Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Sennecaster 70 0 1 100 17:20, 25 December 2024 6 days, 15 hours no report Hog Farm 2 153 11 9 93 02:47, 22 December 2024 3 days, 0 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 01:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 02:12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

RFC: RFA inactivity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus achived after a couple weeks, thanks to all those that participated. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

---

Let me preface this proposal with that it has nothing to do with RFA's process, bad faith voting, general lack of RFA candidates or anything of that sort, but rather just the activity of this page in general. Short and sweet proposal: That future requests for administrator and bureaucrat move from transcluding at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, which has no activity and a lot of people watching, to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions which has activity and a smaller number of watchers. Extended rationale: I thought about this long and hard today and I was wondering exactly why RFA (and RFB) had it's own page anymore, and I couldn't come up with a real good reason as to why that is. When requests for adminship started so many years ago, most (if not all) of the permissions listed at WP:PERM did not exist and this page became the central hub for requesting any tools. However, with the decline of candidates (especially for bureaucrat, and now even seen on the administrator front), this process is relatively static. In the last two months, we have had decreasingly less users who have applied for adminship (and only one that passed) and users have been jokingly saying that we should tag this page as historical. On the other side, WP:PERM has backlog activity a lot of the time, and it is largely unwatched by the community except for the few administrators who go over to grant permissions. So, there are several hundred users watching this page do nothing and a small number of users watching the other permission granting. In addition to that, it gives the impression this permission is much more a big deal than the other permissions that it has its own page, and adminship is no big deal, right? So, the change I'm suggesting is actually very simple:

• Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/administrator and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/bureaucrat are started and transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions like all other permissions.
• Future requests for adminship and bureaucrat are transcluded to those: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ExampleUsername trancluding onto Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/administrator and likewise for bureaucrat.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (and Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship which is redirected here) is retained as an essay on the process of how to run for adminship, links to past requests and etc. about requesting adminship in general (such as the about sections featured on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship).
• Discussion about current RFA's, RFA reform, etc. move from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to Wikipedia talk:Requests for permissions and other things such as this talk page archives are hyperlinked over to the other talk page.

Seems like this would be fairly simple change that would benefit the project by centralizing permission granting, getting more eyes on a singular page and de-emphasizing RFA's importance without changing anything. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Support. RFA and RFB are just requests for sets buttons, just like the other permissions. Anything that brings it back to that rather than the bizarre political hubbub it's morphed into over the years is a step in the right direction. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, changing the title of the page where RfA's are discussed won't change the environment/attitude at RfA. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I sincerely doubt it will help the RFA/RFB issues we currently face as a community, but it seems worth a try. No reason we couldn't move back if this doesn't help. --Nouniquenames 03:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This really does make sense to me, a thinking-outside-the-box way of actually improving things, and whether or not it passes I really want to say Kudos to Moe, for coming up with something different. I've been investigating RfA for years now, I've read essays, I've gathered statistics, I've found out all sorts of information. When it came down to it, RfA does what it was intended to do - let's good candidates through and keeps out poor ones. However, one thing that it doesn't do is encourage editors to run. It has a massive PR problem, constantly being referred to as a "week of hell", a "gauntlet" or a place where attacks can be made without repercussions.

  This idea rebrands the process without losing the good bits. It distances itself from the problems of the past. Even if we don't do this now, I think we should do something like this as part of a larger reform - perhaps adding clerks or changing the process to be a two-part one, but the symbollic closure of RfA - ending an era - will be very powerful. Worm^TT(talk) 08:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent events at Arbcom (I didn't comment there, and I'm not commenting on the outcome) may have a calming effect on some kinds of participation at RfA. I think a chance should be given to see if that is indeed the effect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Calming effect or chilling effect? I suspect the latter. Worm^TT(talk) 09:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

What recent events are you referring to? Sorry that I don't get the reference but I haven't been following arbitration cases closely. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering several active admins have gone on strike because of it, it might even make the headlines in Signpost. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pretty unhelpful response. Snowolf: you can read the whole thing here. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons above; why not give it a try? Also, several other WMF wikis work this way. --Rschen7754 08:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the fewer pages I have to watch to keep an eye on things the better. The activity is such that bundling in to a more high-traffic venue is a good idea. There is nothing to lose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support can't be any worse than the current process. Wizardman 03:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose as generally ridiculous. Why would moving RfA's to a shared venue make any sense? Typical requests for permissions are uncomplicated, and typically consist of a request and a single response. Typical RfA's routinely exceed 500Kb of discussion. On what universe would it make sense to merge these two processes onto one page, apparently for the implied purpose driving more admin traffic to WP:PERM in the hopes of clearing the backlog there (of which there is virtually none at the moment)? Sorry if I'm being rude, but this is a misguided proposal. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 22:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• And? How many RFAs and RFBs do we have running at the same time regularly, exactly? We have 0 right now, most don't make it past a couple days and close early and the especially long ones are the ones that make it to the end (which are removed not long after that to attain the consensus). At the end of the day, adminship is just another permission, is it not? On the backlog if WP:PERM, it was week or so ago, we had to get administrators attention because there was such a large backlog there and no one was watching. At the same time, we had extensive ongoing discussion on this talk page about reforming RFA (and you saw how well that went). Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Not too long ago there were 3 or 4 concurrent RfA's, none of which were speedily closed. Transcluding those RfA's to WP:PERM would have probably made that page about 20 times longer than it normally is. Backlogs happen, get over it. If there's a backlog, post a note at WP:AN or WP:ANI and someone will come around to fix it. And, if you haven't noticed, there is always extensive ongoing discussion on this talk page about reforming RfA, that is nothing new. Artificially driving traffic by moving pages around is not the way to fix backlogs. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 23:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

To address you in order:

There was three concurrent last month; PumpkinSky's ran 2 days while the other two ran full length. Again, it's not going to make the page any harder to read than WP:RFA already is. PERM is never particularly large in size of KB to begin with, so an RFA would be most of the KB on any page, whether it was transcluded here or there.

The point was, there is a lot of users here, who most of the time are not doing anything but discussing hopeless reform on a page that has no activity. So, if there is going to be these hopeless discussions, I'd rather have one centralized place, and a place like WP:PERM at least has activity and things for administrators to do a majority of the time.

This proposal isn't about shifting traffic to PERM (this is simply the best target), its to move it away from RFA. RFA is dead, statistically at least. September saw one (unsuccessful) candidacy, and a whole bunch of talk page discussion that resulted in squat. Essentially, this page is historical. Not because the process is broken or the general attitude of RFA, but because no one comes here anymore to ask for the permission to be an administrator anymore like they used to (far more head to PERM for a lesser tool).

This will be my final reply to you Scotty, since you seem particularly impassioned about RFA being just a permission, or whatever your reasoning is for being so pointed in your language. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

So, the purpose of this proposed change is to increase the number of editors who request admin permissions? How would changing the venue do that? It's not as if people don't know where to go to request adminship. If that's not the purpose of the proposed changes, then perhaps you should make the purpose more clear. Exactly what do you envision will change as a result of this proposal being enacted? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 23:58, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer this and I'll leave it to you to agree or disagree, and I'll try not to comment much more on this.

RFA was created back in 2002 in the hope that it would be what RFPERM is today, a few trusted users supporting or bringing up reasons that it might be time to wait on getting tools. Without a governor though, RFA spiraled into a political campaign for the admin candidate (the fact we call them candidates is abhorrent in of itself) with loaded questions, opponents drudging up every past indiscretion, users trying to get to WP:100 and WP:200 by collecting supporters on other forums, and general incivility aplenty. RFPERM isn't like that because we don't allow the crap that made RFA what it is to be like that. RFA (and RFB which was collected in to the problem) in its current state is not a request for permission anymore, it's a certified Request For Adminship®, a completely separate Wikipedia process which is alienated from all other permission groups. RFA is a request for political status, not for tools. Absolutely, my intent is to make adminship an obtainable goal by more editors. We know where to request adminship, but no one wants to stick their neck out in fear of coming out beheaded. My intent is to stop the rabble-rousing on this page in the hopes that RFA will cease to exist, personally, because RFA is going to be poison as long as it's here. Once RFA is not a RFA anymore, and it's a request for permission, my hope is that it will be a culture shift, if anything. Will moving it be an immediate answer to a long-standing problem? Of course not, and no reform would be an immediate solution to fixing this problem. My hope is that we move past what it has become, by letting it morph back into it being about users getting tools to help maintain Wikipedia (something this page hasn't been in a long time). I sincerely hope this answers your questions about my intent. I know, wishful thinking and whatnot, but consolidating this page into a more active process and abandoning a long-standing toxic environment is the best way to go, I think. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 01:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I applaud your initiative to make changes to a place that desperately needs change. I just disagree that simply changing the title of the page where RfA's take place will make a measurable difference in the political, rabble-rousing environment, nor will it encourage qualified candidates to come forward. If we want to change RfA, then we need to actually change RfA, not just the title of the page. If this proposal were in conjunction with substantive changes, like clerking or limiting threaded discussion, I would consider it more seriously. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 14:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The other permissions are ones that admins set and unset according to whether candidates meet an agreed criteria, so transcluding RFA onto an otherwise admin focussed page could be seen as skewing the process towards admins. In practice we'd lose a whole bunch of occasional participants who have RFA on their watchlists. ϢereSpielChequers 23:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose—Amalgamating RFA and RFB into RFP would risk obscuring the fundamental differences between the processes, and increasing the proportion of editors requesting administrative rights prematurely. Mephistophelian (contact) 02:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose. I can't see how this would address any core issues with the current RfA system. In all honesty I see it as a solution looking for a problem. As one of the most regular admins working at PERM for the past few weeks, I am not aware of any backlogs; provided the applicants make their request correctly, they are processed within 24 hours. The main problem at PERM is unnecessary clerking and closure by new and/or inexperienced users.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - it won't actually fix any problems one might think exist on RFA. Instead of watching Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, people will just end up watching Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/administrator and Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/bureaucrat, now with the added result of making WP:PERM a much longer page whenever there's a request. It also won't actually have any effect on requests on the rest of WP:PERM as people would be watching the subpage and won't see the other requests. Then I also have to question the original assumption that WP:PERM "has backlog a lot of the time". Most of the time, un-handled requests occurs because of waiting for response for further information from requester rather than no admin dealing with it. KTC (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Community-wide scrutiny for Admin / 'Crat / Arbcom isn't the same thing as doling out selective user rights and require their own venue. I don't buy into the concept that a different venue provides a wider opportunity for comment. 250+ editors commented at a recent RFA. If all that is required is to boost viewers/contributors then simply post a link at Perm, Cent or where ever for each new RFA/B. Cannot see this proposal improving the volume of suitable Admin candidates and it is suitability that really matters in the end - not higher numbers of unsuitable candidates. Leaky Caldron 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I said I'd try not to comment much more, but you are the second or third person to mention this. What is the problem with having RFAs of unsuitable candidates? Was PumpkinSky's unproductive? No, but he was determined unsuitable and he may run again in the future in the hopes of passing (which several people who opposed and were neutral said they would support). Who particularly cares about misguided users creating a botched RFA? They are fairly easily dealt with by speedily closing them and telling the user it takes a bit of effort and time to become an administrator and that they are not ready. If that is explained to them, maybe they will see it as something to aspire to attain later by working on what they need improved. I'm not sure I understand the logic of "it will produce more candidates, but no candidates is better". Surely the desolate page that is RFA (a majority of the time) is more scary to users who are suitable and unsuitable than 3-4 nominations of people who may or may not be ready. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I totally agree with you about RFAs for unsuitable candidates, which is why I have objected to various & repeated attempts to set minimum entry levels and misguided efforts at metrics-based identification and pseudo pre-selection of candidates. Existing RFA guidelines are more than adequate and if wholly unsuitable candidates are (self) nominated and encounter rejection - tough. I just don't see how shifting the venue alters the probability of candidates presenting themselves. Leaky Caldron 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Unsuitable candidates must be discouraged, because a failed RfA can be somewhat emotionally devastating for some users, and there are many known cases of people who have retired after a failed RfA. Think about it: you volunteer your time here to improve this project, and you decide that you want to volunteer more of your time and do more work, so you ask for more tools. In response, people dredge up every last mistake you've ever made, cast aspersions on you, tell you that you're not good enough at what you do and you'll perhaps never be, and in some cases personally attack you and call you names. All in response to your request to volunteer more of your time. I briefly considered retirement after my first failed RfA, but instead just took a break for a few weeks to forget about it. The last thing we need is editors retiring because they were prematurely encouraged to try their luck at RfA, and subsequently got their ass handed to them. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 14:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• So reading the considerable amount of existing RFA candidate guidance, knowledge of recent RFAs (which should be mandatory preparation) and, where relevant, guidance given by nominators is still not enough to deter an unsuitable volunteer? Personally I have few qualms about the community being able to dredge up examples of inadequate policy awareness or worse, dishonesty or other problematic behaviour. If we want the Admin selection process to be less trying the role should be either probationary and/or term limited. That way we are not stuck with a life time pig in a poke with no redress. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• That's exactly what I'm talking about. You agree, or at least I think you do, that this forum is tied to all the things you mentioned: drudging up every mistake, casting aspersions, personal attacks, incivility, etc. WP:RFA is forever going to be tied with that, and there's no changing it as long as is it exists. No amount of reform can change it, because somehow, someone will skirt the guidelines and norms we set up to be nefarious. That is why we need to change the venue. We need to put a figurative bullet into the head of RFA, this notion that these things you are talking about are "just a part of the process". An editor walking away in retirement shouldn't be a part of the process that may happen, but it will always be if we permit this culture of "hellweek." RFA is about the person, and requests for permissions is about someone getting a permission. Personally, I think it's just time to stop looking at reforming RFA when RFA is never going to change. We can do this by simply giving less weight and argument to people who dredge up every mistake, by striking personal attacks like we do every place else and handling RFA like every other process. RFA as it is right now is its own animal where people can get away with it, so moving it shouldn't change the process (because the process that elects them works) it's the other bad stuff and fear surrounding the page that makes it not a normal Wikipedia process. My intention is that moving it to requests for permissions, makes it blend in with all the other permissions and that it ends up a non-hostile environment where editors don't feel kicked in the teeth when they leave. Of course there is no guarantee of this, but the risk factor is none. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can see your thinking and without being patronising I think it is well intentioned. But changing the venue isn't going to stop rigorous scrutiny. If that scrutiny sometimes gives the appearance of being aggressive (frequently due to over-enthusiastic supporters vilifying those who speak negatively about their candidates's credentials) how does changing the venue help fundamentally? Leaky Caldron 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think I've explained most of what I feel in above posts, so I don't want to repeat myself endlessly. In short, the scrutiny of a candidate is good, and like I said, the process itself works. This page, it's history, and the connotation behind RFA is a poisoned well though (it always will be). My intention is reform in the form of non-reform. By simply centralizing permissions to one page, we no longer single out RFA/B as important and it becomes a permission again just like any other. I think a month ago we had an RFC on reform in that we just start enforcing our normal site-wide policies and general behavior onto this forum, to just start "acting more appropriately", and this was universally supported. However, there was nothing to be done, because RFA was RFA so the RFC was dubbed useless but well-intentioned. This gives us a means to a new beginning. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your idea's just the sort of radical proposal RfA needs, and your reasoning is sound except the suggestion there's no risk. There's a big risk the RfA vibe would take over RfFM rather than the other way around. @Leaky, can you stop blaming it on the badgers?. Unwise badgering occasionally does more harm than good, but overall it would be more hurtful to candidates if opposers could expect to go unchallenged, and we'd have even less promotions. The blame for the state of RfA lies almost entirely with the serial opposers, and the solution will involve reducing their ability to veto quality candidates. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Unwise badgering always does more harm than good. The blame for the state of RFA rests with ill-prepared, hat collecting or occasionally otherwise unacceptable candidates garnering socially acquired, vacuous support for a role for life for which they may be unsuited. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that any attempts to formalize RFPERM into an election would be shot down by the administrator that came by the assign or decline the request. That should have been done in the case of RFA, but there was so many people coming to comment, we had to create an order. It goes back to de-emphasizing RFA as important over other permissions. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I think most everyone agrees that RfA needs major change, but it would be naive to believe that simply changing the page title would bring about any change whatsoever. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose - the last thing we need is RfFM looking like RfA. Achowat (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Proposal is obviously well-intentioned, but would completely change the culture at another well-functioning page without any obvious corresponding benefit to the project. RFA and RFB are fundamentally different from what normally goes on at Permissions; adminship isn't just "another set of buttons." Townlake (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Purely procedural oppose and trite simplistic. Even though RfAs are generally inactive, whenever they occur - and if they were to on the RfP forum - they'd clog up viewability for me and other administrators who help out there. I know the reasoning sounds childish, but Townlake's additional reasoning just above (leave his below the belt hits at Kudpung) also matters quite some. Wifione ^Message 03:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• How would you feel if RFP/admnistrator existed and instead of a transclusion, it was a ===header=== with a hyperlink to the RFA that people could click then read the RFA nomination? Would that change your !vote, because if KB of a page is really that important, my proposal can change for that. As for Townlake's oppose, I put little stock in it, personally. If RFA is a well-functioning page that shouldn't change, why is there talk of reform every week? The truth is, it's a horrible process, and though it does what it intends to do, that is not enough. The culture of RFA being a different set of buttons than the other permissions, which while true at present, is not a good thing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 12:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The notion that RFA would be a different process if it hijacked another page is absurd. And your last sentence directly above doesn't make any sense. This is a puzzling RFC. Townlake (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I like the current RfA process. Editors who are well connected with the social network aspect of wikipedia probably don't need it since they already know the candidates but, for the less connected ones, the RfA process with its question and answers and maverick oppose !voters is one that does a great job in revealing a candidates potential as an admin. Good process, in my opinion, and one that does not need changing. --regentspark (comment) 17:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• oppose per leaky cauldron, this is KillerChihuahua. Puppy (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
• I remain of the opinion that the current process has worked fine for a number of years before the last couple when people have beginning to state that the process is broken. Well the process has never changed one iota of significant stuff. The people have. All of these proposal seem to me pointless. If a user is trusted by the community with the sysop toolset, they will pass RfA. If they don't pass RfA, it means the community does not see fit to trust them with said toolset. All proposal to change the meter do not change this fact, they merely seek to impose one's own view of what should or should not be judged in determining trust and suitability upon the rest of the community. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• You'll have to note that nothing in my proposal actually changes the support, oppose, formatting or process in determining consensus. Just seems like you're under the impression that one of those does, so I thought I'd comment. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, my point is that no changes are required or useful, including housing the process under a different page. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 21:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Changing the name and/or location isn't going to make any difference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Scottywong.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Question Do you anticipate this having any effect on !voter participation? AutomaticStrikeout 21:26, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hopefully not, seeing as this page would be an essay and not a mock of the page not having a request. Preferably (for the first month or so) a link would be at the very top of the page explaining where RFAs are now located. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Process Status

• I notice this process has been inactive since 22:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC).
• I note that the merge proposal above will likely fail.

Will anyone be using this process in the next 14 days?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Since User:Radiant isn't around anymore, I guess the question falls to me.

It probably will fail, but I got more support than I expected honestly. To answer you, probably not, since the last rush of nominations was probably to see if we could get a passing candidate before the month ended (to avoid two months of no successful candidates). Why do you ask? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Alright, in that case, I'll be back on or after 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC) (after 14 days of no use of page) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

How mysterious. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh? What's so mysterious. 14 days to see if this process is merely pining for the fjords seems like plenty of time to me. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I mean yes, suppose it is pushing up the daisies - what are you going to do? — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

We can make the fact official so we can do something constructive about it. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

14 days that a process goes unused seem to me completely void of any significance in this context. I bet we have plenty of processes that see activity way less often than that. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINE. —Theopolisme 19:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I was about to comment myself that RFA went largely went unused at all in September except for two nomination that were botched (31 days without a legitimate nomination). I'm confused as to what occurs in 14 days as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 19:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Heh, it's even worse off than I thought.

At any rate, this process seems to be unused and/or unsuccessful at the moment. We're supposed to do maintenance and shut down unused/broken processes, else Wikipedia becomes a mess after a while. RFA was clearly dieing this summer. I'm just trying to figure the correct moment to declare it properly dead. Normally one could just mark a process historical, and if anyone decides to reform and use it again, well fine. But RFA has been around for a long time and has always been somewhat special, so giving it a bit of time seems like the safe thing to do. 14 days from now seems fair enough. I can wait a month too if you like. But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Let's see if anyone shows up anytime soon. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC) note that being "somewhat special" does not mean that RFA gets a free pass in the long run. Esperanza and AMA also eventually got shut down, for similar reasons. Of course if RFA reforms and picks up steam, that's perfect too

I strongly disagree that the process is unused and/or unsuccessful. I don't know where you come off with this idea. It is clearly not unused, as we've stated processes are not required to be used daily or be deleted, that's quite an outlandish opinion if I may say so. Is it unsuccessful? I doubt it. Thousands of administrators have gone thru the process, and I don't see where it is unsuccessful in your personal opinion, perhaps you should explain why you feel that way that rather than state it as a fact. I have honestly no idea what you're going on about with this whole discussion. The idea that if people do not run for adminship for two weeks you decide that the process is broken is utterly laughable. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thousands, you say. That's plural. Are you sure?

And I agree that RFA worked in the past, but it doesn't seem to be working now. Previously, there were always multiple admins up on RFA at any time: at the time it was clearly and objectively "operational". Now there are 0 admins running: That's objectively "not operational". Of course that need not be a permanent status.

I think that (near to?) no successful promotions in 2 months followed by 14-31 days of no activity to be a fairly good ~ objective cutoff point, after which we can declare RFA dead (as opposed to merely 'pining for the fjords', as you are entitled to believe for now). No need to make a big fuss now, we'll see which of us is right in due time.

After 14(-31) days, if nothing has changed, I'll take this to the larger community and we'll see how the chips fall at that time. In the mean time, feel free to find new candidates for adminship, reform the process, or do whatever you think is a good idea. I'll abide by the situation on the ground and the consensus of the larger community. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC) see eg.: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. See also: User:Soap/RfA .

There are, I think, other Wikipedia processes more deserving than RfA that could use the Esperanza/messed rocker solution, KB. AFD (Deletion discussions should simply take place on article talk pages without all the bureaucracy) and FA (has many of the same issues Esperanza did) would top my list. - jc37 01:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I prefer to do one thing at a time, and I'd promised some folks to look into RFA first. Also, I think RFA is easier to deal with atm, since it is now clearly no longer functioning (unlike AFD, for instance). In the mean time, if you yourself have time to spend on AFD and FA, feel free to look into it! --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that "one thing at a time" thing. I have a list of community-wide discussions in queue, and am still trying to decide which one to queue up next : )

Leaning towards this one: Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship. - jc37 01:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that lack of promotions shows anything about the process, nor does putting arbitrary timelines on it. If no admins are promoted, the shows a lack of worthy candidates, or a too high of a bar from the community. Let's face it, we're a fairly aging project, no longer with the intake of new recruits we used to have, at least in the same amounts. So most active users who are interested in the matter either have already run, have decided they don't want to or already are administrators. Now if you're suggesting we should go out and seek new candidates, I believe I have commented on this page about this as well. You see, to me the issue is with the community. When you get people saying that using IRC is reason enough to oppose somebody becoming an administrator, there's no process issue, there's a community issue. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you put it that way, there's no possible way a process could ever be broken. It'd always be a community issue, a candidate issue, too high a bar issue; any issue, except an issue with the process at hand. I'm not buying that. You could keep explaining things away forever that way. :-P

If everything together (to wit: the sum total of activity on WP:RFA) is just not there, then I'm just going to call it like I see it. And the plain fact of the matter is that RFA has been near to death for quite some time now. Sooner or later we are going to have to recognize that fact. It's already rather late, in fact. We have to draw a line somewhere, right?  :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

If we mark RfA as historical, how are we going to promote new admins? AutomaticStrikeout 02:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) How are we promoting new admins now? :-P The first step towards fixing a problem is recognizing that yes, we officially *have* a problem.

Once we get past that point, well, there have got to be at least 100 proposals on how to get more new admins up and about on Wikipedia. If RFA is marked historical, they'll all actually get the fighting chance they deserve --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC) or not, depending ;-)

Have an RfA at some other venue, whether at RFPERM, or AN, or some such. Deleting this process doesn't resolve anything save delete a page : ) - jc37 02:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Or we don't RfA at all and do Something Else (tm). I don't think I'm promoting Deletion per-se. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ok, but will simply moving the venue accomplish anything? The problem is not the venue. The problem is not the process. Quite frankly, the problem is the people. What benefit is derived from changing the venue? AutomaticStrikeout 02:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is to recognize that the process is not working, or -at-least- process+community+venue is not working. It's just sort of sticking around and getting in the way of anyone trying anything new. So my proposal is to bring along a bugle and a flag, and give it a nice ceremony. --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC) And keep a spare, pure cedarwood stake behind our backs, just in case ;-)

Please don't mark RfA as historical. I think you'll find that you'd get quickly reverted if you did. If you believe that RfA needs to be changed (which probably puts you in the majority), then feel free to create a proposal that changes RfA and let's discuss it. But, don't artificially shut down RfA in an attempt to coerce editors to agree with proposals for change, out of fear. That would be like threatening to shut down the government to get your preferred legislation passed, and those kinds of politics aren't welcome here. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 14:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Kim has a point. (As opposed to a WP:POINT.) How many promotion-free months will there need to be before RfA is universally recognized to have keeled over and died? We might as well draw the line at Kim's proposed mark - two months without promotions followed by a month without activity.

RfA had its time, and a damn long one at that. (I remember when it arrived; an RL friend of mine, quercus robur, was the last person to get the bit via the mailing list.) It worked as well as it could during that time, and certainly had its ups and downs; but the community changed around it, and it no longer reflects a scale-appropriate way to select people to give the tools.

The problem all the reform attempts have had so far is that everyone here is incredibly stubborn. Because everyone sticks to their guns so hard, it's overwhelmed the ability to change. Having no active process for giving out the tools could change the balance, giving the advantage to the need for progress; people would have to start making compromises and working together to achieve consensus, or face being left in a totally unsustainable position.

Kim, this is a stroke of genius. RfA is dead. Long live RfA. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

@Scotty: there's a problem in your analogy. The difference between the debt-ceiling thing and this is that RfA a long-term problem (in that, because of RfA, we might not have enough admins at some point in the future to keep up with things),while the debt ceiling is a short-term problem (where the government shuts down the next day if the budget doesn't pass). We do have time to experiment with RfA; the encyclopedia won't come grinding to a halt tomorrow if we decide to try closing up shop for some added incentive for change. Worst comes to worst, we can always bring it back, and we won't have lost much. Really, though, how broken can RfA be if it let a schmuck like me get the tools? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we can safely state that the 'proposal' avenue is very nearly exhausted. People have been discussing "RFA Reform" for years, and it hasn't gone anywhere to date. Obstructionists have been playing the "please make a proposal, oh we'll vote it down now" game for years now (or so User:Kudpung was telling me this summer) . Mere reform proposals clearly aren't sufficient. It's time to knock this subsystem down and outright replace it by something that works. Actual Reform.

Now, despite what you may have been told, RFA is not essential to the workings of Wikipedia. Unlike the debt-ceiling crisis; nothing bad would happen for several years even if Wikipedia were in a vacuum. In fact, in reality, Wikipedia is part of a larger movement, and a lack of a local RFA process (which is de facto the case at the moment anyway) just means that that aspect of rights-management will fall back on Stewards directly. (There's the small detail that we'd still have bureaucrats, but since locking RFA means they're effectively deposed from that role, I don't think anyone would deny the stewards may step in)

So we're never going to be in any kind of trouble. We'll just be less autonomous for a little while while we sort things out.

The missing element is that currently we still have an RFA. Officially marking RFA as historical will at least free up the Stewards to act to some degree. They are only permitted to act in a limited capacity, but even that has got to be an improvement on the status quo. :-P

The 'Historical' tag is very much like the process-equivalent of a PROD, anyone may place it, and anyone may remove it. Of course, if the historical tag gets removed (and the process still clearly isn't working), then anyone may also list the page at MFD as an "esperanzafy".

The alternative you propose effectively means that we leave the rudder jammed and stay the current course while we discuss our options in committee indefinitely. "Oh look, is that an iceberg I see on yonder horizon?"

A solution doesn't need to be perfect-in-one-go. It just needs to miss the icebergs and allow further steering as we spot more.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC) The fact that even just MFDing RFA probably meets our criterion is telling :-P What have folks been up to while I was away? %-)

I completely agree that this system needs to be replaced, I completely agree that we as a community have failed to accomplish this task and have proven at this point without a shadow of a doubt incapable of doing it. I also agree that it need not be the perfect solution at once but we must try something. I also agree that the obstructionists will likely continue to prevail in blocking any attempts at reform. Its really a shame and is largely the reason I quite editing. I see many way's of fixing it but I know that the community will never ever achieve a consensus. Too many have too much too lose and they will fight with all their will and use whatever justifications they can to keep what they have. 138.162.0.44 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of people who don't agree that RfA is broken. We don't need to convince people that RfA is broken, we need to come to an agreement on what's the best way to change/replace RfA. So far, that hasn't happened. It's not necessarily true that "obstructionists" are hindering progress. It may just be that it's a hard problem to solve, and perhaps there is no ideal solution.

The answer is most certainly not to just pull the plug on RfA in order to rush through changes. You're frustrated that the proposal process hasn't produced anything yet. Your solution is basically to say "Ok, whatever the next proposal is, we're going to go with that for awhile and see what happens." The right way to solve the problem in the long term is not to make hasty changes just because you don't like the current situation. The right way is to continue on the current course and wait for a proposal to come along that has a lot of support.

Your own argument above is contradictory. You say that RfA is hopelessly broken and we need change now, yet at the same time you say that there wouldn't be major problems if no new admins were promoted for several years. It's as if you're saying "Oh look, is that an iceberg I see on the satellite photos, 3000 miles away from our current position? Well, no sense in leaving the rudder jammed on the current course while we decide what to do, let's just turn 90 degrees to the right and see where that leads us." We've got time to find a good solution, there's no sense in rushing something through and getting stuck with something that is worse or no better than the current situation. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to make changes to RFA, rushed or not. That's Someone Else 's problem. Actually, wait, maybe it's not. Someone Else failed to fix it on time, and now RFA looks pretty dead. If RFA is indeed dead, my contribution will be to bury it.

We're not quite ready for the postmortem, but I would suggest that the root cause may be found to have something to do with the "proposal process" used: we can empirically establish that it did not work. One of the recommendations going forward might be to not use that particular proposal process.

But that's getting ahead of ourselves. Let's make sure RFA is well and truly dead first. We don't want to bury it alive, after all!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has run for 2 weeks, so that means it's dead? What malarky! I have a convertible that I park in a heated storage unit all winter...it doesn't stop being a car during that time...it's simply that it's not needed during the current environment. Most...bizarre...logic...ever. --(✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ha! That would be funny. But it's a bit more involved than that. :-)

Tell you what, what would your criterion be to call something a failed process? Then, look at User:Soap/RfA and tell me if that meets your criterion yet, or how far it still needs to go.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you try running, Kim? If you want to have a good perspective on what the process is like, going through it can help you get that perspective. AutomaticStrikeout 23:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kim_Bruning. Also, I have trained and nominated many admins. Notably, I made the first WP:100 RFA nomination: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Bishonen. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly interesting to see how the process has changed over the years! However, as far as I can tell, you aren't still an admin, so you could run again. AutomaticStrikeout 23:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I handed in the bit as an admin in good standing. My reason at the time was to prove that people don't actually need an admin bit to be an admin (and in fact it took something like 6 months before people noticed I didn't have it ;-)). I am allowed to request the bit back at any time.

But... I've now had quite some years of practice in dealing with situations without needing an admin bit. Even if I wanted/needed it back at this late juncture, any bureaucrat would provide it to me without a need for RFA. If I did rerun, most people would (rightly) consider it unnecessary process. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you're preaching to the choir. I don't know of very many people who think that RfA isn't fatally flawed. But it's all we've got at this point. Declaring it dead would accomplish nothing more than allowing you to make a symbolic gesture. We don't need symbolic gestures at this point, we need actual solutions. Changing the title of the RfA page (as suggested in the thread above) or slapping a historical template on the top of the page is not a solution, it's an emotional overreaction. Why don't you pretend that the historical template is already on the page, and then proceed from there. What would you propose as an actual solution once RfA is declared dead? ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If you read the responses so far, you'll see it's 50/50 or so. Some people say I'm preaching to the choir, but some people think there isn't any problem at all (in fact, I just E/Ced with one ;-) , and don't see any point in moving on. The number of people who don't want to move on exist in sufficient numbers to block any consensus to get RFA fixed. That's part of what's been happening these past 2-3 years. So I'm doing a standard User:Radiant!-style cleanup, since Radiant isn't around to do it for us anymore. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Essentially, RFA isn't working anyway, and it turns out that Wikipedia doesn't actually explode when RFA isn't working. That means that in the end we can just clean it up. That leaves us one less bureaucratic process to wonk over.

Yes, RfA/RfB is likely dead. But we might be able to rejuvenate it, at least temporarily, by finding quality candidates and encouraging them to run. I challenge the capable non-admins who see this post to seriously consider running for adminship. I challenge the qualified admins reading this to run for cratship. Instead of giving up and declaring the process dead, let's at least give it one last chance. AutomaticStrikeout 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, I think I like your attitude. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Come back to me this time next year and we'll talk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It`s nowhere close to dead. It`s at the jump-off point for repair. People are ``afraid`` of the current process (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Scottywong seems to believe that most people think that RfA is "broken". I do not believe that RfA is broken. (I assume that "broken" here means "doesn't work".) There are problems with RfA, and adjustment of some aspects may be helpful. However RfA does promote good candidates (although not necessarily all good candidates) and fails poor candidates. I believe that RfA will continue to do so in the future. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is now just after 22:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC). There have been 2 uses of the page in the given period: one RFA failed, and another is undecided. The RFA process itself seems to remain flexible, and to allow people to participate and make their opinions known clearly. The content of those opinions, however, does not always seem to be optimally geared towards reaching a decision on whether or not someone could be an admin.

It appears to me that this process will continue to decline in usage as long as this situation persists.

I will next check in on 13 December 2012. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Problem statement

Any solution begins with figuring out what the problem is. In the thread above, Bwilkins says that "people are ``afraid`` of the current process". I think that's accurate. The next obvious question is, why are they afraid? I'll start a list of possible reasons below, feel free to add to it:

• The bar has gotten too high, people believe they are unqualified.
• The bar has gotten too high, people believe their RfA will be opposed because of minor negative events in their editing history.
• The attitude at RfA has gotten too corrosive, people don't want to publicly subject themselves to rude and abrasive comments about their behavior.

Any others? Once we've properly defined the problem, solutions should be forthcoming. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 01:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As I already noted below, this is my take on it. As long as RfA is building itself into a culture of fear, then there will be those who will be concerned about subjecting themselves to such. Monty Python may have said "No one expects a Spanish Inquisition", but at RfA, we kinda do, unfortunately... - jc37 02:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with both Scotty and jc37. AutomaticStrikeout 02:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that some people are put off going through RfA due to the constant harping on here and elsewhere about how terrible it is. How about giving the 'RfA is broken' threads a rest for 6 months, simply ignoring comments in RfAs that one disagrees with rather than allowing them to dominate the process by arguing with them over and over, and seeing if this improves things? --Michig (talk) 06:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, I can give my personal view. I am fully qualified to be admin, have a track record of three years of active adminship on a different project, and I would probably pass an RfA. On the other hand, would it be a pleasant experience? Getting comments like "You have 90% of edits in the articles, better stay writing articles, I do not trust you with the mop", or "In my opinion, it is crucial for an admin to have flawless English, please come in 6 months", or "In December 2011, you reverted a vandal edit and failed to notify the IP. This means you just do not understand the process. May be I could support you in a year, but not now", or (my favorite) "Please remind me why should I care about your opinion?". Well, just reading all this shit, you know, I am not a hat collector, and I guess people who know me also know I am a team player - I participate in the drives and I am willing to do parts of the job other people can not or are unwilling to do, and I do not ask for anything - but, you know, getting all these negative comments, even if they are in minority, for my WILLINNESS TO CLEAN UP THE SHIT - sorry, I can live without the mop, Wikipedia is my hobby, and I am pretty much successfull in my profession. Even despite this, I could still consider running, if there are real backlogs on a regular basis - but my attitude is that Wikipedia needs that I have the tools more that I need this, so why should I force it? Probably it falls under "too corrosive", but I think there are more facets that just this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In July & August there were 10 successful, high calibre candidates who were virtually unopposed. The problem is clearly therefore not the existing process. The (self) nomination of some weaker candidates, often systematically supported very quickly by wiki friends, creates an unreasonable expectation early on. Evidence then revealed during RFA that they are either not as good as initial support appears to suggest, or simply not yet acceptable based on a whole range of valid criteria, leads to the "atmosphere". Better initial questions and an embargo on !votes until at least those have been answered would create a less biased, and IMO, a fairer platform for subsequent community scrutiny. Leaky Caldron 14:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you call valid criteria? I remember one candidate got dozens of opposes because of their username. Is this a valid criterion? There is a user who pledged to oppose candidates with FAs and GAs - is this may be a valid criterion?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is perfectly valid when dozens of editors, even including some supporters, agree that it is a valid concern. 'Crats determine what !votes should be discounted and a single oppose of the kind you suggest would not be influential. Leaky Caldron 14:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As a more positive statement - actually, I believe if there were some formal criteria, things would go better, since they would initially filter out unsuitable candidates. However, the community consistently refused to install such criteria, such as, for instance, a number of edits a candidate has to collect before becoming eligible. And the arguments to not have criteria also have some merits.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The community does a fine job already in filtering out unsuitable candidates. Additional fixed criteria are not necessary. Good candidates will sail through artificial hurdles and bad ones will pass with false expectation of success in the actual RFA. There is sufficient good RFA guidance on what the community requires of Admins without setting targets such as minimum edit counts. Leaky Caldron 15:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, fine, if everything is as perfect as you describe, why is the number of incoming admins several times as small as the number of outgoing ones?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said earlier, 10 successful candidates in 2 months with barely an oppose between them doesn't strike me as being indicative of a fundamentally broken process. Leaky Caldron 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're cherry picking the two best months of the year and ignoring the rest, like an ostrich with its head in the sand. There were 10 successful candidates in July and August of this year. There were 11 successful candidates throughout the remainder of the year (so far). 21 total promotions this year. If we're lucky in the remaining 7-8 weeks of this year, we'll get 5 more admins promoted which would get us to half of the successful RfA's we had last year (52). In 2010, there were 75. In 2009, there were 121. In 2008, there were 201. So yes, while 10 promotions in two consecutive months is not a bad thing, it's not telling the whole story. In 2011, there were two consecutive months with 18 promotions. In 2010, there were two consecutive months with 20 promotions. In 2009, there were two consecutive months with 27 promotions. Given the data that shows a clear trend, do you still believe that RfA needs no modification? ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Some modest changes to prevent early pile on !votes, better questions answered before !voting opens. Why would 40 people vote for or against anyone before they have answered a single additional question? Above all better candidates, not "popular" choices determined off-wiki. Leaky Caldron 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So, all we need to do to turn around RfA participation rates (that have been declining steadily for 6 consecutive years) is make sure that question 4 has been asked and answered before voting begins? Why hasn't anyone thought of that before? And how do we find these "better", unpopular candidates? ‑Scottywong| comment _ 16:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• RfA is too unpredictable and arbitrary.

This fourth element is perhaps just as important as the first three reasons identified by Scotty, though less obvious. As even Axl admits above, "not necessarily all good candidates" are promoted. True but understated. Any RfA can potentially be derailed by an impressive looking oppose. If a determined opposer spends enough time, it's almost inevitable that they'll be able to find dozens of mistakes which they can highlight with diffs (There are studies that suggest the average paid worker makes about 5-7 mistakes per hour. Even folk good enough to be get to president make public gaffs, despite them having dedicated teams who try to prevent this. )

Even miraculously perfect candidates can be made to look bad, due a trilemma I like to call the 'RfA impossible trinity'. Its impossible for a candidate not to be vulnerable to at least one of these three criticisms: 1> that they haven't done any substantial content work. 2> a plausible charge that they are a plagiarist or at least a close paraphraser. 3> Assuming that they always use substantially different wording to the sources, a plausible charge that they engage in Original Research. Granted, badgers could argue against the charges, but few voters seem to attentively consider what badgers have to say, with some even saying that extensive badgering makes them more likely to oppose.

Potential candidates sense this and are right to be "afraid" of the current process. No matter how much they've contributed or have to offer, some random opposser with time on their hands has a good chance of trashing their wiki-reputation, or at least causing them to be "rejected by the community". It's impossible to know in advance if an RfA will escape this sort of opposition. And with the 70% threshold meaning an oppose has equal weight to three supports, its challenging for even the most capable badgers to defend them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As promised, I've started drafting something I suggested earlier, but including some comments I received. It will include:

• no voting for first 3 days
• larger set of original questions for the candidate
• opportunity for additional questions during those first 3 days
• no threaded discussions
• word limit on !votes
• RFA clerking to ensure the above all works smoothly

More to come (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Could I suggest a "maximum number of edits a user can make" - besides the candidate, I see no reason for a single editor to make more than 10-15 edits to an RfA. In my opinion, if an editor has made more edits to an RfA than the candidate, that's clear disruption. Worm^TT(talk) 09:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I like this having advocated similar in the past. The only one I would modify is allowing limited threaded discussions (say one response from the candidate or other editor followed by the OP's response with any extended discussion removed to the talk page). How are you planning to take this forward? Leaky Caldron 11:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks promising, I hope your package might also include a reduction of the 70% threshold. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Or abolish the threshold altogether, and give the crats the ability to assess the actual consensus at RfA, weighing the strength of arguements, old school style. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

BWilkins, I'm glad you're taking it upon yourself to draft this proposal. My only suggestion would be to accompany each proposed change to RfA with a detailed description of what problem it is intended to solve. There are a few bullet points in your brief list above that confuse me slightly, but I'd like to see your reasoning for why, for example, it would be good to disallow voting for the first 3 days, or why there needs to be more default questions. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 17:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Scotty...just saw your comments, and I'll take those into account shortly. See User:Bwilkins/RFA2 for my lines of thought - it even links to "core questions", and the talkpage of that is currently available for comments (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

These look like good ideas. I also agree that the threshold may need reducing or doing away with. I am a little hesitant to support the no threading at this time however. If we allow more than one question why would we not allow discussion?--Amadscientist (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Why aren't people participating in Requests for adminship/Northamerica1000?

Just wondering why some wikipans are participating on this talk page but not in an actual RFA? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps because there's no point as the result of that RFA is obvious, and has been for some days; if it was borderline, there might be more of an incentive to comment (in either direction) but I doubt that there's anything new to say that hasn't already been said. Bencherlite^Talk 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no point in piling on opposition to an RfA that is already a foregone conclusion. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 21:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, and I haven't looked to see if it's the case here, but people may skip participating in an RFA if the outcome is clear and they are afraid that by participating, they might create more enemies in the future. MBisanz ^talk 21:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A very shrewd comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC).

Ah, the wonders of Wikipolitics : ) - jc37 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• @MBisanz, Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are saying is that wikipans do not participate in wp:RFAs when they percieve that they may be "punished" for supporting/opposing the wrong candidate? Ottawahitech (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, I think he's saying that when people are certain that there is no possible benefit (to the candidate or the project) from them participating in a particular RfA, but a conceivable possible negative (to themselves and/or the project) from them participating, then they might act (or not act) accordingly. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• It's a mix of A and B. When people are certain that the outcomes they desire will not occur as a result of their participation and they may incur a conceivable possible negative by participating, they will not participate. Put more bluntly, again, I haven't look at this RFA, if people think a candidate and his friends will penalize them for opposing and the candidate is failing, they won't waste their time with an oppose. Also, if they like a candidate and he is clearly failing, they won't support if they think the candidate's enemies will target them later for supporting. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• I didn't because I didn't notice. I had this page on my watchlist, and noticed his name in the edit summary, so went and stated my support. Dream Focus 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• The main reason is time, which I will bring up to reprise a suggestion of mine from before. If I know an editor moderately well, I can do my due diligence with a modest amount of additional work. So I will. If I don't know them, I feel obligated to check a number of things, and that takes time, maybe a couple hours, although this is still surface review. I have so many things I want to do, it is extremely rare I can justify a couple hours taken away from Copyright review, Commons image deletion review or article writing. However, it doesn't take me a couple hours to share my two cents on a proposal in this forum. I've suggested before, and will suggest again, we ought to get organized, where editors sign up to review an aspect of a candidate (e.g. first 2k content edits, second 2k content edits, all CSDs, all AfDs, all ANI comments…) and report results. The current culture that everyone spot checks whatever they choose is mind-bogglingly inefficient.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• 114 people participated. Looking at recent unsucessful RfAs that went the full distance, I see 128 (QuiteUnusual), 74 (Theopolisme), 90 (Kumioko 2) so 114 seems "normal". If you compare to successful RfAs, you see a few that have less than 100 total votes recently as well. The turn out here was very much in the middle of expectations. I would posit that the premise is faulty. We do get a few more votes with successful candidacies, but that is no biggie, it is human nature to want to jump on the bandwagon of a winning team, no harm is done. We discourage people from piling on in an oppose situation, but not in a support situation, for example. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think pile-on support is certainly much less harmful than pile-on oppose. Having gone through two RfA that were clearly failing, one as a candiate & one as a nom, I can say with experience that pile-on opposes are frustrating. AutomaticStrikeout 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is good...

Well, now we're seeing a change. RfA activity is picking up while the activity on this page is in a lull (this post is the first edit on this page in over two days). Maybe Kim's discussion about shutting RfA/RfB down has woken a few people up. However, it won't really help if this is just a temporary thing that dies off after the current RfA are over. We'll need to keep the pace up if we want RfA to actually stay revived (and it would be fun, just for fun, to see an admin try an RfB (why not you, Scotty?)). It's looking good at the present, let's keep it up. AutomaticStrikeout 02:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But my experience is that these things come and go in waves. - jc37 03:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we've definitely been on the decline. The statistics make that quite clear. AutomaticStrikeout 03:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. JC, Why don't you run for cratship?

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jc37 - Someone else also brought it up recently at Wikipedia:Editor review/jc37. I may again, but still thinking about it. In the meantime, I'd welcome your review : ) - jc37 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a great reviewer, sorry. Personally, I feel that everyone should submit an RfA at some point just so that they know what the process is like. I think it would end up being a net benefit because people would remember how they felt about the treatment of them during their RfA and that might affect how they behaved at RfA. AutomaticStrikeout 20:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been through 2 RfAs and an RfB. And I don't necessarily disagree. That said, RfA is what it is. I've seen some where the request sailed through and some where the request was an utter trainwreck. There are a lot of reasons. And I don't think that we can generalise. - jc37 21:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps so. Still, I think someone should try an RfB. There has to be a valid candidate somewhere. AutomaticStrikeout 21:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, is it really true that there were no attempted RfB in 2011? AutomaticStrikeout 21:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Looks like there were two, both of them successful. AutomaticStrikeout 21:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

<*nod*> It's an old trick discovered by User:Radiant!. When a process like RFA is failing, when you threaten to shut it down, sometimes (counter-intuitively) it picks up.

This is only a temporary side effect. There is no guarantee the the underlying systemic problems have magically vanished somehow. :-P

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC) That, and I feel that I'm a really unconvincing boogieman.

That's right. Every so often we hit an arbitrary benchmark, or some event happens that gets everyone here all worked up about the status of RfA, and then we have a brief flurry of RfAs in reaction. We still had an abysmal 1 promotion last month, and we'll have a few more than that this month, but nothing ever really changes. Swarm ^X 18:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@AutomaticStrikeout: Who me? I haven't even been an admin for a year yet, and have very little interest in working at WP:CHU. And even less interest in putting myself through RfA again. I seriously doubt I'd succeed even if I tried. ‑Scottywong| express _ 19:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I probably mentioned you because I've seen your name a lot, particularly on this page. AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Come on Scotty, you would pass RfA. You would get the usual crowd consisting of everyone you've ever blocked, but most everyone else would support you. This is why I like working SPIs, all my blocks are from indef'ed sockmasters who can't vote without being caught ;) I've always thought periodic reconfirmations of 50%+1 would be worthwhile, but I understand and respect the opposition to it. We do have to make contentious calls on a fairly regular basis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

For the most part I generally support people who do content-related work. Those who are willing to work with in SPIs and AIVs will certainly have to deal with a lot retaliation and critism. –BuickCenturyDriver 00:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think oftentimes, the problem is that the candidate is expected to have a lot of experience in a lot of areas. Frankly, I think as long as the candidate would be a good admin in the areas where they intend to participate, that is what really matters. Btw Buick, when are you going to run? AutomaticStrikeout 01:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've eyed it several times, but I have had a few off months so I am probably going to get a few opposes (see my second try). However I am open to a nomination. –BuickCenturyDriver 04:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I have something else on-Wiki that I'm starting to heavily consider right now and I don't really know a whole lot about you. You could always ask someone from here for a nomination. There's definitely some good options there. AutomaticStrikeout 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Nominating people is a good start, but there was a reason there weren't any noms. How to address the systemic issues? The 'current best move' I can think of might be to just talk to everyone who is not properly participating in the process and teach them to do it properly. I mean, what else should we do, not take action where people are clearly misunderstanding the process?

That said, apparently folks don't entirely agree on what the point of the process is. That might need to be nailed down first :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC) It's those finicky little details like "what are we really trying to do here" that tend to trip you up the most O:-)

RFA is highly susceptible to groupthink, so I don't think you can convince people who misunderstand the process that anything is wrong. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, exactly. Wiki processes that have been running for a long time sometimes do fall afoul of groupthink. At that point, so far, we end up having to shut them down. Any solution other than shutdown may have to take the groupthink into account.

That said, a number of editors working together *can* counterbalance groupthink to an extent. Whether or not you can get a sufficient number of people together in this particular case is a different matter of course. --Kim Bruning (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Sergecross73 looks set to get the mop in about a day's time. Basalisk looks to have a pretty reasonable chance for three days from now. And Bgwhite seems set to sail through by 6 days from now short of some kind of explosion. How long will this mysterious good mood last? — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was noticing the positive swing too. Maybe I should try my second run now ? I'm kidding, but even if it's only temporary, we're experiencing a nice change right now. AutomaticStrikeout 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

New chart

As my charting of admin activity enters its fourth year, here is a new chart to debate. Have fun. MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I had noticed that the "number of active admins" has been dropping, but it's interesting to see it as a chart. - jc37 06:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• Would be easier to interpret if the vertical axis started at zero. -- Scray (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Aside from giving us an absolute number this data cannot be interpreted. What is the definition of "active", for example. Average Admin edits per day over time is the only way to determine if there is a reduction in overall Admin. productivity, and therefore the makings of a potential issue, not just a perceived, unproven and unquantified one. Leaky Caldron 14:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with LC - is this active as an admin i.e. admin tasks, or active as an editor in general? I can go a number of days without doing anything moppish, and I'm sure others are even longer (I know one highly active editor who resigned as an admin as he wasn't doing anything with the tools and didn't see the need for them!) but I'm still making upwards of 1500 edits a month. GiantSnowman 14:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't empathise with the uncertainty, as Matthew's definition is explicit in his description on Commons and corresponds exactly to the one provided for the English Wikipedia's list of inactive administrators:

"Using data from RickBot I created a graph of the number of active administrators, defined as having 30 or more edits in the last 60 days, and plotted that over the last several years on enwiki. I had to remove some data points when there were database errors, but the data is included on the talk page for review."

"There are 1,453 (as of now) administrator accounts (active and otherwise), 655 of them active (as of 2012-11-23). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months." Mephistophelian (contact) 15:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC).

And whereabouts on this thread does it state that? GiantSnowman 15:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Nowhere. Presumably Mephistophelian got to that the exact same way I did. By clicking on the image. Not hard, man. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Rick Bot data. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

An explanation from the start would be helpful for the slower amongst us, n'est pas? GiantSnowman 15:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Active editors ≥100 edits/month vs active administrators ≥30 edits/month

• I'm not sure how useful this data is in isolation. I'd like to see it plotted against the number of active Wikipedians as measured at here; although those numbers only offer figures for editors making ≥5 edits/month and ≥100 edits/month, not the ≥30 edits/month used as a metric here. — Hex (❝?!❞) 17:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• In the process of doing this; plotting it against editors who make ≥100 edits/month. ≥5 is far too many editors and that is not nearly enough activity to consider them truly active. The metric of ≥30 edits/month for administrators will stay the same. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 20:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
•  Done Regards, — Moe Epsilon 21:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that this chart assumes that edits = admin actions and it doesn't. Just because an admin is active does not mean they are actively doing administrative things. In fact many to most editors with the admin tools rarely use them. Its the same 50 or so that are the ones doing the admin tasks. Kumioko (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not sure where you come up with the 50 number. However, I just wanted to note that an admin can perform an administrative task without using any tools. I just closed a report at WP:ANEW without taking any administrative action. However, my closure is unquestionably an administrative task.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Different types of Reviews and Checks to be done before nominating someone else for Adminship

Hello everyone. I would like to know that what are the different types of reviews and checks that need to be done before nominating someone else for Adminship ? I see a number of users on Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls which can be quite confidently nominated for Adminship if they agree. Just wanted input from my fellow experienced Wikipedians on different ways on which to evaluate possible candidates, as I think that it would be pretty much time consuming if I were to check each and every edit of people which are typically thousands in number. All kinds of helpful suggestions are welcomed. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Scottywong/Admin hopefuls might be interesting for you. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 16:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Investigating the user's every contribution isn't expected or realistic, and the standards for nomination are indefinite, but you should get a reasonable idea of what you're looking for in §2.3 and §2.4 of the guidance. Mephistophelian (contact) 17:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC).

• See mine if you want another perspective. Pharmboy (alt. of Dennis Brown) 02:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)