Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 239#Revisiting Editor Review

Based on the conversations above, could I get some opinions a process like the below

1. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example
2. Oppose contentious reason User:Example2
3. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example3

===Example RfA with contested vote===

1. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example

{{User:WormTT/Contested vote|vote=Oppose|votersig=User:Example2|comment=contentious reason|user=User:Example4|reason=This vote doesn't meet X requirement}}

1. Oppose non-contentious reason User:Example3

The template needs a bit of work, but what I'm getting at above is the idea that if a vote should be reviewed, it can be temporarily hidden. This would be especially good for insulting votes, if they exist. The vote is still valid, but should reduce pile on. Just putting it out there to get some thoughts Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:First problem - define contentious. Some people think 'not enough content work' is a contentious reason for opposing (it isnt). Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::Discussion going on in section above on that matter, it would certainly have to be defined criteria for where it could be used. Worm^TT(talk) 14:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::If there were defined criteria, would we not simply trust the crats to judge comments against them without the need for other users to point it out? Sam Walton (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::To be honest, I assumed that we trusted crats to judge comments against undefined criteria too. But it seems that the issue raised above is that it can cause "pile-on" opposes. Now, there's an argument that perhaps "pile-on" opposes shouldn't be dismissed, but since we have a limited number of 'crats and only so many look at RfAs before the end, I thought this might be a halfway house. Worm^TT(talk) 14:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::I look forward to the discussion that defines that. If you can manage that, I have a bunch of cats that need herding ;) More seriously, crats currently are trusted to flip the switch and exercise their judgement on consensus when it is contentious (in the wider 'this is an argument' sense. If we start defining what is contentious, it actually limits the crats because at some point someone will say 'thats not WP:contentious so you cant give it less weight'. Even if its obviously a rubbish rationale for a vote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::I somewhat doubt that system which encourages people to contest votes would have any positive impact on RfA process and climate. People contesting GregjackP's very strict RfA criteria only resulted long and angry arguments, which as far as I know didn't result anything productive.--Staberinde (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::Well at the moment the system does encourage people to contest votes. I suspect given the suggestion above by Worm - it will encourage people to contest if the vote is contestable - given the way the average wikipedia thinks. The simplest solution would be to limit people to voting Support/Oppose but only if they provide a rationale for their vote and with a ban on badering voters. Crats are perfectly capable of disregarding 'Support - why not' 'Oppose - too many admins' votes when judging consensus. Remember they are considered to be amongst the most able to make that sort of decision. Perhaps we should give them some of the trust they have already earned. Personally I dont see why we cant do a test run for 3-6 months with a 'no response to votes' rule in place to see if it makes the process easier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::I think it will envelop RfA in side disputes that will only make matters worse, since there are likely to be concerted campaigns to get comments "hidden". Nor do I see any possibility of consensus on the overall concept.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with Wehwalt. This adds a layer of complexity that would only exacerbate the problem. If you want a solution, ban all comments threaded under any votes, and require those who dispute a vote to open a talk page thread to discuss. The badgering of votes is a big part of what makes this process so unseemly. RO^(talk) 17:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Challenges to !votes can be effective and useful. RFA suffers from some very low quality research by voters and if someone doesn't realise that changing magpies from black and white to blue is vandalism then the RFA benefits if that is pointed out. Of course we've recently had some disruptive challengers who tried to change longstanding consensus that a simple support is an agreement with the nominator but an unexplained oppose is an unexplained disagreement with the nomination. But apart from that a high proportion of comments on votes are useful, though I'd agree with moving them to talk when the veer off the topic of the RFA ϢereSpielChequers 21:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::My suggestion might be to use something like ArbCom rules, where there is an absolute character limit on comments that go with !votes, (a smaller limit than arbcom, maybe 1000 characters or ±100 words) and then additional discussion can be placed at talk. Without something to put the focus on the reasons rather than the length, someone who posts a wall of text (pro or con) gets undue weight. This also avoids the problems with conversations erupting at the !vote page and puts too much discretion on the 'crats to move or not move. Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It comes back to how consensus isn't being evaluated appropriately: the focus should be on contesting the relative weights placed on different characteristics of the candidate, not on contesting votes. A consensus view should be determined on the tradeoffs between the positives and negatives of the candidate. To assist this, the Request for Adminship process should be structured to solicit opinions on the relative importance of the candidate's pros and cons. With this approach, there is no need to respond to each individual's opinion; instead, a consolidated discussion can be held to discuss a specific characteristic and how strongly it should be weighed. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:But when an editor posts an opinion or an allegation which potentially has large weight, especially large negative weight, and a different editor believes that the post was inaccurate, or misleading because it lacks proper context, or that it attempts to give greater weight to a circumstance than is deserved, then the second editor will often wish to post a rebuttal or response. Whether this is done in a "votes" section or a "discussion" section, or even on the talk page of the RfA may not matter much, a back-and-forth debate may develop, and often has done so. Such debates are potentially useful, as they may expose facts that will be important to others who wish to opine at the RfA. But they can develop into nasty drama-fests. But when something seems over the line may depend on what side of an argument one favors. Such is human nature, and I don't see a good way to avoid it, although actually enforcing WP:CIVIL during RfAs might help a bit. DES ^(talk) 00:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::Having discussions organized by issue/characteristic/topic is beneficial for a number of reasons. It depersonalizes the discussion, which reduces acrimony. It eliminates redundancy, which has multiple benefits: it makes it easier for people to follow the discussion and for new people to join in, since only one thread needs to be read to become up-to-date. It also reduces the confrontational nature of the process, since the candidate doesn't have to read the same arguments over and over in multiple threads. In short, if we really want the process to be a discussion to reach consensus, let's structure it that way, and follow the same weighing process that all organizations follow when trying to reach a true consensus, rather than structuring it like a vote. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

To make clerking of RfAs easier, I have created a series of templates to mark struck and noted votes:

• {{tlx|RfA discussion moved}} - to mark discussion moves to a RfA talk page.
• {{tlx|RfA no vote}} - to note struck votes of editors who are not allowed to vote.
• {{tlx|RfA sockpuppet}} - to mark sockpuppets.
• {{tlx|RfA spa}} - single purpose accounts
• {{tlx|RfA canvassed}} - to mark canvassing
• {{tlx|RfA inappropriate vote}} - bureaucrats only: to mark struck votes by bureaucrats.

Documentation is too hard to create on mobile devices, but anyone who should be touching these templates would understand their syntax. Esquivalience ^t 18:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:Is it wise to label an editor a sock before an SPI? RO^(talk) 21:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::I don't think that being a single purpose account invalidates a vote or comment. I've seen my share of newly created accounts participate in RfAs and it is up to the Bureaucrats as to how much weight to give their votes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::It is IMO not only unwise but a violation of WP:NPA to label a person as a sock puppet without providing evidence, usually at an SPI. I would not hesitate to remove on sight any use of {{tl|RfA sockpuppet}} that omitted a link to an SPI with decent evidence or a checkuser confirmation, and trout whoever placed it. DES ^(talk) 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::The template does say "blocked or banned", so a positive check or SPI is needed. Esquivalience ^t 00:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough, although I have seen "sock" blocks imposed on basically no evidence, and in some cases later overturned. But such a template should not be used unless a block or ban has actually been imposed, and the template should probably include a link to the block log, or the SPI or both. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:Thanks for doing this, but in most cases I think I prefer this sort of thing to be done manually. Maybe if we had neutral RFA clerks some of these templates could be used, but in their absence, and with few or no crats doing any intervention during the RFA, the risk is that they would add a spurious appearance of legitimacy to sometimes partisan discussion. They also blinker the direction of discussion, for example the canvassing template presumes that canvassing is something done by the candidate. But the biggest recent canvassing issues have involved person or persons unknown canvasing against the candidate by posting links on off wiki sites likely to of interest to people who would oppose the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 23:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::I would perhaps recommend that the canvass template not specify who performed the canvassing. Mkdw^talk 01:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did this notion that we strike, template, hat or fold / spindle / mutilate comments from blocked socks come about? You simply remove them per WP:BANREVERT. NE Ent 02:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:Sometimes, striking the sock is the better option (WP:SOCKSTRIKE), and it still is helpful to mark canceled sockpuppet votes for verification and logging. Esquivalience ^t 02:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

{{ec}}{{ec}}

:::The question of clerking needs to be clarified before the actual methodologies for them are suggested. Keep the templates warm for possible future use but wait for a formal community consensus for clerking. A draft for a clerking proposal was launched on January 18, 2013‎ by {{U|Scottywong}} to invite comment on the clerking system we elaborated together. Consensus was not reached but the RfC was poorly published and IMO the low participation does not represent sufficient quorum for a firm, representative community consensus.

:::I still read recent discussions about Bureaucrat activity as leaning towards general opinion that most 'crats do not wish to entertain additional tasks, the stock phrase used many times was 'That's not what they ran at RfB for.' However, that does not preclude the possibility of a proper consensus being formed from a formal RfC. Like admins however, we cannot force volunteers to do anything they don't want to do, but we do need to ensure that we have enough active 'crata and admins available to carry out essential tasks.

:::And instead of reinventing the wheel each time, our collective memory should want us to examine what has previously been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/1 and the valuable but more general discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2 which were, I believe, initiatives launched by {{U|Dank}}.

:::RfA Questions and voting were discussed at Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Question profiles which can be food for thought again without reinventing wheels. There is also a catalogue here, that dates from January 2011 of some 100 or so questions which are examples of being arguably inappropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Oh, and this needs a good read too - the same issues that have been perennial discussion and recycled here at least every time the page gets archived. It dates from 2006 and absolutely nothing has changed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Last RfA had total 30 questions for candidate, am I only one thinking that this is getting excessive? I think that limit of 3 questions per user would be reasonable, although admittedly I am extremely pessimistic about likelihood of any such proposal actually gaining community consensus.--Staberinde (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:I agree, and think three is too many. I'd limit myself to one per RfA apart from in exceptional circumstances. But I would definitely support a proposal to limit people to three questions each. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::Lawyers sometimes have question limits, and can be inventive. My concern would be the likelihood of lengthy and acrimonious disputes over side issues, with no final authority readily available to rule. And, after all, not getting a question answered can be a ground to oppose.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::Take for example an oppose that goes something like "Oppose. I didn't want to be here. I appreciate the candidate's fine contributions. But their activity in the area of XyZ is very concerning. I sought the information in my question 2A because I needed that information to consider supporting the candidate, and without it must oppose." then when the info is provided say it's not enough to be convincing and the candidate and his supporters stalling on the information goes to character ... you get the idea. It really changes nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::30 questions is definitely excessive, and I would support any proposal to bring this trend under control. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::I don't think 30 questions over 7 days is excessive. In fact, the last candidate complained that oppose voters hadn't asked enough questions, which would have given them more opportunities to explain themselves. As long as admin is ostensibly a "for life" position, we shouldn't limit the amount of information that can be gleaned from RfAs. I can understand a 3 or 4 question per editor limit, but not a total limit. That makes no sense. Imagine editors coming in late to the discussion who have valid questions they'd like to ask, only to be prevented from doing so because the pre-set limit had already been reached. This is also very gamable, because supporters could add easy questions until the limit is reached, preventing opposers from participating. RO^(talk) 17:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::I think it really depends on how repetitive the questions are. If they're thirty different valid questions, I think it's okay. But oftentimes, certain questions are repetitive of other ones. Three questions per user is a bit excessive though, so perhaps two might be better. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::There's a partial solution to the dozens of questions and chasing: if the question is personal and/or is not sufficiently relevant to the RfA or general voting, move the question to the candidate or candidacies' talk page. Some RfA questions are just not relevant enough to be worth putting on the main page. Esquivalience ^t 17:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::::But relevancy is subjective, so it cannot be used as an objective guide to exclude questions. Candidates always have the option to not answer, and that's all we need. RO^(talk) 18:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::::I think 3 questions per editor is reasonable. Of course, editors can find a way to work around a limit by getting another user to pose an additional question but at least a stated limit would send a message. I think if a limit is set, it has to include follow-up questions. Sometimes, an editor poses a question, the candidate answers and then the editor just indents and poses follow-up questions. They should be counted as well. Although I do know a user who traditionally poses four questions of every candidate, they are standard questions and they are not intended to badger a candidate.

::::::::I'll add that it is very interesting to look at old RfAs and see some of the crazy questions that have been asked of candidates (and answered, usually). One I won't forget is the RfA where the candidate was asked, "Do you think it's possible for two editors on Wikipedia to fall in love?" Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::Limiting questions is difficult, though I could go for one question per !voter unless they contain a diff of the candidate's edits from the last three months. I'm not bothered by the occasional surreal question. Admins often have to deal with the unexpected and at least with the If blue was no longer available, what colour would you like the sky to be? sort of question no one is likely to care if the candidate ignores it or answers flippantly, but at least they aren't giving some preprepared answer because they've studied RFA long enough to know the right sort of answer to some of the common questions. ϢereSpielChequers 22:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::Having been the recipient of said 30 questions, my own perspective was that it wasn't the 23 or so questions and followups from different users (and yes, I invited questions, as I felt I should not respond to discussion in the !vote section and minimally at talk), it was the seven questions from a single user, with followups to each, plus discussion at the RFA talk page and further not dropping the stick at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rationalobserver&oldid=681803968#Diffs their own talk page]. Montanabw^(talk) 22:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}

I have to think this is all an artifact of how few RfAs happen these days. In the "old days" when 10-15 candidates were running at once, nobody had time for 30 questions per candidate or 300k of squabbling (or at least all the squabbling would be more equitably distributed). Only rare and highly controversial cases would attract the kind of dynamic that now seems to be happening frequently. You'd certainly get people pursuing personal disputes in the questions section, but with a more fragmented audience it didn't seem to turn into quite so much of a spectacle. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:True, but it's a bit of a catch-22. Maybe there would be more RFAs if the potential applicants didn't expect the Inquisition. Andrevan@ 04:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::If the candidates (and perhaps their nominators) did more homework before running, and listened to the advice of their peers, they would be more aware of their chances of passing or failing. We would then probably see a higher pass rate, less trolling and disingenuous opposing, and in the long run, more canditates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::True, but I think the larger problem is qualified candidates who don't want to go through a rigorous and unforgiving critique simply to gain a few extra buttons. Andrevan@ 06:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I agree. I noted that SilkTork has been reaching out and contacting editors who expressed interest in becoming an admin and most of them are replying, Thanks, but not now or Not interested right now. So, even most of the editors who self-identify as having an interest in being an admin are reluctant to go through the RfA process. For some, maybe they aren't ready yet and need more experience. Or maybe they are waiting until they see that RfAs aren't so adversarial before they decide to become a candidate. SilkTork probably has a better idea on that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::For several years I have been actively attempting to recruit candidates. I am careful to recruit those who like for example, {{U|MelanieN}} and {{U|Ritchie333}}, are practically certain to pass and not attract the wrong kind of votes. Wven so, they still have to be dragged kickig and screaming to RfA. Of the dozens of others I have contacted over the years, some are just not interested in admin work, while the vast majority of them are not prepared to risk being humiliated for 7 days in order to obtain the tools. It's a shame, because as I stated above, their histories are so clean that even the most unpleasant of editors woud have no rason to come along and oppose.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::When I became an admin, there were 3 standard questions that everyone was asked, and candidates were supported or opposed with a comment and some discussion. Maybe the time has come for us to return to having a small set of standard, meaningful questions and prevent random hypothetical scenarios from being asked with the weight of the process. Today, candidates can be asked a long series of complicated and inane scenarios, and they will be opposed for ignoring, deigning not to answer, or even not answering quickly enough. Andrevan@ 00:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

{{outdent|6}} 30 questions over the course of an RfA is ridiculous. Even 15-20 questions is ridiculous. Also 7 questions from the same editor in an RfA (which, IIRC, I've seen more than once this year) is also ridiculous. Forcing editors to jump through 30 flaming hoops in order to get a bunch of extra (non-article editing) work, with a large side of extra grief, is a recipe for no applicants. You want editors to run in an RfA – what's in it for them?! I predict that there will be no RfA's in October, after the 4 flaming car wrecks we had in September. There are multiple solutions to this conundrum, but I still see no evidence that there's any momentum to tackle any of them. It looks like the Admin backlogs are going to have to get a lot worse before there's any movement on solutions here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

: And it only took me a few hours to be wrong! Ah, well... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I have a question: Can this question be added to the perennial/cyclical list of topics that WT:RFA likes to spout on? When I started editing 7-some-odd-years ago on WP, this was being asked on WT:RFA... Editors as above, if they feel the number of questions is inappropriate, should either propose something concrete to reduce them (WP:SNOW), or they should grassroots-it-up and request editors to delete certain questions. And as always, the candidate may elect not to answer them as they are not-so-entirely-optional. --Izno (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The current RfA candidacy is at 31 questions, but does anyone really think they've been asked too many, or that we should stop editors from asking more questions with more than three days left in the nom? RO^(talk) 19:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• If I was running for admin, I would respond to each question with something like "To avoid stress and burnout, I am limiting myself to answering between 5 and 10 questions per day, Your question is 53rd in line." --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:* RfA candidates should announce at the start that they won't answer more than 2 questions for the same editor. I'm still seeing 5+ questions from certain editors, and it's time that kind of thing was nipped in the bud... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I am thinking of exploring possibilities to solve some of the current RfA problems at hand:

• Editors are too afraid to run for RfA.
• Lack of a viable mechanism for editors to assess their RfA prospects without actually running for RfA.
• Editor Review died of inactivity, an avenue where editors could have received valuable feedback.
• Too many questions are asked during RfA (probably as much as during ArbCom elections). Some editors feel intimidated by this.
• RfA are an permanent record that can impact future RfAs. Therefore editors tend be very hesitant, adopting a "all-or-nothing" stance when deciding to run or not.
• But editors want to have some indication of their prospects without leaving a permanent record.

I would like to propose the following:

• Re-open Editor Review as an optional avenue for editors to seek feedback before running for RfA.
• Editor Review to run for 14 days. There will be three sections: (1) RfA Questions (2) Comments/Suitability for adminship (3) Suggestions for improvement
• Anyone can ask questions at the first section as if the candidate is running for a RfA.
• At end of 14 days, the editor review will close unless he/she indicates otherwise. The editor can then decide if he wants to self-nominate, be nominated for RfA or simply walk away without obligation (i.e. no record of RfA).
• If editor has gone through Editor Review for more than 14 days but less than 21 days at start of RfA, editor shall be exempt from any additional RfA questions (other than the standard 3 questions) and the rule is to be enforced. A link to the latest editor review to be put in place instead, where RfA participants can refer to.
• If editor chooses not to go through Editor Review, he will run for RfA as per the usual processes.

I think this allows:

• Editors who are too afraid to run to receive some preliminary, and hopefully constructive feedback.
• A tangible incentive for editors who do not wish to go through the Q&A gauntlet during RfA by going through an alternative process.
• Provide prospective admins a no-strings-attached opportunity to self-assess their prospects without leaving a permanent RfA record.
• Force RfA regulars who normally ask questions to take Editor Review more seriously through the exemption from RfA questions rule, as they are given ample opportunity beforehand to ask questions on Editor Review.

Comments or thoughts on this? - Mailer Diablo 07:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:I'd support this and would commit to doing reviews regularly. I only stopped due to being on Arbcom Worm^TT(talk) 07:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::Not in favour of this and strongly not. I do not want admin candidates to be subjected to yet another set of reviews. The reasons for closing this were its inactivity, that it adds another layer of bureauracy to the site, and that reviews could get quite nasty. I also don't think this will solve the problem (if we agree there is one) that we don't have enough administrators.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:::...in other words, it suffered from the exact same problems as RfA. Reyk _YO! 09:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* Not even it being optional? - Mailer Diablo 10:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:While I'm intrigued by the idea generally, I'm not a fan of the point that "If editor has gone through Editor Review for more than 14 days but less than 21 days at start of RfA, editor shall be exempt from any additional RfA questions". I'm sympathetic to the intention, but can see many issues. First and foremost, we can't expect all editors who are interested in RfA to also be interested in editor review; they may have good questions for an RfA but can't ask them because they happened to miss that editor's review. Second, what happens if a review runs for 14 days but only a couple of editors are active/interested in asking questions? Then we have a situation where an admin candidate may not be asked enough questions for users to make informed decisions. Sam Walton (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::::*Is any !vote that so relies on the Q&A section an informed !vote? !Voters should be assessing the candidate's edits not paying much heed to the Q&A section, except of course those rare occasions where someone asks a diff supported question about recent edits by the candidate. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::*I agree that the questions shouldn't hold too much weight, but it's quite obvious from the number of "[Vote] per answer to question X" votes that I see at RfAs that this would be important to a number of editors who do assign the questions some weight. Sam Walton (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::* The scenario you have imagined is indeed the intention. The exemption is designed in the sense that RfA regulars are supposed to take every Editor Review seriously to ask questions in determining the suitability of the candidate as if it were a RfA. It is a necessary mechanism to drive enough traffic to Editor Review. Furthermore, RfA regulars are offered an opportunity to ask questions without any limitation at Editor Review (just as they do in RfA), and arguably for a longer period. If anyone misses it, then it's pretty much the same thing as missing the 7 day period of an RfA. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have any solution to the problem that caused Editor Review to be closed?

:"This process was never very active—while requests for review always poured in, high-quality responses were uncommon. [In 2014] there were "active" review requests from as far back as late 2012 with no responses."

:--Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::I'm also curious, if we count the ER submissions as unsuccessful RfAs, what happens to RfA success rate over time? Samsara 16:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::: Per the above reply. The former and proposed format is designed to make ER submissions not RfAs. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::::It seems you did not understand my point. When ER was discontinued, any traffic previously going to ER would have shifted to RfA and increased the number of unsuccessful nominations (given that one of the main points of ER apparently was to increase one's chances at a subsequent RfA). Samsara 18:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::::* I don't get what you mean by "count the ER submissions as unsuccessful RfAs". ER has never counted as an RfA. But without any indication of a candidate's prospect, he/she is hesitant to run because he/she is going into RfA practically blind (at one point of time, many candidates felt an environment of massive support during nomination but then experienced rude shocks of reality when the RfA got rolling). - Mailer Diablo 18:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:While I wish everyone participating in an Editor Review could be as neutral as Worm That Turned, I'd be worried that anyone opening themselves for critique in a "Hey, how am I doing as an editor?" kind of way would either get supporters saying superficial comments like, "You're great and easy to work with" along with editors one has had a conflict with saying, "You never apologized for reverting my edit last year, you are not an example of a good editor". I haven't reviewed past Editor Reviews but was there ever a good-sized group of unbiased editors and admins willing to spend time to review the conduct of other editors?

:Your model of having editors who have gone through a review forgo the gauntlet of RfA questions is a novel element that does make this proposal more interesting than simply reviving the review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Well, there is nothing to stop these comments from going into an actual RfA either. Why would be candidates be so afraid to run today? An editor who opposes the candidate in ER for some lame reason is likely to have opposed him/her in RfA anyway, except they are worded in something more palatable. This proposed format is designed for the editor to have an decent gauge of his/her prospects and what might possibly play out if he/she were to run for that RfA. The problem is that many editors do not know, and would not even dare to try. The lack of such a reliable process is akin to trying to predict an election without any use of straw polling or exit polls. We need something where editors feel comfortable of getting feedback from the RfA regulars, hopefully something constructive and a reliable indication on their prospects for RfA. - Mailer Diablo 18:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• This kind of reminds me of the idea of separating RfA into a questions/discussion phase I followed by a voting phase II (that is an idea that I like very much). I am not certain that using Editor Review for this is the right thing, though. —Kusma (t·c) 18:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• I must have missed that proposal. Sounds interesting in that it could reduce heckling in the !voting sections. Samsara 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• What were the downsides raised about this idea? I assume there were some but I've forgotten and it sounds like a good idea otherwise. Sam Walton (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• I love the idea myself. I think the downside might lie in the problem that some candidates might, maybe, make less than accurate statements, and/or that it kind of limits sometimes valuable follow-up questions, particularly for people who may not have seen the separate question page. I might best like a format like AE, allowing responses from the candidate in the separate sections of others, with the questions locked after the appropriate time and the AE "admin only" section more or less functioning as the voting section. Just an idea, of course. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

{{od}}This is an interesting idea, but I would object to making Editor Review into RfA Part 1, and particularly to the idea of barring questions in an RfA if ER has been used. I think the ONLY way ER could work is if a group of experienced editors committed to participate if giving responses. Then it might work sort of like AfC is for AfD, a more friendly preparation stage. DES ^(talk) 00:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• The idea was tried here, but not in pure form -- people did still comment (or campaign) while voting. I think it will be difficult to get people to Just Vote without technical tools (or savage clerking) that makes it impossible to just do what they always did. The main problem with the idea seems to be that the one thing RfA does not need is more questions, so we'd need a different way to structure the discussion phase. —Kusma (t·c) 13:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

So nobody has a plan for addressing the fact that Editor Review got plenty of requests for review but many of them received zero responses? It will never get re-opened without a viable plan to address his issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• The plan is, if a candidate subsequently elects to go through RfA, to shift the Q&A phase of RfA to Editor Review (i.e. a compulsory exemption from additional RfA questions during the actual RfA). The logic is to make the RfA crowd take Editor Reviews more seriously: if the RfA crowd has to ask questions at Editor Review then it is likely that they will also include some form of comments or/and feedback on these reviews at the same time or/and after these questions are answered. For those who do not want to go through ER, they still can choose to go through the usual processes (i.e. RfA questions are asked during RfA).

:From another angle, you can view ER as a form of several admin prospectus that has gone unanswered, and therefore has discouraged several editors from running for adminship; if we really feel that there is an adminship shortage and we do want more editors to run for adminship, then we have to make some serious effort in supporting processes that help these editors to take their first steps towards adminship. - Mailer Diablo 20:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

::Ah. That would work. It would be interesting to see how many candidates choose each path. I like the idea of a first step that isn't quite the hell that RfA is. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Looks to me more like TWO versions of Hell Week instead of one. And I definitely oppose the notion of disallowing questions by RfA commenters if they didn't participate in the ER. Yes, even though I think the question-asking privilege is greatly abused right now. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• ER was so little used it never had any impact on RfA whatsoever. If candidates would simply read all the advice pages first, especially WP:RFAADVICE, an intelligent user who can read English properly would soon know if they are ready for the bit or about to waste their and everyone else's time. Problem is they refuse even to take notice of the in-your-face warning banners we put up at several sages of the tansclusion process. If they refuse to read them, them they will refuse to read and learn our policies to be able to implement them. We hae exactly the same problem with NPPers where we even have a super video to tell them how to do i. 02:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

:* So if an editor of 3 years experience and has 50,000 edits wants to know his prospects of success, what other options has he/she got other than RfA? It is no wonder why everyone wonders no one has the confidence to go for a RfA. (This also applies to MelaineN's comment.) - Mailer Diablo 07:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Unsure if this or WP:ANI was the right place for this comment, but I believe it needs immediate attention nonetheless. Information about the {{u|Thine Antique Pen}}'s age was disclosed on their RfA by {{u|Banks Irk}}. This information was suppressed in March 2012 and per WP:PRIVACY, should not have been brought up again. A reference to the user's age remains in a talk page archive, by a different user, just prior to the suppression and was used as the basis for mentioning it. This skirts around the policy's statement of "... references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing". Considering the age of the user, I believe both the comment on the RfA and the comment buried in the archived talk page warrant immediate deletion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

: I have to say, I find the age of the candidate in this case relevant to the RfA. It probably would have been better if it had been self-disclosed, though, rather than coming out the way it did. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Thine Antique Pen}} What do you think? HighInBC 01:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::High, I hope you won't be offended if Thine Antique Pen decides not to comment at this thread. In his place, with an active RFA underway, I certainly wouldn't comment here. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ping|IJBall}} Age is almost entirely irrelevant here. This is a matter of releasing someone's personal information without their express consent. It's a blatant breach of policy with a weak workaround of it via the archived talk page comment. Age is not an inherent indicator of maturity. I've met many young people who express a far more mature demeanor than "adults". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:33, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::: Some voters will not find age relevant. But some voters will. I'm taking a break from RfA voting right now, but knowing that a candidate was 16 (or less) years old would certainly cause me to think twice before supporting for Admin. (I'd have no problem give the same candidate one of the user rights – but Adminship is whole other level of ballgame...) Anyway, as a potential RfA voter, I'd like to know if a candidate is less that 18 years old. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:This seems quite suspect. Unless the editor(s) who cited it ha(s|ve) a grudge with the candidate, there is little chance that s/he/they would be able to even recall the existence of that archive, yet alone know the candidate's age based on it. Esquivalience ^t 02:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::It is odd that they knew where to find an archive from March 2012, but signed up June 2013. It can be assumed that they are just good researchers? HighInBC 02:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::For what it's worth, I found the same message in the same archive as part of normal research of the candidate. I vaguely alluded to it in my support, but probably would not have commented on their age at all if it hadn't already been mentioned in oppose #1. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::Cyclonebiskit is absolutely correct; this was a violation of policy. And IJBall, I totally disagree that he should have "self-disclosed" his age. We have a right to privacy here, and we choose what we want people to know about us. Most of us don't even disclose whether we are male or female, much less how old we are. I certainly didn't disclose my age at my RfA (and won't now). Maybe my age would have been relevant to some RfA voters; maybe it wouldn't; either way it is none of their damn business. Judge us by how we edit and how we interact, not by information we didn't choose to disclose - and which should NOT have been blurted out by third parties. On the other hand, it's too late now for deletion or oversighting IMO. The cat is out of the bag. I hope the cat likes TROUT. --MelanieN (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::: I think age is only relevant if the candidate is a minor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I doubt I could support a candidate for Admin that I knew was only 12 or 13 years old. All that said, there's no way to "force" such a disclosure from a candidate in the current environment, so I suspect some minor-aged candidates have sailed through RfA's in the past. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I'd guess that quite a few of our more disgruntled users would have quit editing long ago if they had any idea just how many "minors" have passed RfA. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::: {{small|Heh. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)}}

::I'm also in agreement that revealing this information breach of Privacy. The information was suppressed and only later seemingly brought up by another editor some time ago. The fact that it's coming up again here so many years later, speaks against the very intent of what happened and why we have WP:OUTING. Unfortunately the damage is done and this isn't like a legal proceeding whereby it would be deemed inadmissible evidence and any decision around this information be allowed. Mkdw^talk 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I suppose that this is similar to some of the IP/alternate account editing questions that have been asked recently: there's a conflict between disclosing information to the community and allowing everyone to maintain privacy. While I would personally mention my age on an RfA page if I were to request adminship, I appreciate that people—even those trusted with such important powers—should be allowed to maintain privacy. There are some rights on Wikipedia where being 18 is required, but even then this information is only required to be disclosed to the WMF and is then destroyed. Some people don't want to give children the mop, full stop, and that is a perfectly valid rationale, but privacy is important. I think it would help if Thine Antique Pen commented on this, although they are not obliged to. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not sure of what a difference this might make to this discussion. But the "reveal" was a statement made by another editor, not a self-disclosure. And it was a statement buried in the talk page archives of a previous account.
• When I was looking at the deletion log this morning, searching for some information, I discovered that all of these talk page archives from the earlier account had been deleted at some point in the past but were all restored a few days ago, I imagine in light of this RfA. This could only have been at Thine Antique Pen's request so there is a willingness to have these archives available for review. Personally, because the age was mentioned in a random talk page remark, I don't know how much weight to give it or whether age matters if a person is a competent editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::Good job looking that up. If it was inadvertent self-disclosure or third party, I think it should be left up to TAP to quietly approach an oversighter and get the job done - irrespective of whether "the cat's out of the bag" or not. There doesn't seem to be too much damage, so perhaps nobody needs to actually be tarred and feathered, but people should probably not bring it up again unless TAP says it's okay (and of course he/she is entitled to make no comment at all!) Samsara 19:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• I understand the good intentions here but I actually don't think this can possibly be considered outing. First, TAP has been hosting that comment in their userspace for years. They chose to archive it, and to retain it for all this time, and then to open themselves up to intense scrutiny by the community. You cannot pin wrongdoing/invasion of privacy on another person for pointing out a public statement retained in a user's archives. You just can't. Perhaps it was not meant to be public, but it was, thus you can't argue wrongdoing. Secondly, I think we're playing way too fast and loose with the definition of "outing" here. "Outing" is meant to prevent unjustified invasions of privacy, through the non-consensual disclosure of nonpublic personal information, in order to prevent harm; to ensure people's real lives aren't affected by linking their Wikipedia accounts to their actual persons without their consent. We're talking actual personal information, the kind WP:OUTING describes. It is not meant to protect our on-Wiki reputations. Yes, age is kind of personal, but the revelation of roughly how old one is is not the kind of personally identifiable information that actually risks the outing of a person's identity. Perhaps it embarrassed them, or opened them up to unfair criticism, but I don't see any way it risked revealing their identity without their consent, or opened them up to risk of harm of any sort. Not even close. Swarm ♠ 08:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I'm currently doing some research and compiling data on admin-related things, so I was wondering if there is a somewhat easy way to find the total number of admin actions performed in a given time. AdminStats works for most things, but finding the total number of admin actions in a given time frame would be an extremely cumbersome process if you used that. --Biblioworm 02:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Define "admin actions." Do you mean "count of uses of admin-only tools?" Do you mean all of those plus things that don't require tools, such as formal discussion-closures and formal warnings that would be out-of-bounds for a non-admin (e.g. a close-call XfD closed as "keep" or "no consensus")? Do you mean all of the above plus formal discussion-closures and formal warning which would clearly be not be out-of-bounds for a non-admin (e.g. most WP:Non-admin closures) but which, when an admin gives them, may be perceived (or sim-perceived as the case may be) by other editors as carrying more weight? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::To clarify, I meant logged admin actions (e.g., the type counted by AdminStats). --Biblioworm 04:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Perhaps diff various versions of User:JamesR/AdminStats? -- Rick Block (talk) 04:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{u|Biblioworm}}, I could give you the Java script that I used the last time I complied that information for the discussion on your talk page. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Reading some more about this, I gather the overall intent is to figure out which admins are actually doing admin actions. This is almost a perennial request for {{user|Rick Bot}}. I haven't changed the bot to count actual admin actions (mostly due to real world interference), but would be willing to do this if there's a significant consensus that this would be worthwhile. The current "activity" measure only counts edits - not admin actions. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:: Well, I'd support that functionality, FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::It would be interesting if there were separate stats for the past 12 months. Then, it might be debated whether admins who had been inactive in admin actions (not just general editing) should be desysoped. Of course, they could regain the bit on request but it might give a more representative portrait of how many admins are actively doing admin actions. But, as davidwr points out, sometimes admin activities are actually discussions with editors to try to discourage misbehavior or closing XfDs which are not included in AdminStats as far as I know. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::One argument for desysopping inactives is that they may have lost touch with community standards, another is that an account that reactivates after a long gap might not be the same person. Neither argument applies to active members of the community who haven't recently made logged admin actions. ϢereSpielChequers 18:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

: Actually, AdminStats stopped listing the Admins with zero logged actions a few months back, and as a result I find its usefulness has been reduced, as it's no longer giving a true picture of the number of "inactive" Admins. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::Since it doesn't include stats on admin actions prior to December 2004 I would say it never did give a true picture of "inactive admins" ϢereSpielChequers 18:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I used to keep a database of the timestamp of every admin action and who did it. It was part of a sock puppet investigation looking for admins with the same on/off time as each other. The search did not find anything obvious. I had to abandon the tool because the amount of information was getting beyond what my home computer could handle reasonably. It certainly can be done though, if I did it today I would use a cloud database. HighInBC 14:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Probably the best way of getting this information at the moment is to use [http://quarry.wmflabs.org/ Quarry]. I'd ask at WP:VPT to find folks who are good at SQL who can make the queries for you. We don't need a cloud database, as all of our admin actions are in a database already. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Biblioworm}} I put together a sample query on Quarry [http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5601 here] to find the total number of logged admin actions for September (107,318). You can adapt that to any time period you want by creating a new query and adjusting the timestamps. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Also, [http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5607 here] are the total logged admin actions for each month since December 2004, when the data started being collected. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Thank you, {{U|Mr. Stradivarius}}! That is just what I was looking for. --Biblioworm 17:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:(ec) It strikes me that you'd be unlikely to find anything, on the basis that even if an admin is using sockpuppets, it's unlikely that they'd try to get two different administrator accounts. (People are complaining about RfA being hostile; who'd subject themself to it twice?) --ais523 17:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::That was exactly what I was looking for. Didn't find it. HighInBC 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:Worth noting that not all administrator actions can easily be counted. A declined block or speedy deletion request can count as an admin action but it doesn't show up in a log.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::In theory a bot could look at all the user talk pages an admin posted too, compare that to the block log of those users, and then scan just the diffs by that admin during the block looking for addition of the declined template. Because unblock requests are very standardized they should be recognizable. It would take a lot of resources but it would be an interesting stat. HighInBC 17:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::Speedies are like prods, anyone can decline one, not just admins, so very few declines of speedies should count as admin actions. Declined unblock requests and reviews of deleted contributions are definitely unlogged admin actions as will be any responses to {{tl|Admin help}} that don't otherwise result in a logged action. ϢereSpielChequers 18:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{Archivetop|result=Thanks to all who participated. Several ideas were presented that I would not have thought of. However, the discussion seems to be getting sidetracked, with the main point of discussion now being about why we shouldn't be having the discussion. There's really no point in that, so I think it would be best to close it up and move on to the next step. I will formulate the upcoming RfC based upon the ideas and comments here and at a previous discussion we had. --Biblioworm 16:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)}}

As part of Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform, the first part of Phase I is informal discussion as to how our administrator election process can be improved. This 30-day discussion will be followed by an RfC which will draw on the points made in this discussion. Oftentimes, in the past, editors have made proposals suggesting various ways to fix RfA. But the problem is, there are rarely discussions about what is wrong with it. Before we discuss the how of fixing, we must discuss the what (e.g., what should we be trying to fix?). Many members of the community agree that our system for electing admins needs fixing, but there are many different opinions concerning what is actually wrong. Some people feel the standards are too high, others feel that the environment is too stressful, and still other feel that perhaps we should make it easier to remove admins. Some advocate unbundling the tools. Other have even suggested that we scrap RfA completely and come up with something new. I'll start the discussion with these five points. Discussion of the points should go below their respective sections (no voting, please, just discussion). Advocates of the position should feel free to present evidence that supports it, which may be discussed. If anyone else can think of other possible problems, please feel free to add them in the format I added the first five. --Biblioworm 23:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:The community was asked a question very similar to this in August: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 238#RfA: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Future. Mkdw^talk 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:Wikipedia's "Painting the Forth Bridge". Drop the brush. Leaky Caldron 16:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::I am aware of the previous discussion, since I participated myself. However, this is slightly different in that it is part of a more organized effort to reform the process, and is more about discussing problems than simply producing a long list of them. In regard to Leaky's comment: thanks, but no thanks. --Biblioworm 16:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:See also Wikipedia talk:Reflections on RfX, a discussion started by a crat two months ago, which seems to have fallen down the memory hole already. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::As I mentioned earlier, I believe there is a slight difference here because this is part of a staged process. Things are bound to be forgotten if we throw them out there and abandon them with no particular goal in mind. --Biblioworm 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:Why is this Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform called "election". Election implies choice, as in Arbcom election. Approving an RFA is not an election, not in my book. Leaky Caldron 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem only rears its head with bad candidates. Good and excellent candidates have no problem passing RfA. So this is really just a complicated way to let more people pass. RO^(talk) 16:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• :Your argument is essentially this: They failed RfA → They must have been bad. The suppressed premise here is that RfA is infallible and the ultimate and correct standard of who is good and bad. But failed candidates might very well have been good admins. You say that "good and excellent candidates have no problem passing RfA." However, the issue is that our definition of "good" is unreasonable. In the past year or two, I could give you several examples of candidates that failed RfA because of a pile-on sparked by a few (or even one) mistake (sometimes taken out of context), and perhaps I actually will just to prove the point. Candidates that would have been considered "good" a few years ago (been around for a few months or a year, a few thousand edits, generally civil, shows clue) would fail quickly today, probably because they didn't have many years of experience and tens of thousands of edits, or because they made two or three bad (but isolated) mistakes at CSD. Or maybe because they hadn't created enough content or hadn't voted "correctly" at enough AfDs. Or maybe because they hadn't participated in [x] number of administrative areas. The curious fact is that many candidates who passed under the old system went to be fine admins; the majority of them were not desysopped for abuse as people insist would happen if we did that today. Some candidates even passed RfA with a one or two-sentence self-nomination, and it wasn't uncommon to pass with only a year of experience and 5,000 edits or so. Let's face it: no amount of tightening will prevent bad apples from getting through. We have also desysopped admins elected in the period when standards were becoming higher, and in the future we will almost certainly desysop at least a few admins from this period, too. Tightening the standards more will not make any difference, either; people determined to cause trouble will always get through. --Biblioworm 19:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::{{!xt|They failed RfA → They must have been bad ... RfA is infallible and the ultimate and correct standard of who is good and bad.}}
• :::Nope. That's overly simplistic, and not at all what I meant. But that some candidates sail through and others experience an entirely different process does not automatically indicate an inherent issue with the RfA process. I believe {{u|Kudpung}} agrees with this in general. If you had a better pre-RfA screening process you'd see a higher successes rate, but many of the candidates this year have been unsuitable. Maybe there should be a required pre-screening by respected admins and crats.IDK. RO^(talk) 19:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::::I do not think Kudpung agrees with you. He has told me quite plainly that he thinks some change in the process is needed, while you think it is fine as is. A few sections above, he analyzed several RfAs and discussed why some shouldn't have failed (even though they did). You think "most" of the candidates this year were unsuitable, but it has been pointed out time and time again that the percentage of support really has little effect on their subsequent performance as admins. Many who barely passed, and supposedly had many "problems", really never presented a problem at all when they became admins. And in contrast, some editors breezed right through RfA, but became abusive and were desysopped. The fact is, RfA is a horribly inconsistent process that has become more and more strict as time goes on, with no apparent benefit. The number of promotions is beginning to plateau at a mere 20 promotions or so per year. As I mentioned earlier, we cannot expect that the old generation of admins that we still rely on so greatly will last forever. Eventually, the vast majority of them will move on and retire. This is undeniable. The number we're promoting now will be nowhere near enough to keep this website running properly. My charts show that the number of active admins has increased and declined as promotions have increased and declined (see this and this, and note the striking correlation; we're handling over twice as many articles with less than half the previous number of active admins) and I expect the trend will continue. Really, why should we be so paranoid about being a more lenient? What do we really think we'll prevent? Truly bad apples (admins who make tough but policy-based decisions and upset some loud users don't count) get by no matter how hard we make it to pass, after all. Do we really believe WP:AGF (an official community-approved guideline)? As I mentioned above, I will give examples of editors who failed because of some pile-on over a little issue. If you have the right to say that most candidates were bad and deserved to fail, I also have the right to show otherwise. --Biblioworm 20:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::::{{!xt|I do not think Kudpung agrees with you. He has told me quite plainly that he thinks some change in the process is needed, while you think it is fine as is.}}
• ::::::I think they agree that the candidates that are good and solid pass easily, but there are too many that aren't that great. I never said the process was perfect, but I don't see how lowering the standards would improve the process. I'd raise the quality of the noms instead. Like I said, pre-screening, admin academy, one-year mentorships, whatever. Proactively train them so you it's not such a risk when you hand them the mop. RO^(talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush and just call it as it is. RfA is a terrible place. We all know it is. The fact a lot of people were trying to reassure me after I failed my first RfA showed how much of an emotional beating RfAs can do to people. People actually thought I was going to quit Wikipedia because of it. Yes a process that will award the person high power and responsibilities shouldn't be a cake walk. At the same time, it shouldn't also cause a lot of vitriol towards a user for the most subjective things. Even to the point that one of the main reasons someone opposed my nomination was because I didn't have a user page. As well as my signature being red. Might as well not vote someone in just because their username starts with the letter "J".

RfAs aren't the place where you'll have a fun experience and recommend to other people. Its quite the opposite and will probably have you hating other editors for a long time. How to make it less stressful may not even be possible. If anyone has an idea that would be something to hear. GamerPro64 02:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely. RfA needs to be less adversarial in nature and more constructive towards whoever is running for adminship. - Mailer Diablo 03:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Suggestion: give the bureaucrats permission to strike/indent/remove all votes that are clearly not based on the candidate's editing history *cough* ageism *cough*. This would make RFA a less toxic place for all candidates, as the most toxic RFA votes tend not to be based on the candidates editing history. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :But—and I say this as a child—I think that objecting based on age is a valid reason. It is still about the candidate; it might not be fully related to their editing history, but it's still a valid consideration when thinking "can this person be trusted with the tools?" Unless we get a strong consensus that age alone is not a valid reason to oppose, I can't support the idea of 'crats just discounting every opinion based on age. I wouldn't trust any 6 year old in the world with a mop; some people wouldn't trust any 16 year old in the world with a mop, and that's fine. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::If there are reasonable concerns about the persons age then that should be demonstrable using their contribution history. If it cannot be demonstrated by their editing history then I would say it is not a reasonable concern. HighInBC 15:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::That analogy doesn't represent this situation. A closer analogy would be to ask, would we trust a 6 year in the world with a mop, if they had years of experience and hundreds of hours using a broom and not really having any difficulty with the broom? Sure the mop is a little different. Your analogy runs on the assumption that the 6 year old cannot use mops because they'll hurt themselves. It doesn't account for the fact that we have evidence that they wouldn't hurt themselves because they've been using similar tools successfully. Age prejudice is about concerns, but when there's no reason for the concern then it becomes unreasonable. Mkdw^talk 14:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::What Mkdw said. If we give as much wait to stereotypes and prejudices as we do to evidence in the form of diffs and contributions, then we are heading down a very dangerous path. The reasoning behind the ageist !votes seems to be: Most teenagers are not mature and responsible enough for Wikipedia adminship (which I admit is likely true, but most teenagers don't edit anyway) --> The candidate is a teenager --> Therefore the candidate is not suitable for Wikipedia adminship. If we replace teenagers with any other broad category of people (or even just "people"), then the premises still hold true, but the conclusion is at least ridiculous. FWIW, if an adminship candidate claimed that they were six years old, I'd probably assume that they were a much older person pulling our legs. But if I knew for a fact that they really were six, then I would quite possibly support, assuming that they had somehow managed to make thousands of productive edits, not shown any blatant signs of immaturity, etc.
• ::But anyway, my proposal doesn't apply solely to age; that's just the example that inspired the proposal, as well as perhaps the most common oppose that isn't grounded in contribution history. It could also be used to deal with opposes based on nationality, or political views, or disability, or academic credentials. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Sometimes I wonder if part of the issue here is that there is no method to remove editors who persistently degrade the quality of discussion in any way other than by bickering until they leave. Heated arguments are frequently sparked by poorly argued comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The system we have now (letting ArbCom deal with removing admins) is primarily a result of the abuse potential from any recall attempts. We already have a system set up for recall (see WP:AOR) however it is completely voluntary and I understand that. Admins are naturally going to be the target of abuse. There will always be bitter people who had their article deleted, or were blocked, or where simply reprimanded for doing something wrong. If we truly want to take the power away from ArbCom and have a mandatory recall system put in place there must be restrictions in order to limit the potential for abuse. Edit count restrictions must be used to prevent sockpuppetry (in fact a permanent semi-protection of all related recall pages should be in place). I do believe that recall should be an option. The community giveth, the community should be able to taketh away. However, restrictions need to be put in place to prevent abuse. Recalls should be rare occurrences and should only result when all other avenues of dealing with the situation have failed.

Just giving an example of how recall would work in my mind. It would consist of two stages. Stage I would be the petition stage and would be the most restrictive. Say 10 editors would have to sign a "petition" asking for a recall election and all ten would have to have 500+ mainspace edits. The petition phase would last no longer than one or two weeks to give experienced editors who may be on wikibreak time to look at the evidence while still restricting the amount of time it can be dragged out. If stage I is successful, it would move to stage II which would essentially be a reverse RfA. However, there should still be restrictions put in place. Say, 150+ mainspace edits to !vote. If there is consensus for removal the tools will be removed. If not, the removal issue is dropped. In addition, there must be some sort of double jeopardy system set up to stop repeated attempts to recall regarding a single issue. Double jeopardy would attach the moment stage I is started and if the petition stage fails the issue cannot be brought up again. I feel like restrictions like these are necessary to prevent (or at the very least limit) abuse of this system. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:Numerical restrictions are not a good idea. They really do not filter at all for abuse - plenty of troublemakers are old time editors. I'd rather recommend to stipulate that for the Stage I a) editors involved in disputes with the admin in question (including all non-accidental blocks and sanctions) may not participate in the first stage at all, b) each editor must explain upon request why they are making their stance, c) votes made in violation such stipulations must be removed from the vote page and may not be reinstalled without a consensus that they belong and d) while editors participating don't need to be perfect, they may be banned from voting if they keep making trouble. Sort of the same policies that apply to administrator actions.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mandatory recall proposals such as this one suffer from the flaw that they make it easy for disaffected users to get back at admins. Imposing edit count restrictions isn't going to help, there are plenty of areas where even good admin actions tend to annoy experienced editors. A proposal like this would lead to far fewer admins willing to help out with making controversial decisions, and may even lead to fewer people wanting to become admins. Nor would this address the real problem with RfA. If the drop in promotions since 2007 is because people are worried about not being able to remove admins then I would expect that it has become much harder to remove admins since 2007. That isn't the case. Hut 8.5 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::Every time someone suggests it is too hard to get rid of problematic admins I ask the same question. Who are all these admins who should be desysoped but the present system is failing to do so? Not once have I gotten a good answer to that. HighInBC 21:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I never suggested it was too difficult to get rid of problematic admins. We have a process for that and it goes through ArbCom. While that is still technically a community decision as ArbCom is elected by the community it seems as if the community does give up some of its decision making power in this area. Is that an acceptable course of action? Perhaps, but having a discussion about it is not going to hurt anyone. Frankly, I see the availability of recall as more of a psychological plus than something that will be used very often, if at all. Just as right now, ArbCom removal is a rare process (as it should be). I have seen plenty of people complain that adminship is a "for life" position even when it is clear that it isn't. Putting a stop to those complains can only help. I do find it interesting that 175 admins have marked themselves as open to recall already so the idea of recall is present. I think the issue some people have with that is that the process is not being applied evenly across all admins. Voluntary recall is creating a two-tier system with admins. Those that would be open to it and those that require an ArbCom decision for "involuntary" removal. Whatever option is being used it should be applied evenly. Fair points on the edit restrictions, that was just a thought on the possible restrictions that would have to be in place for recall to be an acceptable process. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:I once considered presenting a similar system (drafted at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul) but I've since been moved somewhat off the idea by compelling arguments against it. –xeno^talk 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal based on the idea that the admin job can be separated into "janitorial" jobs (deleting patent nonsense, blocking IP vandals, semiprotecting pages under IP vandalism attacks) and "policing" jobs (protecting pages in edit conflicts, deleting pages after contentious AfDs, blocking established contributors). I believe the popularity of this proposal is based on the idea that many RfA voters are happy with having more janitors around, but do not trust candidates with powerful tools that have major irreversible social consequences like the ability to block longtime users. The main problems from a practical point of view are deciding by technical means which actions fall into which category, and that the tools are not easily separated. There are problems that require (for a correct treatment) access to blocking and protection, others that require view deleted and blocking, others that require deleting and protecting, others that require deletion and blocking. I have not yet seen an unbundling proposal that convincingly addresses these points. —Kusma (t·c) 06:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• There have been several unbundlings so far, most significantly of Rollback. I think the common factors in successful unbundlings is that they were simple, only involving one bit of the mop each time; There was a clear need from people who wouldn't all pass RFA; And there was a non-trivial number of potential users; the unbundlings that got consensus and were implemented have all been successful, at least in the sense that no-one is coming here seeking consensus to end the unbundling. By contrast the many unbundlings that have not had consensus have tended to be complex - usually combining several bits of the mop to create some sort of admin lite role; One of the criticisms of them has been that anyone ready for that package should really become a full admin. I believe there are two worthwhile unbundlings that we could pursue; Limited "delete own work", which has already achieved consensus once but not found a willing tech to implement it (anyone could delete certain pages via U1 or G7, with exceptions for pages that had been moved, and in the case of G7 not pages that others had edited unless they'd flagged those edits as minor); and a block newbie/IP for vandalfighters who lack the content contributions needed for the mop - or who for whatever reason we wouldn't trust with the deletion button or the ability to block the regulars. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Ooo! That last suggestion is a good one – "delete" pages in your own Userspace seems like it should be a no-brainer. Has anyone looked at the technical aspects of being able to implement this? Has anyone asked the WMF about it?... Still, in terms of the workload reduction you'd see for Admins from this, I've got to think it would be very, very small. But I don't think that's a reason not to pursue this idea as it seems straightforward and kind of an obviously good idea. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::*Delete own userspace and for that matter {{tl|db-author}} would be easy to with an appropriately-programmed adminbot:

:::*{{tl|db-author}}: If there is no edit history other than the requester AND there is no log history indicating page-moves or deletions by anyone other than the author, AND [insert other safety checks here, such as no incoming redirects or deletions thereof], admin-bot-delete it, otherwise toss it into an admin queue.

:::*{{tl|db-user}}: IF the user has never been renamed AND the page has never existed outside of this user's "space" (and never been in the user's talk space) AND the page is newer than the user AND [insert other safety checks here, such as other editors editing the page], admin-bot-delete it, otherwise toss it into an admin queue.

:::The only reason NOT to ask for community approval to write and use these bots is if the cost of writing and maintaining the bot outweighs the benefits to the project. In other words, if these areas are never backloggged then "why bother" writing the bot.

:::Minor disclaimer: I am a proponent of using adminbots to unbundle tools when it can be proven that the bot won't take any elevated-user-rights-required action that a competent admin who wasn't asleep at the wheel would do in the same circumstance AND when the effort of creating and maintaining these bots will pay off in the long run. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::::These speedies are part of the CSD queue, so automating them would take some pressure off an area which often gets backlogged. I'd prefer that we do so by actually offering people a delete button which appears on pages that they would be qualified to delete per either U1 or G7, but an adminbot that ran frequently enough would delete thousands of pages per annum. Someone did some back of the envelope calculations a while ago and worked out that it would likely give us the equivalent of an extra successful RFA per annum in that such a bot would do as many deletions each year as the average admin does actions in their career. I'd add that there is no real judgment in the cases that are so straightforward that a bot could do them, so we'd be increasing the proportion of interesting and meaningful admin work amongst the remaining speedies. NB When considering a G7 request I'd suggest the bot ignore any edits by other editors that are flagged as minor. ϢereSpielChequers 03:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::The ability for non-adins to delete items in their user space has been suggested on multiple occasions. One issue that these suggestions usually overlook is how this new ability will interact with existing capabilities. Combining WP:Pagemove with the ability to delete items in your user space provides equivalent functionality to full deletion capabilities. Grant this proposal and deletion of all those nasty WP:IDONTLIKEIT articles is accomplished by simply moving them to your user space where you can purge them from existence at your leisure. --Allen3 ^talk 09:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::: Couldn't we just block somebody that tried that? I admit that arguments that rely on a situation that will happen much less that 1% of the time don't hold much resonance with me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Pretty sure these concerns can be addressed in the programming of the bot, as laid out above, "the page has never existed outside of this user's "space"" for example. Sam Walton (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::Yup. the bold part of anyone could delete certain pages via U1 or G7, with exceptions for pages that had been moved, and in the case of G7 not pages that others had edited unless they'd flagged those edits as minor, should stop people from moving articles to their userspace and then deleting them. Of course if we had a rogue admin doing that we'd block then PDQ and emergency desysop them as fast as we could find a crat or steward, and no we shouldn't unbundle something that anyone do that. We could of course make things a little more sophisticated and for example ignore moves within their userspace including as part of a rename. But the spec I outlined would be a safe and simple solution that would achieve 90% of the utterly uncontentious U1 and G7 deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 16:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• We can make policy changes that reduce the strain on admins without actual tool unbundling. Allowing non-admins in good standing to close AfDs as "Keep" or "No consensus" is one; putting TfDs closed as "delete" into a holding cell is another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:*I think WP:Non-admin closure already covers most no-judgement-required "clear keep" closes and some "TfD delete" closes. I think you will get pushback if you allow "any uninvolved editor in good standing" to make the sometimes-difficult call between a "nearly a consensus to delete but not quite" and "barely enough consensus to delete" call if he's leaning toward the former. You might also get some pushback if you let "any uninvolved editor in good standing" make the call between "barely a consensus/keep" and "almost a consensus to keep but not quite" as the former is a "final action" which prejudices against immediate re-nomination. On the other hand, I think you would get support for allowing "any uninvolved editor in good standing" to make a "clear delete/put in a holding pen" decision or a "relisted multiple times, insufficient participation to form consensus" close (which may already be covered by WP:Non-admin closure - my memory is hazy). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• It continues to amaze me that people continue to think the "one size fits all" nature of Adminship is a good idea to be the primary "management structure" of this project. Biblioworm's overall data show that this approach is unsustainable, and yet almost no one seems to be willing to admit it. I personally believe that "unbundling" is ultimately inevitable – the only question is "when will it happen?" and "how bad will things around here get before the WMF and the old-timers around here finally admit that it's the only solution?". At least two more "unbundlings" – Page Protector and Page Mover – could probably be brought in to operation within the next year if there was any will for it (Vandal Fighter and XfD Moderator are far more contentious and complex "unbundles" for which there clearly isn't the stomach for yet). Eventually, Admins will evolve to a role more akin to Bureaucrat (doling out user rights, and probably doing really sensitive functions like revdel and SPI). But when we get to the point when we have only 100–150 active Admins left (and that day is coming sooner rather than later), a combination of more bots and unbundling will be the only practical solutions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :What should a "Page Protector" be allowed to do? To handle WP:RFPP correctly, they need access to the block button. Or do you suggest that if they stumble upon a single vandalising IP, they should semiprotect the page for 10 minutes and run off to WP:AIV? Now instead of one admin working on the request on one noticeboard, it takes a PageProtector and an admin working on two noticeboards. Not very helpful. Also, if IPs and registered editors are engaged in an edit war, the article needs to be fully protected, not semiprotected. Should your Page Protectors have that right? —Kusma (t·c) 20:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :: I've made my views clear on this before: "unbundling" will not eliminate the need for Admins – the idea is, instead, designed to alleviate some of the current Admin workload. Editors with Page Protector rights wouldn't be able to solve all of the reports at RfPP, but they could handle semi'ing and Pending Changes protecting. In those situations where a block is more appropriate, they could simply leave a template that would highlight that suggested action for an Admin, who would then block. (Hypothetically, a veteran editor with both Page Protector and Vandal Fighter rights could potentially in fact handle both situations.) Again, "unbundling" is about "spreading the load", not about solving all problems at once. As for whether Page Protectors should be allowed to "fully protect" – that's a discussion that should be held when the proposal is actually put forward. (Personally, I don't see a problem with Page Protectors being able to fully protect (acknowledging that only an Admin would be able to unprotect such a page), but I suspect the current Admin corps would object to Page Protectors being able to fully protect, so such a right will probably be restricted to semi'ing and Pending Changes protecting.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::Appointing more admins is a significantly more powerful and conceptually much simpler way to spread the load. As a current admin, I object to Page Protectors not being able to delete or block, but I have no problem with them having all protection levels at their disposal. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::: Yes, but the issue simply is this: "more admins" simply isn't going to happen. We now have 5+ years of data showing us this. Incremental changes to RfA just isn't going to make Adminship more attractive to many. That's why other solutions are gonna be required – some veteran editors who have no interest in admining might be interested in smaller portions of the toolset. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::::I am afraid that unbundling the tools may mean that "more admins" is going to become even less likely to happen. And I am not going to give up hope. All it needs is 100 more people like me who attempt to vote support significantly more often than not. —Kusma (t·c) 14:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::::::That obviously happened with the unbundling of Rollback. I suspect it is a risk with any unbundling, a candidate who ran now solely on the basis that they were qualified to edit protected templates would be referred to the Wikipedia:Template editor userright, If they'd run before that RFA reform of two years ago they might have become a full admin. I think we can mitigate this risk by only unbundling userrights where there is a clear need from people who don't meet the de facto criteria for adminship. And especially by avoiding the sort of admin lite proposals where a Proxmired set of admin tools would be given to people who now would pass RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 08:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is a non-starter and a waste of time. The tools will never be unbundled because that would water down the power of adminship, which current admins will never allow. If you voted on this and disallowed admins to vote, you'd see different results, but there are more than enough admins to block this proposal, so discussing it is an empty time-sink. RO^(talk) 17:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:* I'm not sure this is completely true... I agree with you that a wide-ranging, all-encompassing "unbundling" proposal would fail right now, for the reasons you state. But more targeted proposals might pass. For example, I have yet to see a single Admin come out and "oppose" the concept of Page Protector (several have expressed what I'd call "procedural" concerns, but no one's come out and said that they'll reflexively oppose it). Page Mover is a little more complicated, but if a technical solution for the "delete just redirects, but not articles" issue could be worked out, I get the impression that opposition to this one would melt away as well. Vandal Fighter is a bigger stumbling block (it didn't help that the proposal at the start of this year for this one combined Vandal Fighter and Page Protector rights, making it a bigger target for opposition). I currently have little hope for XfD Moderator, but a couple of more years of backlogs there may bring people around – we'll see. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:24, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::*{{u|IJBall}}, I'm sure it's not completely true either, but a good way to test it would be to select the least contentious tool and see if you can unbundle it. If that works, try the next least contentious tool and repeat. RO^(talk) 22:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* I'm thinking about it (which really means I'm thinking about researching the idea...), but I can't move on this until November or December, at the earliest, as I've got too much going on at work right now... --IJBall (contribs • talk)

WP:Admin says {{tq|A discussion (not a vote) takes place for seven days about whether the candidate should become an administrator... An uninvolved bureaucrat then determines if there is consensus to approve the request.}}. WP:Consensus says {{tq|Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.}}

Anywhere else on Wikipedia if you make an argument that does not have a basis in policy this is challenged by other users. Closers ignore arguments with no basis in policy. If we are to maintain the high bar of entry we have now then we need to start defining exactly what is wanted in an admin and what is not important. Right now we have a half dozen small groups who will oppose a candidate for one reason or another when these reasons have no basis in policy. A candidate should meet the expectations of the community at large, and not have to worry about people with agendas that don't enjoy consensus.

I think the community needs to decide and describe clearly what the criteria for being an admin is, perhaps at Wikipedia:Criteria for adminship. Criteria that cannot find consensus in policy should be given far less weight than criteria that can find consensus in policy. Just like in AfD an argument not based on policy should not be given as much weight. RfA is in trouble because consensus is meant to be ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and that is not what is being done.

If AfD were run that way we would be entertaining "I like it" and "I don't like it" votes. We need to make RfA less like a vote. HighInBC 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:That's an excellent point. We seem to be vastly more tolerant of "personal standards" (even admittedly irrational ones) at RfA than, for instance, at AfD, where comments starting with I require have minimal influence over the discussion. Standardized criteria would certainly help to alleviate some of the discord. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I strongly disagree. Criteria is easily gamed, and historically we had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=500809531&oldid=500759453 disastrous results] when crats choose to ignore some arguments/!votes/opinons over others. This is the one single RfA that broke the entire process (it "transitioned" from voting into !vote/opinons/whatever you call it), and I can completely understand why some RfA regulars will tend to err on the side of caution. We went through an era where bad admins were so difficult to remove and ArbCom had several resulting cases, that standards for RfA were significantly increased. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• A huge part of the discussion in many RFAs is about the criteria for adminship rather than the candidate. Moving to a defined criteria would be a good step, but not an easy one. There are a string of issues where consensus is probably not that they should be criteria for adminship, but there are vocal minorities who will oppose because the candidate is under 18, doesn't have an FA etc etc. The difficulty will be in getting consensus that all of those arguments can be discounted. Once you have set the criteria though you have a mechanism to prevent standards creep, at present as soon as 30% are willing to oppose over something it is de facto part of the criteria. If you move to a defined criteria you need consensus to change it, a much steeper test than 30%. ϢereSpielChequers 03:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Forming an opinion on whether someone will be a good administrator is inherently more subjective than whether an article is notable or not. People do debate about the reliability of particular sources and have their leanings towards inclusionism, deletionism, mergism, etc. but the discussions on RfA are more diverse and complicated overall. Gizza ^(t)(c) 05:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Some form of voting is always going to happen, essentially because this is on some level a personal decision on whether you trust somebody not to abuse the tools. That can't be measured by "criteria". But a general agreement that personal requirements (FAs, namespace balance, numerical nonsense like "correct AfDs") should not be used could be helpful, as currently half of the discussion is about such opposes that are independent of a candidate's suitability for adminship. —Kusma (t·c) 06:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think the problem with RfA is not that some people oppose based on featured content, CSD/AfD stats for candidates who don't want to work in deletion areas, number of edits to whatever admin-related board, age, ancient block logs etc., but that so many people oppose based on things like this. (I've omitted namespace balance from this list on purpose because I just can't bring myself to say that it's a valid oppose reason.) The people who vote at RfA are all choosing to vote themselves, so there's a selection bias. We don't have a stratified sample of the community. So when we get small groups of people opposing for reasons that most Wikipedians would consider insignificant, that's where the problem occurs. And the problem with trying to be selective with criteria—"this thing is a valid reason to support; this one isn't"—is that you'd just get the same people contributing to any discussions at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for adminship or wherever else you determine which criteria are fair and which isn't. And if you're still letting people vote based on the criteria, you'll still get some rules overrepresented and some underrepresented. So I don't think a firm list of valid criteria would help; the only system that would fix the problem would be having completely fixed standards and no vote at all, but that brings in more issues than it solves. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Per WP:NOTLAW, "...the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." In other words, policy is based upon established practice rather being given to us on tablets of stone. The current process has evolved rather than being designed by some superior being. The process of evolution is still continuing - there is a developing tendency to move extended discussions to the talk page, for example. So it goes. Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I still think a set of "minimum standards" for running in an RfA is a good idea – for one thing, it would eliminate basically all WP:NOTNOW filings. But something like 5,000 or even 3,000 mainspace edits – just setting that as a minimum – would help. Because, without this, the "in practice" minimum standards keep ballooning, and it currently seems like anyone with less than 20,000(!) edits has no chance of passing an RfA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• The problem with RfA, obviously, is that other people have unreasonable expectations. My own expectations, on the other hand, are simple and uncontroversial and really should be codified as basic requirements. There oughta be a rule that my standards are Good and Right and other people's standards are Bad and Wrong. Hey, um, wait. I think you made a typo when you wrote down the rules. You put his standards in instead of mine. That's wrong. No fair. So, what are all those pitchforks for, anyway? Um.... Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think that setting definite criteria would help. The analogy to AfD is a good one. That process has clear standards most people agree on, and anyone who advances an argument not grounded in those standards knows it is likely to be discounted entirely by the closer. Imagine what it would look like if we had no notability criteria, everyone had a different opinion on what makes a subject notable, and people with ridiculous standards had to be taken seriously. I'm sure that getting consensus on what makes a good admin candidate would be difficult, and the criteria would necessarily be vaguer than our notability guidelines, but insisting that people stick to agreed criteria would reduce standards inflation and give bureaucrats clear authority to disregard bad arguments. Hut 8.5 21:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought about this and we don't have a lack of defined standards. The WP:ADMIN policy does give some clear standards for being an administrator, I have started an essay: Wikipedia:Criteria_for_adminship. It is very crude and I know it needs work, anyone is welcome to pitch in. The idea is to start with a clear idea of what existing standards/criteria already exist. It needs more content, some prose, and perhaps a better title but I think this is good information to gather in one place. I welcome anyone to build on it. HighInBC 17:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Given how marred your previous poll was by heckling of opposes (including by you, especially), I don't see that you've achieved the kind of validation needed to take this to any next step. Samsara 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• The opposers were just as welcome to "heckle" the supporters, but that isn't even the right word to use. This is an open discussion forum; as long as there are no personal attacks, editors are welcome to voice whatever opinion they please. If you can show me any place where I made a real personal attack (honest criticism doesn't count), I will strike it and apologize immediately. But all I actually did was attempt to show the errors and inconsistencies in some opposers' reasoning, supported by my interpretation of the data, and they replied and tried to do the same. You are welcome to your opinion that RfA needs no change, but if there was really nothing wrong there wouldn't be a quarter of a thousand archives for this page (all of which are filled with discussion about improving the process) and several previous high-profile reform efforts. Even some of those who opposed my RfC said that some change was needed. (One happens to be a very vocal advocate of easier desysopping procedures, another admitted the standards were outrageously high, and a few others said they would support unbundling.) Not to mention that the number of active admins has plummeted since 2008 (coinciding with the sharp drop in promotions), and desysoppings are outpacing promotions by 400%. Some editors quit because of their bitter experience at RfA. Wikipedia would have been a miserable flop if RfA had been the same back then as it is now. Yet some still insist that everything is well and dandy? I suppose they're entitled to their opinion, but I suspect that you will get only a small group of supporters. Anyway, I'm not going to allow a small group to hinder my efforts to contribute to some much-needed change. I won't be commenting here any further, since my efforts will be concentrated on the above sections where discussion about change is taking place. --Biblioworm 03:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I've already [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_adminship&type=revision&diff=684493125&oldid=684488204 answered] your narrow interpretation of the data. And as for {{tq|I'm not going to allow a small group to hinder my efforts to contribute to some much-needed change}}, what exactly do you mean? Samsara 21:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm only replying and making an exception to my statement that I would not do so because of the insinuation that I could be making a threat. To make this very clear, I'm not. The proper interpretation of my statement is, "If a small group that is plainly a minority tries to halt reform efforts, they won't be withdrawn because of it." Simple as that. --Biblioworm 22:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

After twelve years of attempting to reform RfA, barely anything has changed for the better. Many of the complaints and greviances here were mostly perennial and not new. Virtually every RfC or proposal here has been considered about a dozen times in the past. Nothing is happening.

If the community wants to reform RfA, which it obviously does, it should, instead of placing every single barely-vivid thought about RfA into this already-flooded talk page, in one place, find problems with the process, sieve those problems to filter out problems that aren't really problems, brainstorm possible solutions, considering the majority view while respecting the minority, and finally, trying them out (many fear that bad trials can adversely affect RfA and editor retention, but this won't be much of a problem if done in phases.) Most importantly, debate/discussion should be managed to keep it productive.

{{noping|Biblioworm}}'s project to reform and other discussions such as WP:RFA2011 are not as out of order as the grievances and perennial proposals posted on the talk page, but they are still affected by needless argument and heckling, and forget one major aspect: the positives and non-problems (i.e. what we should not be trying to fix) about RfA. Reform, resolution, and improvement not only comes from considering the negatives, but considering the positives as well. Some problems commonly conveyed on this talk page about RfA aren't quite as big as a problem as the respective proponents claim, and may even be positive and keep RfA in order.

If we want to improve RfA, we need to improve improving RfA. Esquivalience ^t 22:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:You have excellent points, Esquivalience, and I'm trying to do much of what you suggest. This very discussion we're having now is part of my project to reform RfA. In fact, it follows the exact pattern you outlined. The purpose of this discussion is to identify the problems with RfA. (Although we might perhaps move it to its own subpage of the reform project.) These problems will be sifted through in the RfC which will start on November 15, as you suggested. Then, basing the efforts upon the issues that attained consensus, we will attempt to find solutions. The project is also organized into phases, as you recommended. In regard to recognizing the non-problems, that is the intended purpose of the upcoming RfC. And I do recognize the positives of the idea of RfA itself. It is good that the community has a say in electing its admins, rather than elections being the responsibility of an elite group. But the process has become worse over the years and needs fixing. The majority of the community agrees with me; anyone will be hard-pressed to produce evidence of consensus that everything is completely fine as is. --Biblioworm 02:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

However, the community has been at consensus for years about what is wrong with RfA. We really need to put a stop to these endless and tiresome RfC about trying to fimnd out what is wrong with RfA and instead finally do something concrete on the lines that address the problems that have already been identified a hundred times over. Otherwise, all these new 'proposals' are beginning to sound like nothing other than people wanting RfA made easier so that they can get the bit without having to face the process that all we current admins (and those who failed) had the courage to do. Moreover, it has been pretty well documented that those who failed would have failed under any system; either they were not ready for adminship, or they were too stupid to realise they neede to read up on it first, or they were considered too young, or the community just did not want them.

All we need to do is to come down vert hard and T-ban the voters who appear to regulalry oppose for the fun of it, can't behave themselves, or are clearly not qualified to vote. 'That's' what we need to address now, and it won't be achieved by introducing some new, half baked system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:"Clearly" is what is the problem here. I think the age-related opposes are clearly off-topic and thus worthless. Others clearly believe they are making a valid contribution. Who decides? —Kusma (t·c) 09:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::Admins routinely have access (if not at the oversight level) to problematic deleted/removed material. They also are called upon to take admin actions in areas which potentially could contain material which should not be accessible to minors. You might think age-related opposes are worthless, but its a legitimate objection to not want children in positions of power over others and have access to restricted material. Wikipedias boards resemble lord of the flies enough already. Not to mention the average emtional maturity level is already in some areas is hovering around 15... The marker between 'is this a legitimate objection?' and 'this has no basis' is obvious. Are they able to articulate a sane reasonable argument for their position? Then its a legitimate objection. If their reason was 'I dont like young people' you might have a point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:I've seen no consensus or even near agreement as to exactly what is wrong with RfA. I've seen many people assert that different things are wrong at different times, generally with some agreement. Feel free to point me to that consensus Kudpung Worm^TT(talk) 09:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::'Consensus' does not need to be something that is found in a violet coloured RfC with a neat box in the top right hand corner with a summary written up by someone uninvolved. It can be the sum total of the hundreds of comments left in varioius fora or mentioned on many Signpost articles. I maintain as always: Fix the voters and RfA will fix itself. I fail to understand why absolutely nobody is willing to put any suggestions at all to a formal RfC and find out what happens. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I certainly agree with the statement that consensus does not need to be tied to a RfC with a neat box, but without that RfC, it's a lot easier to have confirmation bias come into the picture. "Fix the voters, save the world" is a great slogan, but from what I've read there isn't a consensus that it's the solution. Devil's advocate bit over, I do happen to agree that putting the onus for change on the voters is a good idea and I'm currently considering drafting something to formalise an improvement to RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 07:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::::{{U|Worm That Turned|Dave}}, I've been following all things adminship with an almost obsessive compulsion for over six years and I've been an admin with no vested interest in reform for five of them. I am absolutely sure that the overall consensus that can be extrapolated from all the talk and the emails, and the meet ups, is that the oppose voting is so unrefined, callous, and downright nasty, that people are not prepared to run. It's that consensus that needs to be expressed once and for all through an RfC that ptoposes a solution, such as introducing minimum quals for voters, regular clerking, and regular blocking or T-banning those who overstep the bounds of decency or common sense. It's been known since 1066 that RfA is a venue where everyone, including admins, can be as spiteful as they like with total impunity - how often do we keep having to say tat? 12:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

• IMO, trying to define "what" is wrong with RfA is akin to trying to find which drop of water is causing the ocean to be wet. There is no "ONE" thing to fix; it's a matter of the tone which is allowed to persist during the !voting, the attitude between the "haves" and "have nots", and the entire concept of one group of people being somehow more capable than another. — Ched :  ?  13:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• I do not believe there is any consensus as to what is wrong with RfA. On my Signpost op-ed, for instance, there were many varying opinions. Some supported unbundling, another thought we needed an easier desysopping procedure, and another even stated that we should scrap RfA completely. Here, people are voicing many different opinions. While I agree with Kudpung on his point that the community certainly wants to fix RfA, I believe it's time to have a proper discussion and RfC to find out the consensus. In regard to Ched's comment, we're not just trying to find one problem. The system I set up allows for more than one issue to gain consensus. I'm also going to keep to categories as broad as possible in the first RfC, so that we can get a general idea of where the problem(s) lies and go into more detail later. Besides all this, I set up the schedule for my reform project in a very purposeful and organized manner, to prevent another chaotic period of throwing around proposals without knowing what the community actually wants. I'm almost certainly not going to change that schedule. --Biblioworm 15:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

:: And I DO very much appreciate all the hard work you ({{u|Biblioworm}}), WormTT, Kudpung, and others are putting into all of this. I think I'll stop there. :-) — Ched :  ?  15:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::(ec)I applaud you for trying again where so many others have despaired. I see no reason for a defeatist "it won't work anyway" attitude. This is a wiki, things change. And even if this approach fails, maybe it fails better, who knows. —Kusma (t·c) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I don't think anyone is suggesting tat it won't work. It's just that nothing has really been tried again for a couple of years beyond this talk page that is now longer than 20 rolls of Andrex. Trying to force the community for the Nth time to come to a consensus over what is wrong with RfA is going to be abortive. Why cannot someone simply read up on the archives of this talk page, check out WP:RFA2011 properly, check out all the work {{U|Dank}} did in 2013 and others before him, and then come straight out with a concrete, simple, unambiguous, proposal for a solution to one aspect of what one thinks is wrong with RfA and launch the RfC?

::::There has always been a lot of talk about the necessity of clerking, perhaps more than any other single genuine solution (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Clerks). It has also been suggested that Bureaucrats might be willing to self-extend their brief and keep the RfAs clean. There must therefore be some truth in the need for keeping RfAs on track because indeed {{U|Xeno}} and {{U|Worm That Turned|WTT}} did some very rare clerking only a while back. That therefore clearly identifies one aspect that could certainly justify a new RfC. It's unlikely however, that all 'crats will welcome the idea, hence perhaps the proposal set forth here or something similar is due for a new consideration instead of constantly trying to reinvent the wheel. If it (or something simiar) doesn't work, then it would become clear, at least to me, that the community (or at least those who turn out to comment) don't want a nicer environment at RfA after all - which I for one, would find find more than just a tad perverse. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's about time the community, or at least some of it, became aware of the fact that admins aren't God. They can do a few additional things, mostly inconvenient to themselves, and sometimes with a backlash about "decision-making" and "judgement" and all that. Wikipedia currently actively discourages anyone from running to be an admin. The endless questions, the cross-examinations, the history exhumations, it's pretty depressing. Think about it folks, if an errant admin went rogue, it'd take a few minutes to block, de-sysop and undo all the damage. Being an admin is a chore not a privilege, and the sooner folks realise that, the better. Volunteering for the position should mainly be a default yes, with good reasons to say no. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Amen. —Kusma (t·c) 19:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Exactly what I think. This falls under the broader "High standards" issue. Any admin who presents a serious and obvious problem is dealt with very quickly; those who don't but might be abusive deserve a full hearing. --Biblioworm 20:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree, definitely not god, but the rest, hmm, [http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html not quite true]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• As a new admin, I think the element that I didn't expect was how much time and effort goes into communication, explaining yourself and your actions. Of course, it's all part of accountability which is a good thing. But I spend much more time conversing on user talk pages now than I did when I was an editor, especially with new editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• We do need a vetting process. There are ways in which an admin could do significant damage that wouldn't be so easily reversed (and yes, this is a case where if you don't know I'm not going to tell you). That aside, a bad block or other admin action can do harm in a non-technical fashion, by driving away good volunteers, sometimes for good. Unblocking doesn't help there if the person still is unwilling to come back. But the current RfA process is also suboptimal, and in itself sometimes drives off good contributors entirely. I think going back to the standards of "Is this person a committed volunteer? Do they tend to think before they speak or act? Are they able to understand and consistently follow policy?" rather than the eleventy billion overlapping and sometimes contradictory criteria is the way to go. If it's going to continue to be on the basis of raw numbers, I think we ultimately need to find a way to downgrade or discount !votes that are based on arbitrary, individual criteria ("Didn't write a featured (article|portal|artificial intelligence)", "Is a certain age", "Made an unpopular argument in a discussion (provided they accepted the ultimate consensus gracefully)", and so on). We need to refocus the discussion on tenure and demonstration of good judgment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not neutral on the biggest question anymore ... I think we need more admins. Some ideas are congealing, and I might file an RfC before long. If anyone else has been thinking about filing an RfC, I don't want to step on your toes, and I'd like to hear your ideas at User talk:Dank#RFA brainstorming. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• I am pretty sure that it only takes a 2/3 majority^{[Cetacean Needed]} to become a god... --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Not a god!? Avert your gaze and cease criticism! Our divinity is without question! HighInBC 15:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::Anything you do can be reversed by another admin and in many cases, that is the end of it. And, of course, admins do not cease to be editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• I AM GOD! GIVE ME ADMIN POWER NOW! Amen to that. (just kidding {{;)}}) Epic Genius (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps we should just make anyone with a three letter name staring with "G" an admin. I do have a problem with people taking my name in vain... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Every fortnight, someone starts a discussion regarding the flaws of RfA. Two dozen editors come to express their views on what is wrong with RfA. Most of such comments are valid, but redundant.

As of the writing of this comment, there exists 238 talk page archives and several reform projects (see WT:RFA/R and WP:RFA2011) To any editor focusing on RfA reform, they may have just struck gold. The archives and reform projects contain consensus on what is wrong (and right) with RfA and past proposals and community response to such proposals.

Instead of discussing, archiving, and repeating; the pages mentioned above should be studied and editors should actually formulate and formally propose changes to RfA, taking into account past attempts at proposing that change and community concerns on that change. Esquivalience ^t 03:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:Many people have done that. Their efforts have gone down in flames like the rest. I see no particular reason to discourage "starting a discussion regarding the flaws of RfA with comments that are valid, but redundant" (which never works no matter how many people try it) while encouraging "formulating and formally proposing changes to RfA, taking into account past attempts at proposing that change and community concerns on that change" (which also never works no matter how many people try it). Neither course of action has any chance of success. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed. I've been watching this page for years and it's always been pretty depressing. I don't think discussion here has ever actually accomplished anything. Hell, the most expansive, driven, widely-supported RfA reform initiative was unable to accomplish any real changes. I sincerely believe that if people expended the same effort on supporting the development and implementation of reasonable reforms, that they do endlessly bantering on this page about things everyone already knows, we could actually accomplish something. It truly seems that a lot of people care, just not enough to do anything. Swarm ♠ 06:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:*You actually believe that for all of these years it never occurred to anyone to, in your words, "support the development and implementation of reasonable reforms" and that not one single Wikipedian has ever "cared enough to do anything"? How likely is that to be true -- not a single person doing what you happen to think will work? Or could it be that they have done as you suggest and it didn't work? Far more likely. It is time to face facts. This is not a "everything has been tried except this magic technique that will surely solve the problem" situation. This is a "everything has been tried including this and all other magic techniques and everything has failed" situation. I admire your optimism, just as I admired the optimism of the last 50 or so people who had minor variations on the same idea. I just don't think that a silver bullet exists. I sure would like to be proven wrong, though. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::*I never said no one is willing to put in work, I was simply saying that if the group bantering on this page channelled their energy into actually doing something, we'd have a chance of actually getting RfA reforms accomplished. I'm fairly confident based on experience that most people who talk about or want RfA reform are unwilling to do the slightest amount of work to achieve it, and if the people bantering here channelled that energy into actually developing and supporting proposals, we could actually get something accomplished. Swarm ♠ 15:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulations. The best comment every written here. I've always been disappointed by the activity here, when people could be doing something useful. My old boss used to talk about the "bicycle shed syndrome" - if you asked for a million pound piece of equipment that no one understood it was approved without comment. If you asked for a new bicycle shed costing virtually nothing, there were hours and hours of pointless debate, because everyone had a view on its design/location etc. Nigej (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:: By the way, Wikipedia has an article on everything. Specifically, bike-shed effect. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::: and WP:BIKESHED too, I notice. Nigej (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ironically, the very reason for creating WP:RFA2011 was to give us a workspace where we could get on with some serious work as a team without all the background noise of this talk page. And see where it got us - all the detractors followed us there and kept gnawing away until they reached their goal: we got pissed off and gave up (as {{U|Swarm}} will doubtless confirm). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Archivebottom}}

{{Clear}}

To what extent does a previous failed RfA impact a new one - is it "used in evidence against you"? I'm considering facing the inquisition again but if the same stuff is just going to be rehashed I'm not that keen. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with what you fear might be rehashed, but in addition to the usual stuff, everyone will be looking for whether "previous concerns have been addressed" in the intervening period. Simple as that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

::Also, people prefer some wait between a failed RfA and the next one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I was found lacking in deletion related matters. My first RfA was in August 2014, if I do go for it again it would probably be in November or December, I have a bit too much going on irl until then. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

::::A year is certainly enough time. When people talk about too soon they mean like 3 months, assuming you addressed what they felt you were lacking last time, there shouldn't be a problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

::::* Generally: RfAs that fail on grounds of inexperience are easy to address. RfAs that fail on grounds of conduct are much harder to address. - Mailer Diablo 22:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

: The same stuff should not necessarily be rehashed, but you may be sure to get a question what you have learned from the failed RfA and what changed between that one and the new one. It is even better to be proactive and address the issue in the candidate statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

My first RfA was closed as a WP:NOTNOW: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC. It was not held against me, when I ran later I passed with ease: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighInBC 2. HighInBC 04:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your first RFA doesn't impact your second one if you address the issues raised in first one. You will pass your second RFA with flying colors if you address the issues. Supdiop (T🔹C) 05:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• There is no guarantee that you will "pass with flying colors" at all. If only it were that easy.--Atlan (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
• {{reply|Atlan}} Yes, of course Supdiop (T🔹C) 11:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• It took one user 7 attempts to get the bit. Mind you, they didn't keep it for long before it was taken away again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{re|Kudpung}} Who? I remember only one person attempting admin seven times, and that one failed. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

::I don't think it's a good idea to publicly name that person here (I don't know who it is) per WP:BEANS. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure if I follow your reasoning, but it was just a genuine curiosity. My apologies. (By the way, I figured out who it was on my own.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I don't see how WP:BEANS applies—it's a straightforward part of Wikipedia's history, not a state secret, and it's not as if it's going to cause anything untoward to happen. (Surely "previous failures won't be held against you if the community feels you've genuinely improved" is a good message to be sending out?) The editor in question was User:Ironholds; one of those 7 RFAs was this disastrous experiment at a reformed RFA process, which certainly shouldn't be held against him; if anything, he should be applauded for voluntarily putting himself through what must have been a stressful experience in an attempt to improve the process. ‑ iridescent 18:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Oh wow, that's not the answer I came up with. I had concluded it was Aranda56/Jaranda/Secret. Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/J shows 7 under "Jaranda" but Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/I shows only 5 under "Ironholds." -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::The fact that it was an experiment was nevertheless not the reason it failed. Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_147#Question_period_preceding_vote.2C_perhaps this suggestion] it should be cited more often to those newer contributors to this talk page who regularly re-suggest it as if it were a brand new idea. More to the point (on reform) is this comment in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_147#New_Idea thread that immediately preceded it]:

:::::{{green|'As for removing tool access, Wikipedia is an ecosystem. Empower more users to use tools and you will automatically empower SOME to abuse tools. More tool abuse will lead to a better ability to revoke tool access. Pushing through molasses, to be sure, but the project will get there, just wait and see.'}}

:::::7 years later we're still waiting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Yes, I agree it would have failed regardless, but equally I don't hold it against him that after it failed, he chose to run a "normal" RFA shortly afterwards. The experiment produced such a garbled mess that he can hardly be blamed for assuming the problems were down to the format rather than the candidate. (That isn't meant as a dig at the experiment either; it was a fiasco, but at least it was a genuine attempt to see if things could be done better. Quite why RFA still exists in its current form is one of Wikipedia's great mysteries. Straightforward reform suggestion that could be implemented tomorrow with no complication; drop the promotion point to 60% and limit every statement by anyone other than the candidate to 10 words. The opposers can always explain themselves on the talkpage if they feel it necessary, and it would kill off most of the adversarial crap instantly.) ‑ iridescent 20:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I would object so strongly to "limit every statement by anyone other than the candidate to 10 words" that I would probably auto-oppose on every RfA run under such a system. DES ^(talk) 22:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::The promotion threshold should be 67%, with anything less an automatic failure. RO^(talk) 22:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::{{U|Rationalobserver}}, did you ever consider that if we were to do that, RfA would be an even bigger bloodbath than it is now? You would need nearly twice as many oppose votes to sink an RfA, and believe me, they would come - with all the spite and nastiness you can imagine. Perhaps you should throw your hat in the ring now and see how you fare. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::As long as adminship is a "for life" position, RfAs will be difficult. When it becomes as easy to desysop an admin as it is to pass RfA, we will achieve some equilibrium. As far as {{!xt|throw your hat in the ring now and see how you fare}}, well that's just plain silly. I am nowhere near qualified in terms of technical skills, and I have zero experience in admin tasks. So even if I was strong enough in reputation, which I'm not, I'd still be a terrible candidate. RO^(talk) 16:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::This whole "admin for life" mantra is just false. Numerous admins have lost their bit. It is far easier to lose your bit than to get a bit. I could have my bit taken away under a cloud in the next 6 hours if I wanted too. It was much harder to become an admin. To remain an "admin for life" you need to show exemplary judgement, and while the occasional lapse is acceptable any pattern of poor judgement means game over. I would agree with you about RfA if admins really could not be de-sysoped but this claim is demonstrably false. HighInBC 16:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Desysopping has become significantly easier over the last ten years (you no longer need a mob with pitchforks and torches), becoming an admin has become significantly harder (and the popular falsehood "adminship is for life" is part of the problem). —Kusma (t·c) 16:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I'm sure that's all true, but I also think that it would be very easy for admins to retain the bit for life by being careful. If lots of admins are being desysoped, that might indicate that the RfA process is letting too many through that really weren't good candidates anyway. RO^(talk) 16:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::If an admin is careful to follow the expectations of an admin for life then that seems like an admin you want for life. I have been an admin for a bit more than 8 years and I can tell you it is not easy as in automatic, it takes regular attention to the changing policies and expectations of the community and constant checking of ones own actions.

:::::If there are a lot of people getting desysoped then that demonstrates that we can remove problematic admins, thus we should be more permissive at RfA so that we get more good admins. We keep the good for as long as they can stand the job, and we desysop the bad. We need to let people through to do that, even if we have to remove the bit from a few. There is nothing an admin can do that cannot be reversed. HighInBC 17:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::What concerns me is that there are (a relatively small number of) admins who passed RfA a long time ago, and who don't quite do anything bad enough to get consensus to desysop, but who nonetheless do things in a sub-par way. It can be things like doing something marginally suboptimal, and then remaining silent when questioned about it, or giving "advice" in an admin-like voice, that is really borderline bullying on a content dispute. I do see stuff like that happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::{{!xt|There is nothing an admin can do that cannot be reversed}} That might be technically true, but an admin made a mistake and blocked me as sock, and 10 months later that block still haunts me: ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Sinatra&diff=684775225&oldid=684762726]); ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Sinatra&diff=684466887&oldid=684463468]). So while I was unblocked, the damage to my reputation was done, and it's not likely to recover. RO^(talk) 21:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• One never knows what will happen in a new RfA. The last user I nominated (way too long ago) did not pass the first time, but self-nominated four and a half months later and passed with unanimous WP:100 support, while deliberately not changing his stance on one of the oppose reasons. But that was in a different age (the second RfA had only six questions including the three mandatory ones...) —Kusma (t·c) 12:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I still think this is one of the worst suggestions that keeps getting dished up. It's never been proven that the numerical bar has prevented a fully qualified, nicely spoken candidate from passing. . If a candidate has a regular poor record of CSD, AfD, and other judgement mishaps, and/or is constantly bitey ad uncivil, they shouldn't get the mop. The other reason is that if it were made easier to get he bit, it must be made easier to lose it, but while the community keeps screaming for one, they still keep voting against proposals for better systems of making admins accountable. We can't have one without the other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

:It has also never been proven that a higher numeric score results in a better administrator or that a lower numeric score is in any way correlated with later administrator abuse or desysopping. You simply decided, without evidence, that 75% was the right number, just as I decided, without evidence, that 66.66% is the right number. The United States Congress passes laws by at 50% and only requires 66.66% to overturn a presidential veto. The supreme Court of the US sets the bar at 50%. Our arbcom elections set the bar at 50% and very few arbs get 75% of the votes.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2014#cite_note-nbNoVote-1]

:Also see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-30/Op-ed. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::?Isn't 70% the current standard (70-74.99 generally needing a crat chat), and somewhat slightly below 70% the crats can still pass. To pass RfA you just need to get 30% of users not to bother to, in good faith, oppose, but if 30%+, in good faith, can be bothered to oppose, you have a WP:Consensus issue, which is not like voting because Consensus is suppose to take in the concerns of the good faith objectors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::In theory, yes. In practice, no. There seem to be very few RfAs that passed below 70%, so it can certainly not be called a common occurrence. It's almost always an exception to the rule. And it's a huge deal whenever a bureaucrat dares to pass a RfA below 70%; even then, it's almost always only for reconfirmation RfAs. So the fact stands that the bar, in practice, is about 75%. We're still giving opposers three times more weight than supporters. In response to Kudpung's objection, I think the answer is very simple. Saying that "[i]t's never been proven that the numerical bar has prevented a fully qualified, nicely spoken candidate from passing" is making several assumptions. First of all, we're assumi that our current bar is the right standard for failing a candidate. But the very point of discussion is that our bar is not the right standard for failing a candidate. We must realize that we just don't know which candidates might have been good admins, despite failing the RfA. And the statement is also prone to circular reasoning if I were to provide an example of candidates that failed who perhaps shouldn't have failed. If I gave such an example, wouldn't it be possible to say: "Well, that's just in your opinion. He must have not been qualified, because he failed." I still don't see what is so difficult to see about this. But in any case, I will take up Kudpung's challenge and find some RfAs that were failed because of some relatively minor issue. Pile-on fails aren't that few and far between. But back to the point, we must face the fact: our bar is unrealistic, and to a certain extent is even a breach of WP:AGF. --Biblioworm 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::What do you mean "in practice" it's about 75%, when everything else you said is, in practice, it's about 70%? And then as you admit, Crats can dip below 70%, with good reason. What your comment does not apparently want to grapple with is what WP:Consensus is: "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." The ideal is 100% but hey, if you can get 30% not to oppose (which does not demand much, in terms of consensus, and in fact demands quite little), you are doing good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Alan, I believe that on the other hand, you're clinging to the exceptions to the rule in an effort to refute my position. But that's why it is an exception to the rule. I say that the bar, in practice, is about 75% because most RfAs above that point succeed and most below that point fail. I'm talking most, not all. There are always exceptions to the general rule. And I note that there is usually a great deal of controversy whenever a 'crat tries to pass an RfA at too low a percentage. For instance, a 'crat once passed an RfA at a little less than 66%, and that has gone done in the wiki-history books as one of the boldest closes in history. (Even then, it was a reconfirmation RfA; the logic was that the bar should perhaps be slightly lower since a former admin was bound to be at least somewhat controversial.) Therefore, a 'crat rarely seems to take unilateral action in these cases but rather initiates a 'crat chat, which in the majority of cases results in no consensus. The point is, the odds are very much against you once you drop into the low 70s, so it certainly cannot be said that most RfAs above 70% pass. I could probably count on my hands the number of times this happened in the last two or three years. --Biblioworm 15:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Most below 75% fail? You mean most the ones between 0% and 75% fail? That's not at all hard to believe, but that's a huge spread that does not, at all say anything about in practice it's 75%, or even 70%. 70% is what in practice it is (unless the objections are so strong in substance (not in numbers), they cause the crats to say 'oh, no!'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::I'll do a count and show you why the bar [https://www.google.com/search?q=in+practice in practice] is absolutely not 70%. I'll count the number of RfAs that got between 70–74% support over the past two years, and show you just how few actually passed. It may take an hour or two, so please be patient. Also, regarding your quote from WP:CONSENSUS, I really don't see your point. The page says nothing about the bar; it just gives a general guideline. In my interpretation, we could start closing RfAs as successful at 60% and it still wouldn't "violate" the consensus policy. Let's get to the heart of the issue here: why should supporters have approximately 1/3 the voice of opposers in an RfA on a website on which WP:AGF is a community-approved guideline? --Biblioworm 15:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::With something is like 60-40 you have a badly fractured disagreement among the good faith users. Consensus, again in ideal is 100% - so the drop of 40% is huge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::: Biblioworm, I'll leave you to do the counting, but I want to interject and point out that RFA is a discussion about not the good faith but the competence of the candidate. If 30% of !voters have legitimate concerts about the candidate's ability that deserves to be taken into account. BethNaught (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::Yes. Suitability and ability, I'd say but, yes. It is a judgement, and the idea, if you will, is that there can be (and is) a collective mind on the judgement, instead of being of two minds (or 3 if you include neutral). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::So, I have the stats. Of 78 RfAs, only 4 (5%) passed between 70–75%. Pretty rare, isn't it? Furthermore, of these RfAs only one was in the really low 70s (71%, to be exact). Almost all the others usually hovered somewhere around 73–74% percent, and went to a bureaucrat chat. Furthermore, almost all RfAs in the 75–80% range passed. Therefore, it can very certainly be said that 70% is the bar in practice; the data confirms that 75% is the approximate bar above which all RfAs pass. --Biblioworm 16:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::Are you saying that 100% of those that fell between 70 and 75 percent passed and 95% of those who passed had greater than 75%? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::{{U|Alanscottwalker|Alan}}, I think {{U|Biblioworm|Biblio}} may be approaching the stats thing from the wrong angle. He is providing valuable food for thought but possibly a solution looking for the wrong problem and I still do not see any compelling reasons for dropping the bar or that it would alone encourage more candidates of the right calibre to come forward. Increasing the pass rate by lowering the bar would open us up to all the reasons the anti-admin brigade keep chanting. Making these stats fit the theories doesn't tell us why the bar should be dropped - it's served us well enough in times of more interest in adminship: after all, some 2,000 of them walked the bed of hot cinders and survived. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC).

:::::::::::::An alternative to dropping the bar is finding a way to lower the standards for passing. Some voters of today oppose for very minor and/or arbitrary reasons, inflate the issues, and get many other editors to come with them, therefore creating a pile-on and a failed RfA, all because of an isolated incident likely taken out of context. As you mentioned below, I think Thomas.W's RfA is a great example of this. A few quotes were taken out of context, he was portrayed as a bitey user (how is it possible to bite a vandal/spammer who's out to cause harm in the first place?), and therefore users piled on and the RfA failed. That's just one example of many. --Biblioworm 20:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::I would like to see a list of all those RfA that would have passed if the bar had been somewhat lower. And then look very closely not at how they failed, but why they failed. I say this because it's a question of eliminating the blatantly wrong opposes and all the pile-ons they incur, the subtly disingenuous ones (gosh, how I would love to mention some names here!), and the socks and trolls, who all enter into that numerical equation and whom the bureaucrats don't discount except perhaps in the case of the very rare close run RfA, and even then I think there have been some cases that were so close, that the 'crat verdict could possibly have been a subjective supervote (not that there was much else they could have done under the circumstances apart from extending the time). Whether the bar is too high or too low is a question to be debated around some hard facts rather than just 'I like it/I don't like it'

:::::::::I'm still saying therefore, that our failure to produce new admins has nothing to do with all this - if it takes too long to drive from London to Manchester because the car keeps breaking down, you look at the engine and not at the map, and you repair the engine and not tell he government to build a new road. We should be looking at the individual voters who who can't behave in a civil manner or who treat RfA like some platform to express a personal loathing for all things adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::But we would be deciding who was fit to be an admin and who isn't. We judge who becomes an admin based upon the community's comment using a framework to decide what is the "right" range. As it has bee repeatedly pointed out, there have been users who barely passed and became good admins. It might have seemed like the opposers had "good" objections. There have also been users who passed RfA with no problems at all and yet became abusive and were desysopped. The level of support proves nothing. I would certainly be willing to study this, though. --Biblioworm 16:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ping|Kudpung}} I think Cyberpower678 and Rich Farmbrough 2 would have passed if we had dropped the bar, and Liz wouldn't have needed a 'crat chat. I believe I voted "support" on all 3. Also EuroCarGT (just over 65% support) might have been a 'crat chat. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, it looks as if it's analysis time. I have the advantage of knowing {{U|Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough}} personally and have no hesitation in saying that that was one RfA that the community should certainly have passed. IMO, {{U|Cyberpower678}} who I actually quite like, is still hampered from a total overload due to his enthusiasm while he was in school, and becoming an admin on top of all that would have been too much. I'll heartily support another run when he finally gets himself, his bots, and his tools sorted out. {{U|Liz}} nearly failed due to one main theme in the opposition section where I also resided for the same reason. Nobody was suggesting however that she would be likely to abuse the tools, delete the main page, or block Jimbo Wales. Perhaps a more objective weeding out of some of the votes would have made a consensus (either way) more clear.

:::::::::::{{U|Mkativerata }} who moved from support to oppose on EuroCar's RfA made some very interesting comments, it's a shame he doesn't vote more often on RfA nowadays. It was a rare occasion where I found myself on the losing side, although my support was a cautious one anyway. A lot of veteran RfA admin-voters turned out for this one, and they seem to be roughly evenly split - even those who are good friends with each other were on opposite sides of the fence. All in all, it was a refreshingly 'clean' RfA and I think Euro will pass easily enough at his next attempt.

:::::::::::This is one failed RfA that makes me sometimes really doubt the sincerity of the voting system. {{U|Thomas.W}} should of course have easily passed and I think {{U|HJ Mitchell}}, one of our best admins (also BTW, quite young at the time of his promotion), would probably like to chime in here. Finally, we do have a tool that tells us how often and with what accuracy an editor voted on RfA, so, !voters, if the cap fits, wear it!

:::::::::::Sadly, since the Liz RfA, we have some new 'features' that have developed that have set the clock of progress right back again: Ridiculous numbers of questions to answer and not all of them particularly intelligent; and the talk page being used for mammoth, and heated discussions about people's votes. We never used to have this and I'm at a loss to understand why it has to start now. I have some theories, but I'm not going to risk being accused of PA for simply mentioning them.

:::::::::::Unless something happens to buck the trend, it is indeed looking as if the fall in RfAs has in fact finally bottomed out, but with aggression and insensitivity returning to RfA, we'll be lucky to see many more promotions before the year's out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::I do wonder about the consistency of RfA, sometimes. For example, I wonder why Thomas.W failed where Ian.thomson succeeded. I'm very glad the latter succeeded, I think he'll be a fantastic admin when he's got his feet under the table, but the two editors are very similar in their interests and areas of activity, and in their supposed faults and yet one breezed through while the other didn't. There have been other examples, often vandal fighters with large numbers of Huggle edits, where it's not immediately obvious why one succeeded and one failed. {{small|Oh, and I'm not sure what the relevance is, but I'm in my mid-twenties now and got the bit almost six years ago; you can do the math. In hindsight, I wonder if it was such a good idea; some of the things I've dealt with have made me rather cynical and hardened, but perhaps that's more because of the nature of my admin work and if I'd stuck to working on the main page I'd have no idea of the deeply unpleasant side of admin work. Who knows?}} HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::::::I am glad you feel that way about me Kudpung. I am working on managing the overload, and I hope to have it managed by my next planned. Consider this a goal of mine.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I do think lowering the bar is the simplest approach to improving RfA. It would continue to allow people to oppose over their pet issues, but be closer to the default of granting the tools unless significant objections are raised. Or we could have a moving bar like in the Arbcom elections, where we decide first how many new Arbs we want and then take the most popular ones instead of requiring a 75% support rate. Maybe we should drop the bar by 1 percentage point per month until either it hits 50% or promotion rates become sustainable again. —Kusma (t·c) 16:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::It's not 75% (about 70% is usual pass). We were just over that, I only mention it, again, so repetition does not occur. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::(e/c) About the only thing admins currently have going for them is wide support, not narrow support - the wideness goes along with 'trusted by the community'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Most RfAs have very low participation, so I don't know whether RfAs really indicate trust by "the community". —Kusma (t·c) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Two things - finding consensus is all the more extraordinary, if indeed it is small, but as WP:100 suggests to get 100 pedians to turn out in support/oppose/neutral or otherwise comment in a discussion at one time is generally seen as large cross section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:::TAP's RfA is somewhere around 70%. If it closes around that level, and he passes, then I will believe you and concede that I was wrong. --Biblioworm 16:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::::You don't have to "believe", you have already conceded and demonstrated it is about 70%, and nothing that happens with TAP will change anything from how I have described the general process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, so let's pretend that I suggested to lower the bar from 70% until somebody passes, and discuss that. —Kusma (t·c) 19:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:Why don't we make the discretionary range 65–70%, with all RfAs above that passing? I'd say that 70% is a quite clear consensus for passing a candidate, and definitely shouldn't be on the very edge of the discretionary range. --Biblioworm 19:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

::I think we should stop thinking in terms of % and consensus at the same time. This is not a vote. We should have 'crats determining consensus through the lens of policy. The discretionary range should as narrow or wide as the quality of the arguments allow for. HighInBC 19:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I agree and disagree. The idea of "consensus" being a percentage is not a good one. However, RfA is mostly a vote: it is usually decided by the numbers alone (the discretionary range is specified by numbers), and every time the bureaucrats do not implement the perceived vote, there is a mob with pitchforks at their door. And voting is the easiest way to answer the question whether a person has the community's trust, as no amount of numerical data is going to help with that. —Kusma (t·c) 21:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I tried to add the edit stats for Ian on his RfA talk page but it hasn't happened yet. Did I do something wrong or is this normal?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:I think that xtools is having an outage right now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

::[https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia.org&user=Ian.thomson It works], but since someone decided it needed an unnecessary rewrite it no longer displays in the familiar way we have been quite happy with for years, and it needs a moth of Sundays to load. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Rfc_requests_for_adminship}}

{{Clear}}

I tried to add the edit stats for Ian on his RfA talk page but it hasn't happened yet. Did I do something wrong or is this normal?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

:I think that xtools is having an outage right now.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

::[https://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?project=en.wikipedia.org&user=Ian.thomson It works], but since someone decided it needed an unnecessary rewrite it no longer displays in the familiar way we have been quite happy with for years, and it needs a moth of Sundays to load. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Rfc_requests_for_adminship}}

{{Clear}}

• Q: What is scarier than an RfA?
• A: Thinking about it before doing it.

• Q: Why don't more people run?
• A: Mixed views. Some say few want to be admins. Some say fear of the gauntlet.

A while back, I suggested a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)/Archive_13#Pre-RfA_opinion_page pre-RfA opinion page]. I was out of town for a short while right after. I didn't expect one of our editors to mass-message the link to 1000+ users. As a result, it opened and closed before I had a chance to comment.

My comments would have been that it would have been optional, and not an impediment or hoop to jump through. It was intended to remove the impediment, i.e. the fear of trying.

Well, I'd like to suggest a simplified and modified version:

Idea: What about a page called "RfA candidate poll" or something like that? The page could look like this:

Pros: It could encourage people who are too worried to try. It could prevent people who would would certainly fail to avoid humiliation and possible departure.

Cons: You tell me.

If I started the page, would it survive MfD?

I know this has only a small chance of being supported, but I think there is nothing to lose and lots to gain, especially if we linked to it on the main RfA page. It may also spark a related idea. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

: The advantage of this is that it might eliminate the need to go "begging" your favorite or most trusted Admin (or veteran editor) for an "RfA review" and thus wouldn't rely on just one person's opinion either. The disadvantage is that, in at least some cases, it could devolve into the kind of overly-critical and negative "hazing" that might not just drive people away from an RfA but from the entire project itself... {{Small|(OK, I see it's not asking for comments, just for a vote on the "likelihood of success"...)}} On my end, I don't oppose the idea (but I'd probably want to see a wider range of opinions before supporting it). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

: Also, I think I'd do it a little differently, and just have people rate what they think the odds of a candidate's success in passing an RfA are:

: But I do wonder who useful this would be without some kind of feedback on why responders think a candidate will, or won't, pass... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::I'd bet the past few "unsuccessfuls" would have found it useful. At the top of the page, we could write "If you wish to have a full evaluation....start a subpage in your userspace....or editor review...." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::I like your Pass/not pass. Good idea.

::I'd also like to point out that candidates and nominators get it wrong a lot. I don't know if noms encourage running via email or what, but there ought to be some way for candidates to get a more accurate idea of their chances beforehand. Nobody but nobody runs thinking they're probably going to fail (and that includes all 6 of the unsuccessfuls in the box at the top). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Q: How can I know if I'm ready for adminship?

:A: Go read this, follow all the links and read all the other essays; take all day (or all night) if you have to. Then sit in front of a mirror, take a long look at yourself, and be honest with yourself.

:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, you are talking about what people should do. I am trying to respond to what people actually do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Precisely {{U|Anna Frodesiak|Anna}}, and what they actually do is they do not read advice! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I feel you are mostly right, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. But you are taking the position that, had Oshwah, Paine Ellsworth, Montanabw, and APerson read the advice, they would have known better. Certainly those in the "Latest RfXs" box did read the advice and still thought they'd pass. And of course their noms were also fully aware of the advice and thought they'd pass. Should OlEnglish, Diannaa, WereSpielChequers, Berean Hunter, Esquivalience have known better?

::::There is a reason surveys are held before marketing that new chocolate bar. It prevents collateral damage and means a lot more chocolate bars on the shelves. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Actually, I read WP:RFAADVICE, said "Nah! What does that popular, frequently-referenced, and well-written essay know?!!", raised my fist into the air and decided to rebel against the system! HA! That will show them! :-P ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Oshwah, had this poll page existed, would you have used it? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::: Anna Frodesiak - Yes. I'd been encouraged to run for RfA by a few editors in IRC. I responded indifferently to each poke about it; I was sort-of thinking about running, but I didn't feel like it was time yet and that (if I were still interested), I should consider running a year from now. I knew that my CSD, AFD, patrolling, interactions with other editors, and knowledge of Wikipedia Policy was right on the mark and that my RfA would fail for lack of article creation if it were to completely tank (which... LOL... it did XD). When I was nominated twice (actually it would have been three times - JustBerry just came in too late and decided to just throw it as a vote), I thought that the reason for me not feeling ready yet was really just because I was simply just nervous about running. Maybe I'm just being too critical about myself. I decided, despite my concerns, to just go for it. The reason I'm explaining all of this is to give you an inside look about how I felt about running. Had something like this existed, I would have absolutely taken advantage of it. It would have been great to be able to get some honest pre-RfA feedback and either confirm my concerns as legitimate, or prove that I'm just overreacting. Had this process blasted me down for article creation, it would have saved myself hours of time writing my RfA application and saved the community time as well. I don't regret running; my RfA failed for the exact reasons that I predicted, I learned a lot, and I received some really great feedback. It would have been nice to have an open forum where I could go and get some honest pre-RfA bruising before deciding to run out onto the tarmac and let myself get run over :-) ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I seem to recall Editor Review being a much more full version of this concept where it acted as a prelude to RFA. Mkdw^talk 12:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Which is probably the very thing that made it unsuccessful – if you make it like "homework" for the participants, few are going to want to do it. But a lot of people like "drive-by polling", which is pretty close to what this is – however, it would still encourage a little bit of research from "drive-by poll voters" as they'd need to check into backgrounds somewhat in order to be able to proper gauge the odds of candidate's success before "poll voting". But, with Editor Review, I gather it was a lot more involved process, and that's going to scare a lot of us off (who has the time?!), and lead to a lot less participation in the process... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::*I'm not sure that I can believe in the value proposition of the proposed scaled-down version. Someone might give a candidate a quick 80/20 without looking at too much evidence, and then when the candidate goes to RfA, the same editor who gave them an 80/20 might be swayed by some newly uncovered evidence to oppose. Can you know the outcome of a process without actually running it? I believe that answer is generally "no". Maybe we should just encourage people to submit to RfA just to see what opposition they meet with. Failing an RfA should not be a big deal. Having a mock one will have the same implications of "did you address the issues brought up at" as a real one. There is no substitute to candidates being bold. Samsara 19:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Interesting points, Samsara. However, I am hearing "should". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง too speaks of the oughts rather than the iss. What is happening is that people are often not bold enough, too scared, and do not try. Others are too optimistic, try, and fail. This puts them off Wikipedia and creates more editors who then see it as a very big and scary deal. Why not try this? After all, we cannot know the outcome of a process without actually running it, right? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I can see the logic in reviving editor review, or since that wasn't necessarily people interested in adminship, having a potential admin review. But rather than voting you need to focus on discussion and whether the candidate is ready or needs to wait longer since any old mistakes of theirs. If you look through RFAs you see time and again RFAs that start off well but slip into problems when voters start listing reasons not to support the candidate. Duplicating the early enthusiasm stage of an RFA does no one any favours. Having a process where people can say, I did this last month and that a year before, how long should I wait before running an RFA? Will get people saying I'm not bothered at your ancient edit warring block, but you really need to reread the deletion criteria and stop tagging articles for deletion as not asserting importance or significance because you think they might be borderline on notability. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::Excellent point about "duplicating the early enthusiasm", WereSpielChequers. That may be a fatal flaw. Then again, the entry would sit there for a few weeks. Other benefits would include:

:::*Getting a quick, bottom line rather than a critique which is akin to a mini-RfA.

:::*More participants, which often is quite reliable.

:::*Centralized page rather than individual subpages or way over there.

:::*Appealing to today's "Generation Like" way of thumbs up/down opinion-giving.

::Also, this would be so much less involved and commital. Just a quick "throw it out there and see what the world thinks" kind of thing. No guarantees of quality, there's a disclaimer for that.

::I think these types of ideas should be tried. Wikipedia is starting to seem a lot like an old person stuck in its ways. It is supposed to be a great "experiment". Well, let's experiment. We have nothing to lose. In fact, I haven't heard cons that outweigh the pros yet. Just a lot of "is and ought" responses.

::Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Hi Anna and all. I seem to recall that we did actually attempt a short poll after the mass messaging chaos, but for the life of me I can't locate the thread. I think it was on Village Pump but I can't locate it. I recall we got about 12-20 responses, mostly showing a future interest. some expanded on their personal concerns and general comments about RfA. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I vaguely remember that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::I like this idea. Just one modification, though: i would ask potential !voters the question "On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely do you think that it would be that this candidate will pass RFA?"{{pb}}This way, if a majority of those polled give a score of 7 or below, the candidate would probably reconsider filing a RFA. Epic Genius (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::: That's an even better idea than my "Pass/Not Pass" odds suggestion. I approve. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::: An idea of epic genius. I agree that this is the best plan so far!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• It sounds quite similar to the Editor Review proposal I had above, but this one looks closer to the RfA process. - Mailer Diablo 04:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, there have been voices saying it would probably not be useful. No voices saying how this would be damaging (or even voices giving reasons why it might be unhelpful in a way that would supersede any possible good). No voices saying it will be brought to MfD, and what its fate might be there. On the other hand, a number of editors think it is a good idea, and have suggested improvements. One recent unsuccessful candidate says he would have used the page had it been available.

Considering this is an optional page that does not alter the current process, I may just go ahead and create it. My guess is that nobody will put their name down, or even notice it. I'd like to provide a link here and there to it, perhaps on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate (the page with the giant red box).

So, if there are objections, then would have been the time, but now is still okay. But please, do provide reasons why it would be unhelpful in a way that would supersede any possible good.

03:29, 12 October 2015‎ User talk:Anna Frodesiak

: I think the main objection is not that such page would break anything workable (in the end of the day, any user is free to ask as many other users they want to review their potential RfA candidacy). The main objection is that the Editor Review was closed down due to the lack of participation (before it got closed, out of 10 reviews 9 got zero responses, wheres 1 would get one or two responses). Reviewing editors is time-consuming, and I do not think the performace of this page would be better. There is no harm in trying it out, but do not have too high expectations.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::Hi, Ymblanter. You are probably right. Two things that make it worth a try: First, longshots are worth it if the cost of trying is low. (There's not a lot invested in this, so not much to lose.) Second, this might do a tad better because the feedback is a simple 1-10. (Granted the quality of the results may be lower.) I'd give this a 20% chance of becoming something useful. That's not bad, and worth the try. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Now at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Please consider adding the link to various pages and templates so candidates can find it and decide if they wish to use it. Many thanks to all for their feedback on this one. If it helps a single candidate avoid a mistake, or helps a fence sitter become an admin, it will have been worth it. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am in favour of making it very visible to potential candidates. At least they should know it is there and have the option of using it. It would be great if it would be added to this project page. Also, here are 4 pages it could be added to:

• Wikipedia talk:Miniguide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship
• Wikipedia talk:Advice for RfA candidates
• Wikipedia talk:Request an RfA nomination

I've posted at the talk pages there asking for help placing it in the text or maybe a see also section. Please help if you can. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Um, it seems like there are plenty of people around who thinks candidate's age is relevant to their RfA but my question is, how? Is there any evidence that self-disclosed minor admins have ever been proved to have disrupted Wikipedia. Is there ever been an ArbCom case filling against a minor admin? Is there any evidence that minor admins lack in making tough decisions? Instead, I seem to recall that I've seen few (indicative or self-disclosed) adult (+18) admins getting de-sysoped for harming 'pedia, but never did I saw, even after looking at various archives, anything like disruption by minor admin etc. So my question is, how valid is age-based !votes are in RfAs? Yes, I know what people will say, anyone can give their opinion or add their rationale, 'crats will evaluate the validation of the !votes. If that is the case, is there any prior consensus among 'crats about !votes based on candidate's age? Another question: Doesn't this sort of !votes harm Wikipedia indirectly? Is it a good habit to decide the ability of a user by their age? Wikipedia is certainly not build by only people who are above 18, in that context, I'm aware of few heavy content builders and level headed editors who are not 18. If people say, "'crats will decide which !vote is valid and which is not", in that case my COMMONSENSE says, why are we restricting IP editors from adding their !votes? IP editors are a significant part of our community then why are we restricting them from !voting, they also got the right to add their !votes and since there are "'crats who will evaluate at the end", why are we restricting them? Now the bottom line is: Does community thinks they are valid !votes? If yes, we should rather mention it on WP:RFA and at multiple advice pages. If not, then we should also allow IP's to !vote, if we can allow baseless !votes then we should also allow IPs (What is the theoretical difference?). Note: No harm meant at age-based !voters. Cheers! Jim Carter 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:This is a question about Bayes theorem. The more evidence we have that a young editor behaves maturely, the less weight we should attach to the prior probability of them acting otherwise. Different people will have different prior probabilities, and different criteria for what constitutes a safe expectation.

:So even among the rational commentators there will be divergence of views. Some are just ageist, doubtless.

:What other factors are there? Wanting to avoid undue pressure on a young person. Worrying that the downside is enhanced by media reaction. Wanting to develop future community leaders. That's all the asymmetric factors I can think of.

:All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

• There are two questions here, one about age and the other about IP voting. As regards age I'm relaxed about younger candidates but I don't dispute that others might oppose candidates they deem immature. As for IP votes, IP editors who want to vote need to create an account first. If we allowed IP votes how do we identify when two votes from the same IP are different people and two votes from different IPs are the same people? ϢereSpielChequers 18:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• No two questions, {{u|WereSpielChequers}}. Firstly the use of the word "immature" here gives some confusion. "Immature" based on what? Candidate's age or the level of competence when working on Wikipedia. There maybe users who are legally immature but logically mature and there ARE few legally mature people who behaves like "immature childs". Secondly, yes, I totally agree with your point about IP, however, who are we to decide that? Can we deduce non obvious sockpuppetry on RfAs? For example: An editor has 20 sock accounts, all of them have at least 500 edits. During some particular RfA all of them appear and !vote oppose. Does the closing 'crat will do a CU check on every user? Obviously no. If it doesn't happens, then why restricting IPs? Let 'crats decide who is who. Since we can't remove baseless invalid !votes, why can't we allow IPs. Note: Allowing IP to vote is not exactly my subject. It is just a hypothetical explaination to prove that the harm IP! votes will do at RfA is almost equal to the baseless !votes by registered editors. Jim Carter 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• As I have pointed out before, if you want to derail an RfC based upon some arbitrary requirement that isn't supported by the community, all you need is 25% support (less if there are other good-faith objections to add to yours), but if you want to post an RfC and get community support for your desired restriction on who can be an admin, you need well over 50% support. This is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:I'm a young editor myself. I think that votes based solely on age alone are not valid whatsoever. There is/was a 'crat who was underage, no? If the oppose !voter suggests that the candidate is immature and has evidence (diffs, answers to questions, vandalism, UAA, etc.) to back up this claim, that is valid. Older candidates can be opposed for being "immature" in their own way, but we have different words for it (reckless, inconsistent). Young RfA candidates should not be treated any differently because of their age; rather, it is important to judge whether the candidate will properly used the tools regardless of age. On the IP address thing, User:WereSpielChequers makes a very good point regarding multiple votes. Obviously, consensus is not a numerical vote, but IP addresses who do a bunch of supports or opposes under addresses that hypothetically could be different accounts (slightly different rationales, etc.) might make an otherwise passing, failing, or contentious RfA have a completely different support rate, thus immediately influencing the initial opinion of the 'crats, leading to a period of extreme confusion involving discerning whether all those IPs are the same person or not. Also, what about the RfAs that have to be protected for vandalism? Would we just have to keep reverting vandals? Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|Johanna}} Why, RfAs are not semi-protected I guess, if an IP wants to vandalize, they will vandalize anyway. Yeah, you are right that one have to keep reverting but when it comes to registered editors, does we revert them? I don't think so. There was an outing issue on a recent RfA by a registered user. Did we reverted that edit? Though it was a sheer disruption we didn't dared to revert it, however, if the same where done by an IP we would have promptly oversighted it. This is the difference. Jim Carter 20:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think people should be able to use any criteria they like to vote on at RFA. Some my be ridiculous and therefore attract comments and opposition to opposition. But in the case of age quite a few thought this is a citerion they should use. Myself I choose not to use age, but look at the work. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• It will probably never come up again - because any reasonably smart teenager will know from now on to keep their age to themselves! I am frankly disgusted at the way this recent RfA went - not the outcome as such, but the way this candidate was subjected to an "age test" that has no basis in policy and as far as I know (my experience is limited) has never before been raised at RfA. (My mistake, it was raised 2 1/2 years ago here.) Yes, some people did base their comments on the editor's history and knowledge, and under normal circumstances we would have evaluated him on that basis - on his merits. Maybe the candidate would have been given a mop; maybe he wouldn't; we will never know, because serious discussion of the editor's qualifications was swamped by opposition based on the candidate's age. By my count, 13 or 14 of the 58 "oppose" votes were based ENTIRELY on the candidate's (reported) age, and another 9 or 10 were based on age plus other issues. That's 40% of the opposes, and it was enough to tip the nomination into the unsuccessful range. But IMO this was an unfair and invalid rationale - because we do not normally know or ask how old a person is. We have often promoted teenagers to adminship, without knowing it. It was just this candidate's bad luck to have been "outed" as a teenager by third parties - and then !voted down on that basis. --MelanieN (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

::Many support !votes were also entirely based on age. When the subject first came up, many !voters took an "anti-antitude" and voted support just to show that age should not be considered, without looking at anything else. Anyway, age is usually no issue because of most users the age is not known. During the RfA, some admins admitted to have passed RfA in their middle teens without anybody suspecting it. Anonymous editing/registration should avoid that this issue come up, but 'It was just this candidate's bad luck" is not quite true. First, the candidate stated his own age at some time, and then somebody needlessly brought it up. If candidates didn't talk too much, and if !voters refrained from using ad hominem arguments, there wouldn't be any question of "luck". Kraxler (talk) 23:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:::The problem is that is takes three "anti-antitude" support !votes to counteract a single bad oppose !vote. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• The pedia is greying. As a community we are getting older - even if it weren't for the rise of the silver surfers amongst us, in the last fifteen years we have gone from a brand new community where everyone was new to an established community where many have been around for many years. Of course in the process we have greyed. One consequence of this is that we don't have as many teenagers as we once did, and we have become less open to the young. Until this last RFA I had thought that teenagers were no longer able to openly pass RFA until they were at least 18. I can remember RFAs from as recent as 2010 when candidates passed with over 90% despite opposes from people who didn't think that we should have admins who were not "of legal age". Though I supported, I'm aware that age was not the only reason for Opposing, (we even had an oppose from Keilana who became an admin at 13) and I suspect if age had been the only Oppose reason it would have been a success. So I believe that an otherwise near perfect candidate could still pass despite being known as or believed to be under legal age. But I wouldn't encourage anyone to run if they were known to be young. ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have to comment on this, because the shrill whining is getting on my nerves. People opposed through age, and that's not "policy based"? Go on, then, show me one RFA criterion that is? None of them are. Not a single one. People reach a decision, then they !vote. That's all. You might not like someone's reason for opposition, but appealing to "policy" is unforgiveable when it has sod all to do with it. I don't think I've seen a single "policy based" oppose ever, for anything, in the hundreds of RFAs I've looked at. I didn't oppose based on age, by the way. Begoon ^talk 14:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

When one pre-forms a judgement about a person based one fact but does not bother to check if that opinion is supported by the actual contributions of an editor then it is essentially a form of prejudice. I recognize it is a socially acceptable form a prejudice that is widely employed, but I still think it stinks. While some people gave examples and other reasons, more than one person basically said that they have already made up their minds based on their age. While it seems acceptable in society today I think it is ugly, and I think it demonstrates a lack of maturity. Now we have one less admin.

This is my opinion, I imagine it will not be popular with some. HighInBC 14:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:I agree that opposing just for age is a kind of prejudice, and I wouldn't do it. I actually supported Theopolisme in 2013, which has been cited as the last time when previously the age card was played. The RfA of Thine Antique Pen was however not decided by age voters, it was decided by people taking exception to his handling of certain content work and shown lack of knowledge of the guidelines in his proposed field of admin action. No reason to cry over spilled milk. Kraxler (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

::I doubt that anyone in the foreseeable future who has declared themselves to be under the age of 18 stands a chance of succeeding at RfA even with a perfect record. I suspect a higher percentage of new editors are young compared to the more established editors. At least we now know that the age barrier (which wasn't around ten years ago) is one part of why the pool of potential admins has diminished. Gizza ^(t)(c) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is perfectly acceptable to oppose candidates for any reason you like, including age. Unless you *state* that as your reason, thus advertising your opinion (and your knowledge of the candidate's age) to others (as Eric Corbett did in TAP's case). Some things should stay as private as possible, and the editor's age, location, race, sexual orientation etc. should not be publicly discussed unless the candidate explicitly wishes to do so. (Imagine RfA as a job interview and think of what you wouldn't be allowed to ask, and with good reason). As always at RfA, the problem is not the votes, it is the campaigning that happens right at the ballot box. Campaigning using personal information should be immediately removed and revdel'ed. —Kusma (t·c) 13:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)