. Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd, though they are less tolerant of mistakes in the question section. ϢereSpielChequers 07:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, disagree: we recently had an admin promoted (your nomination) who barely had eight months editing, about whom we know next to nothing because he had hardly engaged the encyclopedia, and that trend is escalating. I can't think of a better time than now for socks to get through RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

'Old or isolated examples don't seem to worry the RFA crowd' Sorry WSC, but with all due respect I beg to differ. These isolated, and often very old, incidents appear to me to be exactly the chinks in a candidate's armour that the vultures, especially the regular posers of multiple, and controversial questions, look for. It's probably been noticed that I don't mention individual RfA debates (out of respect for the candidates) but there have indeed been instances where relatively inexperienced candidates have been given the bit because they hadn't been around long enough to have made any mistakes, or get involved in any polemic that the drama mongers could get their teeth into. One the other hand, those experienced old hands whose defeat has in some cases forced them to retire from the project, the mountains were made out of mole hills that represented probably less than 0.5% of the candidate's respectable number of perfectly sound edits, actions, and general behaviour. Kudpung (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, if your concern is about candidates with a short tenure getting through RFA, then I'd point out that not that many years ago people were getting through RFA within 6 months of opening an account. Personally I'm unlikely to support a candidate who has less than 6 months experience, and I won't nominate anyone who has less than 12 because I'm aware that there is a significant group of editors who expect 12 months experience. Describing any of my recent nominees as having barely 8 months editing doesn't sound true to me. ϢereSpielChequers 19:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pointing out that RFAs past shortcomings were worse than its current ones isn't convincing-- just look at RFAs record. Look right here: December through August, and barely at that-- I don't consider several of those months as even registering on the radar screen. I hope he turns out to be a good admin; if not, I continue to say that those who have great influence in the community should use it wisely, and only put forward candidates they know through and through. I find it very hard to see how any of us can know that candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I agree that in August that candidate had barely 8 months editing, but I nominated them at the end of December, a month in which they had 500 edits by the time the stats were done for their RFA. I'm not averse to having edit count and tenure in the rule of thumb as to who is ready to be an admin, but when I suggested 6 months tenure should be a requirement there was a distinct lack of support. In my experience there is a significant minority at RFA who expect twelve months tenure, and a smaller minority who expect more. If someone makes a case as to why new admins should have 8, 12 or even 15 months tenure then I'm open to persuasion, otherwise I will continue with my current support criteria of 6 months and a nomination criteria of 12 months tenure until and unless I decide that the mood of RFA has shifted and that 9 or 15 months is the new de facto minima. As for the relevance of RFA's past shortcomings, you were the one who said "I can't think of a better time than now for socks to get through RFA", if you think that tenure or activity is a good way to identify socks, then my point that tenure and edit count requirements were much lower in the past is valid. I'm sure we all want to avoid certain individuals from returning and making admin, but I'm not convinced that insisting on a long tenure or lots of edits is the best way to screen out abusive socks. I'm hoping that our real problem people from the past would be spotted either by their lapsing into their old patterns of misbehaviour, or by experienced editors recognising a similarity between the editing of a new editor and the legitimate part of the editing of a banned user. I'd like to see something a little more sophisticated such as a change in policy re checkuser to allow random checkusering of us admins and information on banned users to be retained and used to screen admins. However when I've raised this in the past it has not had support. Though we disagree as to why the community is vulnerable to socks becoming admins, I do share your concern that we are vulnerable here. I think that there has been a shift in the RFA community's emphasis from looking at the candidate's edits towards looking at their views and general policy questions in the question section, and in my view this shift makes RFA much easier for socks to game. Personally I have no problem supporting or even nominating candidates who have disclosed "normal" views on Wiki policy or real life regardless of whether I share their views, providing I'm comfortable that they would edit in accordance with policy (I'm sure there are some views that I would oppose over, but for me normal encompasses a wide diversty, and I'm distinctly more tolerant of userboxes than some RFA !voters). As for the question section, I think it useful and occasionally use it myself, but it is many months since I've asked one without a diff that makes it relevant to that candidate. Sometimes I see questions where I wonder what the questioner saw in the candidate's edits to prompt that question (and I have a nagging suspicion that some people ask questions without having first checked out the candidate). ϢereSpielChequers 11:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

On proxies

My impression of this discussion is that, as so often at RFA, it confuses discussion about proxies for things we want to measure with discussion about what we actually want to measure. Now what we actually want to measure (predict) is future behaviour, in relation to a broad range of Admin Stuff. Naturally, we use past experience as a proxy for that prediction, but some of these proxies are weaker than others.

What do we actually want to measure? Basically, we want people who (a) won't do ridiculous stuff like delete the Main Page (i.e. it's not some kind of super-determined vandal account) (b) will act reasonably and civilly in Doing Admin Stuff they are competent in (c) know what stuff they are not competent in, and act with appropriate caution in those areas (d) be receptive to community feedback on all fronts (e) have enough psychological stability not to have a meltdown of some kind under the pressure admins active qua admins almost always come under occasionally. Now I'm not saying that this particular a-e list should be definitive, but it seems to me a much better starting point than percentages of edit types for example, which is a very poor proxy for what we actually want to know. Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That all seems rather muddled to me. You can't have a proxy for a prediction and you can't measure something that hasn't yet happened. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well of course you can't measure what hasn't happened, that's why I said "(predict)". And whether you can technically have a proxy for a prediction or not, do you really think debating that is the most constructive possible response to my comments? Disgruntled of Tunbridge Wells. Rd232 ^talk 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do, as this kind of muddled thinking appears to be endemic on this page. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no muddle at all (my comments throw the key issue into focus), only needless (and probably inaccurate but please let's not waste more time on this non-issue) terminological nitpicking on your part. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The "waste of time" is the interminable jerrymandering that happens every time a perfectly reasonable proposal is put forwards on this God-forsaken talk page. Objective criteria have been suggested for how to assess potential administrators, yet you try to steer the discussion into muddy waters in which it will undoubtedly sink. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

RD232, yes, neatly put. I broadly agree with you, and would suggest percentage automated as probably the lest useful proxy currently in use. However the way in which we judge candidates and the standards we apply to them do vary sharply amongst the community, if only because there are few direct ways to measure some of those things. An active editor who has diplomatically dealt with trolls and personal attacks will usually do better than one with recent blocks; But the community will disagree as to what is an isolated incident and for how long a block log needs to be clean. I think that if we could get the RFA crowd to focus less on the question section and more on reviewing the candidate's edits then we would improve RFA. Do you have any suggestions as to how we could get people to improve the proxies they use? ϢereSpielChequers 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to your last question: in the first instance, by trying to get people to be conscious that the things they're talking about are proxies, and therefore the need to think about how those relate to what is proxied both in general and in any given case. Of course people are aware in principle that they're proxies, but it seems too easily forgotten that it matters to stay conscious of it. A good start would be to encourage people write "Proxy X for this candidate is bla bla. This matters because..." If we had a person spec focussing on desired behaviour, something like my outline a-e above, that would be easier to do. To continue my rambling thought to its close: what's needed is a person spec, not a job spec, because adminship isn't a job with defined duties all of which need to be exercised well; it needs a person with the right qualities. Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No. It needs a person who has demonstrated that they have the right qualities, whatever they may be considered to be. "Having" and "demonstrating" are not synonymous. More muddled thinking. Malleus Fatuorum 20:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on your part. The "proxied" is the having the quality, the proxy is whatever we can come up with that appears to demonstrate that quality. Do keep up. Rd232 ^talk 20:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly I'm getting dangerously close to my stall speed, so probably best if you try to do without me here. I'm quite certain that you'll manage to talk this idea into the oblivion that houses all other suggestions for change whether I'm here or not. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh noes, my secret's out. "If you have nothing to say, don't say anything" is often sound advice. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's surprising how often those offering advice are the last to take their own advice. Or not. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Except that I have something to say, and I said it, and you won't stop bad-faith carping. An independent observer might start to wonder, from your participation in this subthread whether you have some undisclosed beef with me, or else an agenda to prevent RFA reform. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

An unprejudiced observer might come to the conclusion that I would very likely be the last person to oppose RfA reform, but that would of course exclude you. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Not if they were only looking at this subthread, as I specified. Incidentally, whatever I did to you to get this attitude from you, I'm sorry. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rd, I must confess that I too am a little confused by your post. Your a-e list is basically the same as Mk's list (current version is here), just in a little more colloquial language. Or put another way, what do you disagree with on Mk's list? Eventually what we are measuring is trust, which ultimately is unquantifiable, i.e. not amenable to any good system of formal measurement. The point of the "checklist" is a) to let prospective admins know in advance what they will be evaluated against, in vague enough terms that they will find it very difficult to game; and b) to let !voters evaluate a complete stranger against a formal set of criteria, so they can satisfy themselves the candidate is worthy of support. Franamax (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, my list was meant to be supplementary to explaining my core point about the difference between what we want to know, and what we can look at, and the problematic relationship between the two. However one difference I see between my list and Mks (besides point 6 of course) is expecting administrators to have sufficient self-knowledge and critical reflection to distinguish effectively between things they're competent in and things they're not, and to act appropriately. This is not incidental to my core point, since RFA voters believing a candidate has this (respons)ability helps bridge the gap between visible past non-admin behaviour and predicted future admin behaviour. That's kind of subsumed into Mk's point 1, in a way which loses the important message that admins are not expected to be (probably can't be) absolute masters of all things admin, but rather to exercise good judgement, including on their own relative lack of expertise. On the language point: formal language can more easily hide ambiguities, so particularly at the brainstorming stage, a dose of informality can be helpful. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

For number 1, how about something like: "Understanding of the range of administrative tools, sound judgement on where and how these tools should be applied, and recognition of the need to become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area." This might help balance the mention of "range" to offset some of the concerns about that word. It would also be measurable: an editor with will or won't have a record of jumping into new areas prematurely. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I actually have no problem with (non-admin) editors jumping into areas prematurely, that pretty much describes my entire first 3 months of editing. :) It's actually the ability to learn from those leaps that matters. And the italicized bit seems easy to game with a simple statement that "I would not get into that without knowing what I am doing" - so I'm not convinced the addition of the words moves the criterion any further ahead. Franamax (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax; there is far too much of a learning curve to say something like "become familiar with an area before using the tools in that area". It's about exercising appropriate caution, which often means, besides distinguishing easy cases in an area from hard ones, getting advice from more experienced editors/admins in relation to hard cases. Basically, the key thing is the ability and willingness to learn, and to identify learning requirements, and to exercise appropriate caution/humility at all times (even highly experienced admins are not infallible). Rd232 ^talk 23:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(put into temporal order, why was that not an e/c?) Hence my addition of the preamble about "not expected to know it all by heart". I take your point about humility as a valuable quality, and knowing one's own limitations to me is a key indicator of suitability for the role. I think though that #1 does cover your concern in a way that can be adequately addressed through the questioning process. So taking as an example a question I saw once "when is it appropriate to add to the spam blacklist?", the "wrong" answer would be "I have no fucking clue and I don't care, I said in Q1 I wanted to do CSD's" and the answer that would satisfy #1 would be "I have no experience with this, but from reading up on it here are the general criteria. If I came across a specific concern I would proceed by posting to WT:SPAM and making my decision based on the feedback there" - or "When this happened before, I posted to WT:SPAM and this was the outcome". That to me satisfies the criterion and I think satisfies yours too as it gives an indication the newly-minted admin won't go nuts and start pressing buttons madly. Franamax (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

One idea I have -- which may or may not help address Rd232's point -- is to have two versions of the capability statement. The first version would be "what is expected of administrators". It could belong on WP:ADMIN. The second version would be "what is expected of prospective administrators". It could belong on WP:RFA. The two would mirror each other as closely as possible: the purpose of the latter would be to best ensure that we promote admins who comply with the former. WP:ADMIN at the moment is about "what not to do", which seems insufficient. Just drafting and talking about these capabilities has helped focus my own mind on how I can be a better editor and admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That could be helpful, to emphasise that RFA candidates are not expected to be experienced admins. Rd232 ^talk 22:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Why on Earth would any rational person be expecting that admin candidates should be experienced admins? More and more muddled. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More and more useless carping. My remarks on the usefulness of clarifying this arise from observing behaviour at RFAs. Rd232 ^talk 23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Malleus. Nobody has even seen the tools before they get them - every admin here has had to learn the practical side on the the job. All the pile-on and trick questions remain purely hypothetical, and as WSC says, focus should be drawn away from them, and in my opinion, they should be severely limited in scope and number. This entire thread on 'proxies' is certainly beyond my comprehension and is something I wouldn't need to know about for suggesting some basic improvements to RfA, such as first and foremost insisting on a set of guidelines/minimum maturity for the !voters. Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you don't understand proxies (unfortunately the Proxy (statistics) article won't really help you... if the only thing to come out of this subthread is someone addressing that article, it would be something!), but User:Kudpung/RfA criteria, whilst it includes some good points, also contains flaws which it probably wouldn't if you did. Rd232 ^talk 07:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

• We had a good thing going; Merrily We Roll Along.

  Malleus and Rd, could you two just ignore each other? Personally, I understand the proxy issue-- we want measurable (to the extent possible) criteria that are attempting to measure the right thing. In my (FAC) terminology, that means we want to end up with *actionable* opposes. More importantly, we want unstifled discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that Sandy. In 15 words, two brackets, and a full stop, you have explained to me what the entire, issue-clouding banter above is all about :) Kudpung (talk) 06:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On organization

I'm a bit late to the table, but I see potential in the discussions, although I'm still unclear on where this proposal is headed. However, I've had a longstanding concern with the RfA process, and I see the draft of Mkativerata and some of the FAC concepts as having potential to address some problems; but I'd like to add something to the mix that I believe complements the ideas.

Our present RfA approach has many flaws, but one flaw is that it is horribly inefficient. We ask a 100 or so busy people to investigate an editor with 10,000 or so edits, and everyone is expected to look at whatever they please, without a hint of coordination. To use a football/soccer metaphor, it would be like telling the defensive team to stop the offense, and when the players ask what section of the field they should cover, you tell them "where-ever you'd like". A recipe for disaster.

Imagine an organized RfA. Assume the Mkativerata list has been vetted, and has six broad areas. Candidate throws a hat into the ring, and a hundred or so editors decide to review. However, instead of randomly poring through edits, they sign up for one of the six areas. First come, first served, but if 15 editors have already signed up for item A, you should pick another area. If you sign up for Commitment to content improvement, you'll scrutinize the candidates content edits from that point of view. If you sign up for ability to communicate with others editors, you'll spend more time on the talk pages. Each group summarizes their findings at the end of a week, then there is either a round of !voting by the community, or a decision by a committee.

I'm sure there is lots of room for improvement and tweaking, but I personally find it difficult to commit to !voting in RfA if I don't cover a lot of ground; I could participate in more RfAs if I only had to check one aspect of the candidate.

I wouldn't preclude anyone from acting as a free safety, to push the metaphor, if you are looking for content, and find a nasty mishandling of a stressful situations, you should report it, but I think we could do a better job if we divided up the task in a more organized way.--SPhilbrickT 01:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea, and quite similar to what happens at FAC: some editors review images, some review prose, some review sources. Perhaps some editors who participate in FAC more regularly than me can comment on whether it could be a useful approach to RfA. I doubt whether we'd want to formalise any division of labour, but perhaps we could just instruct 'crats to recognise that many supporters and opposes would focus only on one or two criteria, and that it is the 'crat's job to see that there is a consensus to promote taking into account all the criteria. So a support would say "Support on criteria 2", but it would be conditional on there being consensus on the other criteria. That approach would also help balance the task of supporters and opposes -- otherwise supporters would have to check all 6/7 criteria, where opposes could pick on one. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm wary of CREEP, so I'd stay away from any process of assigning tasks, e.g. "you've been picked to check criteria B for candidate X", but if I showed up at an RfA, saw 20 editors had signed up for criteria B, but only 2 for criteria C, I'd know that spending time on criteria B was unlikely to shed any light while looking into criteria C would be a good use of time.--SPhilbrickT 02:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed before but in my view has serious legs. The easiest way to do it is for individual !voters to say what they've checked, then other !voters can choose not to replicate the work of editors they have come to trust. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee...

Am I the only one to think it's weird that over half of the last 10 or so RfAs have been for editors whose usernames start with a G? 28bytes (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Computer says no.... Rd232 ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And then a couple other ones start with C, which looks similar. Useight (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all part of the global masonic conspiracy. But don't tell anyone.--Korruski^Talk 17:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, they're all socks! (joke) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Man, you have no idea how much work that was. And all for a joke that wasn't particularly funny.--Danger (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:RFApremature

I came across Template:RFApremature when looking for instructions on how to close an RfA, and noticed that it's a bit out of date: "Many Wikipedians think that the length of time that users should be active on the project to get a firm grasp of all the policies and guidelines is roughly 3 months."

I was going to change the "3 months" to something more realistic, but after doing a search, it appears that the template is no longer being used. The last two substitutions appear to have occurred February 2008 and February 2009. Since it's gone unused for 2 years and has been superseded by Template:Notnow, is there any reason to keep it? 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not; mark it historial and a link to t:notnow ? Pedro :  Chat  19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that if no one raises any objections here. 28bytes (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• In case you're still looking, see WP:SNOW/HOW. –xeno^talk 20:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. I had found what I was looking for at WP:BUREAUCRAT#Instructions and other closers' contribution history. I think I did all the steps correctly, but double-checks for anything I may have missed are always welcome. 28bytes (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking for a nominator

Hey. I'm looking for a longstanding administrator who could offer some time in thoroughly reviewing my account for a third nomination. I have self-nominated twice before, both failing due to "lack of experience in all admin areas". My last RFA was more than six months back, and since then, I have considerably changed my editing areas are patterns, I have also been nominated (and passed, on my first nom) as an admin on Wikimedia Commons, where I do a lot of maintenance work.

At en.wiki, I do a lot of speedy deletions relating to files and maintenance too (deleted contribs), and I really could use a few tools to speed things up; save my time asking, and save other admins time of responding. IMHO, I don't think there is any issue with trust, just the issue of "experience", which I think is now sufficient.

Please see my past requests (may be slightly outdated) for detailed information of where I would like to work . I am also quite an active global editor, can respond to requests fairly quickly. I've decided to not go for another self-nom, after failing twice... Rehman 05:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Rehman, I know it's a tough issue self-nominating. I'll go through your contributions in a couple of days to check out whether you can stand a a good chance of clearing an RfA. I do realize you've had some earlier dialogue on this issue. I'll take that too into consideration. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Wifione! Rehman 00:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Move RFA questions?

This page is too much of a free-for-all to discuss one particular issue in isolation, therefore I have restated a proposal I made above as an independent RFC on this one topic only. Frankly, I'm hoping to get participants that aren't regulars on this talk page but in the interest of fairness/transparency/etc I'm dropping a note here informing everyone of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Looie496 request for recall

For your information, a request for recall of User:Looie496 has been initiated, if it passes then Looie496 may either voluntarily resign as an administrator, or alternatively run through a request for adminship. Please see User:Looie496/Recall for further details of the process, as well as the recall request itself. Administrators in good standing may support the recall at that page. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Some new Stats!

These stats are very raw and have some error of course and are only based on GiantSnowman's current RFA. Ive done some number crunching (why i spent the time to tally this.....) and found, as of right now, 28/59 supports have ran in an RFA before, 21/32 opposes have ran in an RFA before. Now im not saying this is a trend all the time in every RFA, But ive seen on a few occasions where it seems people have wondered whether running in an RFA influences your voting and discussion behaviour (ie you tend to look for different things). Of course this is only one isolated incidence of statistics. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what those stats show, if anything. Maybe only who is interested in RFA versus who is not. You can usually find a stat to support any notion. A more interesting stat would be how many of opposing editors have been on the receiving end of admin misuse of tools or admin ineffective use of tools or double standards, but then, have fun trying to produce that stat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This stat alone took a bit too much time, The amount of time for what you propose...well.... but ya, isolated, this is one RFA event out of 100s of rfas out there is difficult to show much in trends if anything, but its(both actually) still an interesting thought i think to ponder. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, no more interesting than how many people who hang out at FAC have written an FA or people at GAN who have a GA; people congregate in their area of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not whether it is mostly admins or former candidates who are involved in the process (that would make sense in the way you describe), but whether admins or former candidates skew toward oppose voting. (Unfortunately, the statistics wouldn't get at why: perhaps admins expect more from admin candidates, but perhaps admins are hazing the newbies and failed candidates are bitter.) --Danger (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA etiquette

RfAs are not battlegrounds. The topic of conversation within an RfA should focus on the candidate's statements, responses, and history. Within the RfA, your responses to and conversations with other editors should focus on the RfA candidate, the candidacy, clarifications, and interpretations of policy. If you have specific things to say outside of those topics to another editor, use that editor's talk page to start a dialog there. If you have complaints about things outside of those topics that you'd like to voice to the community at large, find the appropriate policy talk page (including this one), and voice it there. Lastly, whether you are or are not an administrator yourself, your tone, attitude and language in RfAs should reflect the sort of tone, attitude and language you'd like to see in administrators. So, no belittling, no insults, no taunting. Model civility. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I support that, but the reason I think it won't work is that many see admins not just as janitors, but as constituting a kind of power structure on Wikipedia. IRL, it doesn't seem to work to ask for civility during elections to positions of actual power ... people here it as "Yes, he's going to destroy civilization as we know it, but you're not allowed to say that", and they don't take it well. I've got a long history of favoring ideas that others thought were crappy, so no one should take this seriously, but ... what if ask all admins to try to follow these 2 rules? 1. Always choose your words carefully, because others may assume that just being an admin makes your opinion special, and 2. Never use the tools as if you believe that, because it isn't true ... that is, never use the tools in a "political" way on Wikipedia. (There's a current recall request that (just my opinion) is an example what I'm talking about here, where an admin used the tools as a kind of "super-vote", but OTOH, I don't think we should hang any admin for one non-catastrophic offense any more than we hang anybody on Wikipedia for one non-catastrophic offense ... but we can show some tolerance and be firm on the principle at the same time.) I think where people get tripped up on this is, they say that clearly admins are in some sense part of the power structure on Wikipedia, so why should we pretend they aren't? What they're missing is that anyone who has built "reputation" in some sense on Wikipedia becomes one of the influential people ... and that's okay, because reputation is a slippery thing ... you can have a good reputation on one page and not another, with one person and not another, on one day and not another. Tools OTOH are not slippery ... when you block someone, they're blocked. TLDR summary: if we could show that promoting people to adminship does not in general "increase their political power", and get people to believe that, then RFAs might become more civil. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)